Podcasts about Lemme

Führungsimpulse 26 ist der Titel eines besonderen Impulstages am 24. April 2026 in den ver.di-Höfen Hannover, organisiert von aha3 Beratung in Organisation & Führung mit Dagmar Hoefs und Harald Kurp, der Akademie für Persönlichkeit und Führung Autoritum mit Frank Baumann-Habersack sowie dem Systemischen Institut für Neue Autorität SyNA mit Bruno Körner und Martin Lemme. Es geht um Austausch, Reflexion, Entwicklung. Die Impulsgeber:innen sind unter anderem über ihre Bücher und andere Publikationen, ihre ausführlichen Forschungen sowie Veranstaltungen und Weiterbildungen einem weiten Professionsfeld bekannt geworden. Bei Carl-Auer Sounds of Science sprechen wir mit den fünf Organisator:innen und Impulsgeber:innen über das Projekt. Was sind Idee und Motivation für den Tag und die vorgesehenen Impulse? Was darf passieren? Wie stehen Führen und Beobachten im Verhältnis? Und – nicht zuletzt – was ist anders als sonst? Zu Informationen und Anmeldung zum Impulstag geht hier. Viel Spaß im Gespräch mit Frank Baumann-Habersack, Dagmar Hoefs, Bruno Körner, Harald Kurp und Martin Lemme. _____________ Folgt auch den anderen Podcasts von Carl-Auer: autobahnuniversität www.carl-auer.de/magazin/autobahnuniversitat Blackout, Bauchweh und kein` Bock www.carl-auer.de/magazin/blackout…eh-und-kein-bock Cybernetics of Cybernetics www.carl-auer.de/magazin/cybernet…s-of-cybernetics Genau Geschaut: www.carl-auer.de/magazin/genau-geschaut Frauen führen besser www.carl-auer.de/magazin/frauen-fuhren-besser Formen (reloaded) Podcast www.carl-auer.de/magazin/formen-reloaded-podcast Heidelberger Systemische Interviews www.carl-auer.de/magazin/heidelbe…ische-interviews Zum Wachstum inspirieren www.carl-auer.de/magazin/zum-wachstum-inspirieren Zusammen entscheiden www.carl-auer.de/magazin/zusammen-entscheiden-2

THURSDAY HR 5 The K.O.D. - His Highness asks about Hollywood's obsession with youth. What's Ryan Holmes skinny soup?? Monster Messages & Hot Takes See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There is a moment in the life of high performers that is rarely talked about: your body stops cooperating. When the things you almost built your identity on and your career around — your discipline, your resilience — can't be embodied any longer... whether due to illness, burn out or any other reason.For athletes, for entrepreneurs, for high performers… for anyone whose body and mind are their asset — that moment feels like shock.That's why today, we're talking about nervous system mastery, self-healing through your breath, and how to tap into your fullest potential. So babe, grab your cacao or matcha and a journal, because you're going to want to start working WITH your nervous system, not against it! —-In this episode, we discuss: 00:50 - Intro to today's episode - the power of your breath with Nick Sweeney03:00 - How Nick turned his passion into his life's purpose and full-time profession 09:10 - The changes Nick experienced in his life just from utilizing the power of his breath16:20 - How to expand your nervous system capacity through simple exercises 28:10 - Hacks to switch your body from working against you to working for you 35:15 - A breathing technique to integrate + syncing the breath with your cycle56:40 - Nick's top tip to Unfuck Your Life that you can implement today—-Intrigued by this episode and devoted to diving deeper this year?This is the work we do inside of my brand new mastermind experience, THE MAGNETIC WOMAN.Lemme break it down for you and give you a pre-taste of what awaits you:Identity & Mindset Recalibration— aka not “thinking differently”, but being different. Triggers don't disrupt you any longer. Life feels lighter, more fun, and deeply fulfilling.Feminine Embodiment + Nervous System Safety— Think – attraction without anxious attachment. You feel relaxed, regulated and deeply in your body as your baseline. No more rushing around, stressing, overthinking, worrying or chasing out of fear or scarcity.Somatic Healing Work— That's when old patterns dissolve, and your standards for yourself and others naturally rise. You carry yourself differently as you no longer carry old emotions and limiting beliefs.Aligned Wealth + Career Expansion— Strategy + resource management to make your life and career effortless and successful. It's time to master money, take quantum leaps in your career and have more freedom while thriving financially and feeling deeply aligned.Love + Relationship Calibration— Embody secure, healthy feminine energy in your love life to finally have that yummy, healthy, polarized romance you desire and deserve. Get chosen, claimed, cherished, and worshipped – even beyond the honeymoon phase.And if you felt your body expand just by reading this…this first-ever round may just be meant for you, bby.Ready to become The Magnetic Woman who attracts effortlessly in 2026 & save $$$ as an early bird? CLAIM YOUR SPOT IN MY BRAND NEW, EXCLUSIVE MASTERMIND EXPERIENCE HERE! —-Connect with Nick: Free daily Sync: https://www.coherencebreath.com/syncThe app: https://www.coherencebreath.com/2 week free code for ur listeners:LAURA14Upcoming Event: https://www.coherencebreath.com/events/equinox?ref=lauraherdeMy coaching program: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V7KUi_TkeNUnKVVKcRvqA25IJ3832WKtmCRLh_GKAa0/edit?usp=drivesdkConnect with Laura: Laura's Website: https://www.lauraherde.com/Laura's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/laura.herde/Laura's 1-1 Coaching: https://www.lauraherde.com/application-1-1Laura's Coaching Certification Course: https://www.instagram.com/embodiedcoachacademy/>> EMAIL ME TO CONNECT/ FOR QUESTIONS: hello@lauraherde.com>> FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM FOR MORE CONTENT: @laura.herde Feel free to share this episode with your bestie, and tag us on IG when you listen so we can repost you!Make sure to be subscribed to UNFUCK YOUR LIFE, we publish episodes every single Tuesday.Thank you so much for tuning in, love xx

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every week with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently.Today, let's look at a very common conversational phrase - “the bottom line is.” We use the bottom line is when we want to say the most important point after all the discussion. You'll hear this a lot in business meetings, presentations, and even casual conversations.For example, in a meeting, someone might say:  “We've looked at all the numbers, and the bottom line is, we need to increase sales.”Or a parent might tell their kid, “You can make a lot of excuses, but the bottom line is, you need to study more.Or in everyday conversation: “The bottom line is, we just don't have enough money for that vacation this year.”This phrase helps you sound clear and confident because it tells the listener, “This is the main point - listen closely.” So remember, when you want to focus on what really matters, try using “the bottom line is…” It's a strong and natural way to conclude what you're saying.Lemme know in the comments how it goes, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next week's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.The Happy English PodcastHelping people speak English better since 2014Over 1,000 episodes • 8 million downloads

TUESDAY HR 5 The K.O.D. - His Highness does not like sexy with his food. Smelly cars Monster Messages & Hot Takes

TUESDAY HR 5 The K.O.D. - His Highness does not like sexy with his food. Smelly cars Monster Messages & Hot Takes See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hey there! It's Michael here — and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every Saturday with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently.Before we get to today's English point, I need your help.  Episode 1000 of the Happy English Podcast drops on February 28, and I'd really love to include you in it.If you've been listening for a while and this podcast has helped you in any way, please send me a short message — about 20 to 40 seconds. Just tell me your first name, where you're listening from, how long you've been listening, and how the podcast has helped you.You can record it on your phone in a quiet room and email the audio file to me at michael@myhappyenglish.com . If you'd rather write a message instead, that's totally fine too.Some of your messages will be featured in Episode 1000. Please send them by February 27. I can't wait to hear from you.Today, let's look at another really natural conversational phrase — “that figures.” We use that figures when something happens that we expected, especially when it's typical or slightly annoying. It often has a little bit of sarcasm in it.Like if the train is late. You might say:  “The train's late again? That figures.”Or maybe your friend always forgets things.  “Jack forgot his wallet? That figures.”So that figures basically means, “Yep… I'm not surprised.” Usually in a slightly frustrated or sarcastic way. Just remember, your tone matters. If you say it lightly, it sounds funny. If you say it strongly, it can sound more annoyed. So next time something predictable happens, try saying “that figures.” It's short, natural, and very conversational.Lemme know in the comments if you've ever said “that figures,” and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next week's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening — and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Happy English Podcast – Speak English Naturally I'm Michael from Happy English, and I help people speak English more naturally, confidently, and clearly.

Tickets for AIEi Miami and AIE Europe are live, with first wave speakers announced!From pioneering software-defined networking to backing many of the most aggressive AI model companies of this cycle, Martin Casado and Sarah Wang sit at the center of the capital, compute, and talent arms race reshaping the tech industry. As partners at a16z investing across infrastructure and growth, they've watched venture and growth blur, model labs turn dollars into capability at unprecedented speed, and startups raise nine-figure rounds before monetization.Martin and Sarah join us to unpack the new financing playbook for AI: why today's rounds are really compute contracts in disguise, how the “raise → train → ship → raise bigger” flywheel works, and whether foundation model companies can outspend the entire app ecosystem built on top of them. They also share what's underhyped (boring enterprise software), what's overheated (talent wars and compensation spirals), and the two radically different futures they see for AI's market structure.We discuss:* Martin's “two futures” fork: infinite fragmentation and new software categories vs. a small oligopoly of general models that consume everything above them* The capital flywheel: how model labs translate funding directly into capability gains, then into revenue growth measured in weeks, not years* Why venture and growth have merged: $100M–$1B hybrid rounds, strategic investors, compute negotiations, and complex deal structures* The AGI vs. product tension: allocating scarce GPUs between long-term research and near-term revenue flywheels* Whether frontier labs can out-raise and outspend the entire app ecosystem built on top of their APIs* Why today's talent wars ($10M+ comp packages, $B acqui-hires) are breaking early-stage founder math* Cursor as a case study: building up from the app layer while training down into your own models* Why “boring” enterprise software may be the most underinvested opportunity in the AI mania* Hardware and robotics: why the ChatGPT moment hasn't yet arrived for robots and what would need to change* World Labs and generative 3D: bringing the marginal cost of 3D scene creation down by orders of magnitude* Why public AI discourse is often wildly disconnected from boardroom reality and how founders should navigate the noiseShow Notes:* “Where Value Will Accrue in AI: Martin Casado & Sarah Wang” - a16z show* “Jack Altman & Martin Casado on the Future of Venture Capital”* World Labs—Martin Casado• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martincasado/• X: https://x.com/martin_casadoSarah Wang• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-wang-59b96a7• X: https://x.com/sarahdingwanga16z• https://a16z.com/Timestamps00:00:00 – Intro: Live from a16z00:01:20 – The New AI Funding Model: Venture + Growth Collide00:03:19 – Circular Funding, Demand & “No Dark GPUs”00:05:24 – Infrastructure vs Apps: The Lines Blur00:06:24 – The Capital Flywheel: Raise → Train → Ship → Raise Bigger00:09:39 – Can Frontier Labs Outspend the Entire App Ecosystem?00:11:24 – Character AI & The AGI vs Product Dilemma00:14:39 – Talent Wars, $10M Engineers & Founder Anxiety00:17:33 – What's Underinvested? The Case for “Boring” Software00:19:29 – Robotics, Hardware & Why It's Hard to Win00:22:42 – Custom ASICs & The $1B Training Run Economics00:24:23 – American Dynamism, Geography & AI Power Centers00:26:48 – How AI Is Changing the Investor Workflow (Claude Cowork)00:29:12 – Two Futures of AI: Infinite Expansion or Oligopoly?00:32:48 – If You Can Raise More Than Your Ecosystem, You Win00:34:27 – Are All Tasks AGI-Complete? Coding as the Test Case00:38:55 – Cursor & The Power of the App Layer00:44:05 – World Labs, Spatial Intelligence & 3D Foundation Models00:47:20 – Thinking Machines, Founder Drama & Media Narratives00:52:30 – Where Long-Term Power Accrues in the AI StackTranscriptLatent.Space - Inside AI's $10B+ Capital Flywheel — Martin Casado & Sarah Wang of a16z[00:00:00] Welcome to Latent Space (Live from a16z) + Meet the Guests[00:00:00] Alessio: Hey everyone. Welcome to the Latent Space podcast, live from a 16 z. Uh, this is Alessio founder Kernel Lance, and I'm joined by Twix, editor of Latent Space.[00:00:08] swyx: Hey, hey, hey. Uh, and we're so glad to be on with you guys. Also a top AI podcast, uh, Martin Cado and Sarah Wang. Welcome, very[00:00:16] Martin Casado: happy to be here and welcome.[00:00:17] swyx: Yes, uh, we love this office. We love what you've done with the place. Uh, the new logo is everywhere now. It's, it's still getting, takes a while to get used to, but it reminds me of like sort of a callback to a more ambitious age, which I think is kind of[00:00:31] Martin Casado: definitely makes a statement.[00:00:33] swyx: Yeah.[00:00:34] Martin Casado: Not quite sure what that statement is, but it makes a statement.[00:00:37] swyx: Uh, Martin, I go back with you to Netlify.[00:00:40] Martin Casado: Yep.[00:00:40] swyx: Uh, and, uh, you know, you create a software defined networking and all, all that stuff people can read up on your background. Yep. Sarah, I'm newer to you. Uh, you, you sort of started working together on AI infrastructure stuff.[00:00:51] Sarah Wang: That's right. Yeah. Seven, seven years ago now.[00:00:53] Martin Casado: Best growth investor in the entire industry.[00:00:55] swyx: Oh, say[00:00:56] Martin Casado: more hands down there is, there is. [00:01:00] I mean, when it comes to AI companies, Sarah, I think has done the most kind of aggressive, um, investment thesis around AI models, right? So, worked for Nom Ja, Mira Ia, FEI Fey, and so just these frontier, kind of like large AI models.[00:01:15] I think, you know, Sarah's been the, the broadest investor. Is that fair?[00:01:20] Venture vs. Growth in the Frontier Model Era[00:01:20] Sarah Wang: No, I, well, I was gonna say, I think it's been a really interesting tag, tag team actually just ‘cause the, a lot of these big C deals, not only are they raising a lot of money, um, it's still a tech founder bet, which obviously is inherently early stage.[00:01:33] But the resources,[00:01:36] Martin Casado: so many, I[00:01:36] Sarah Wang: was gonna say the resources one, they just grow really quickly. But then two, the resources that they need day one are kind of growth scale. So I, the hybrid tag team that we have is. Quite effective, I think,[00:01:46] Martin Casado: what is growth these days? You know, you don't wake up if it's less than a billion or like, it's, it's actually, it's actually very like, like no, it's a very interesting time in investing because like, you know, take like the character around, right?[00:01:59] These tend to [00:02:00] be like pre monetization, but the dollars are large enough that you need to have a larger fund and the analysis. You know, because you've got lots of users. ‘cause this stuff has such high demand requires, you know, more of a number sophistication. And so most of these deals, whether it's US or other firms on these large model companies, are like this hybrid between venture growth.[00:02:18] Sarah Wang: Yeah. Total. And I think, you know, stuff like BD for example, you wouldn't usually need BD when you were seed stage trying to get market biz Devrel. Biz Devrel, exactly. Okay. But like now, sorry, I'm,[00:02:27] swyx: I'm not familiar. What, what, what does biz Devrel mean for a venture fund? Because I know what biz Devrel means for a company.[00:02:31] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:02:32] Compute Deals, Strategics, and the ‘Circular Funding' Question[00:02:32] Sarah Wang: You know, so a, a good example is, I mean, we talk about buying compute, but there's a huge negotiation involved there in terms of, okay, do you get equity for the compute? What, what sort of partner are you looking at? Is there a go-to market arm to that? Um, and these are just things on this scale, hundreds of millions, you know, maybe.[00:02:50] Six months into the inception of a company, you just wouldn't have to negotiate these deals before.[00:02:54] Martin Casado: Yeah. These large rounds are very complex now. Like in the past, if you did a series A [00:03:00] or a series B, like whatever, you're writing a 20 to a $60 million check and you call it a day. Now you normally have financial investors and strategic investors, and then the strategic portion always still goes with like these kind of large compute contracts, which can take months to do.[00:03:13] And so it's, it's very different ties. I've been doing this for 10 years. It's the, I've never seen anything like this.[00:03:19] swyx: Yeah. Do you have worries about the circular funding from so disease strategics?[00:03:24] Martin Casado: I mean, listen, as long as the demand is there, like the demand is there. Like the problem with the internet is the demand wasn't there.[00:03:29] swyx: Exactly. All right. This, this is like the, the whole pyramid scheme bubble thing, where like, as long as you mark to market on like the notional value of like, these deals, fine, but like once it starts to chip away, it really Well[00:03:41] Martin Casado: no, like as, as, as, as long as there's demand. I mean, you know, this, this is like a lot of these sound bites have already become kind of cliches, but they're worth saying it.[00:03:47] Right? Like during the internet days, like we were. Um, raising money to put fiber in the ground that wasn't used. And that's a problem, right? Because now you actually have a supply overhang.[00:03:58] swyx: Mm-hmm.[00:03:59] Martin Casado: And even in the, [00:04:00] the time of the, the internet, like the supply and, and bandwidth overhang, even as massive as it was in, as massive as the crash was only lasted about four years.[00:04:09] But we don't have a supply overhang. Like there's no dark GPUs, right? I mean, and so, you know, circular or not, I mean, you know, if, if someone invests in a company that, um. You know, they'll actually use the GPUs. And on the other side of it is the, is the ask for customer. So I I, I think it's a different time.[00:04:25] Sarah Wang: I think the other piece, maybe just to add onto this, and I'm gonna quote Martine in front of him, but this is probably also a unique time in that. For the first time, you can actually trace dollars to outcomes. Yeah, right. Provided that scaling laws are, are holding, um, and capabilities are actually moving forward.[00:04:40] Because if you can put translate dollars into capabilities, uh, a capability improvement, there's demand there to martine's point. But if that somehow breaks, you know, obviously that's an important assumption in this whole thing to make it work. But you know, instead of investing dollars into sales and marketing, you're, you're investing into r and d to get to the capability, um, you know, increase.[00:04:59] And [00:05:00] that's sort of been the demand driver because. Once there's an unlock there, people are willing to pay for it.[00:05:05] Alessio: Yeah.[00:05:06] Blurring Lines: Models as Infra + Apps, and the New Fundraising Flywheel[00:05:06] Alessio: Is there any difference in how you built the portfolio now that some of your growth companies are, like the infrastructure of the early stage companies, like, you know, OpenAI is now the same size as some of the cloud providers were early on.[00:05:16] Like what does that look like? Like how much information can you feed off each other between the, the two?[00:05:24] Martin Casado: There's so many lines that are being crossed right now, or blurred. Right. So we already talked about venture and growth. Another one that's being blurred is between infrastructure and apps, right? So like what is a model company?[00:05:35] Mm-hmm. Like, it's clearly infrastructure, right? Because it's like, you know, it's doing kind of core r and d. It's a horizontal platform, but it's also an app because it's um, uh, touches the users directly. And then of course. You know, the, the, the growth of these is just so high. And so I actually think you're just starting to see a, a, a new financing strategy emerge and, you know, we've had to adapt as a result of that.[00:05:59] And [00:06:00] so there's been a lot of changes. Um, you're right that these companies become platform companies very quickly. You've got ecosystem build out. So none of this is necessarily new, but the timescales of which it's happened is pretty phenomenal. And the way we'd normally cut lines before is blurred a little bit, but.[00:06:16] But that, that, that said, I mean, a lot of it also just does feel like things that we've seen in the past, like cloud build out the internet build out as well.[00:06:24] Sarah Wang: Yeah. Um, yeah, I think it's interesting, uh, I don't know if you guys would agree with this, but it feels like the emerging strategy is, and this builds off of your other question, um.[00:06:33] You raise money for compute, you pour that or you, you pour the money into compute, you get some sort of breakthrough. You funnel the breakthrough into your vertically integrated application. That could be chat GBT, that could be cloud code, you know, whatever it is. You massively gain share and get users.[00:06:49] Maybe you're even subsidizing at that point. Um, depending on your strategy. You raise money at the peak momentum and then you repeat, rinse and repeat. Um, and so. And that wasn't [00:07:00] true even two years ago, I think. Mm-hmm. And so it's sort of to your, just tying it to fundraising strategy, right? There's a, and hiring strategy.[00:07:07] All of these are tied, I think the lines are blurring even more today where everyone is, and they, but of course these companies all have API businesses and so they're these, these frenemy lines that are getting blurred in that a lot of, I mean, they have billions of dollars of API revenue, right? And so there are customers there.[00:07:23] But they're competing on the app layer.[00:07:24] Martin Casado: Yeah. So this is a really, really important point. So I, I would say for sure, venture and growth, that line is blurry app and infrastructure. That line is blurry. Um, but I don't think that that changes our practice so much. But like where the very open questions are like, does this layer in the same way.[00:07:43] Compute traditionally has like during the cloud is like, you know, like whatever, somebody wins one layer, but then another whole set of companies wins another layer. But that might not, might not be the case here. It may be the case that you actually can't verticalize on the token string. Like you can't build an app like it, it necessarily goes down just because there are no [00:08:00] abstractions.[00:08:00] So those are kinda the bigger existential questions we ask. Another thing that is very different this time than in the history of computer sciences is. In the past, if you raised money, then you basically had to wait for engineering to catch up. Which famously doesn't scale like the mythical mammoth. It take a very long time.[00:08:18] But like that's not the case here. Like a model company can raise money and drop a model in a, in a year, and it's better, right? And, and it does it with a team of 20 people or 10 people. So this type of like money entering a company and then producing something that has demand and growth right away and using that to raise more money is a very different capital flywheel than we've ever seen before.[00:08:39] And I think everybody's trying to understand what the consequences are. So I think it's less about like. Big companies and growth and this, and more about these more systemic questions that we actually don't have answers to.[00:08:49] Alessio: Yeah, like at Kernel Labs, one of our ideas is like if you had unlimited money to spend productively to turn tokens into products, like the whole early stage [00:09:00] market is very different because today you're investing X amount of capital to win a deal because of price structure and whatnot, and you're kind of pot committing.[00:09:07] Yeah. To a certain strategy for a certain amount of time. Yeah. But if you could like iteratively spin out companies and products and just throw, I, I wanna spend a million dollar of inference today and get a product out tomorrow.[00:09:18] swyx: Yeah.[00:09:19] Alessio: Like, we should get to the point where like the friction of like token to product is so low that you can do this and then you can change the Right, the early stage venture model to be much more iterative.[00:09:30] And then every round is like either 100 k of inference or like a hundred million from a 16 Z. There's no, there's no like $8 million C round anymore. Right.[00:09:38] When Frontier Labs Outspend the Entire App Ecosystem[00:09:38] Martin Casado: But, but, but, but there's a, there's a, the, an industry structural question that we don't know the answer to, which involves the frontier models, which is, let's take.[00:09:48] Anthropic it. Let's say Anthropic has a state-of-the-art model that has some large percentage of market share. And let's say that, uh, uh, uh, you know, uh, a company's building smaller models [00:10:00] that, you know, use the bigger model in the background, open 4.5, but they add value on top of that. Now, if Anthropic can raise three times more.[00:10:10] Every subsequent round, they probably can raise more money than the entire app ecosystem that's built on top of it. And if that's the case, they can expand beyond everything built on top of it. It's like imagine like a star that's just kind of expanding, so there could be a systemic. There could be a, a systemic situation where the soda models can raise so much money that they can out pay anybody that bills on top of ‘em, which would be something I don't think we've ever seen before just because we were so bottlenecked in engineering, and this is a very open question.[00:10:41] swyx: Yeah. It's, it is almost like bitter lesson applied to the startup industry.[00:10:45] Martin Casado: Yeah, a hundred percent. It literally becomes an issue of like raise capital, turn that directly into growth. Use that to raise three times more. Exactly. And if you can keep doing that, you literally can outspend any company that's built the, not any company.[00:10:57] You can outspend the aggregate of companies on top of [00:11:00] you and therefore you'll necessarily take their share, which is crazy.[00:11:02] swyx: Would you say that kind of happens in character? Is that the, the sort of postmortem on. What happened?[00:11:10] Sarah Wang: Um,[00:11:10] Martin Casado: no.[00:11:12] Sarah Wang: Yeah, because I think so,[00:11:13] swyx: I mean the actual postmortem is, he wanted to go back to Google.[00:11:15] Exactly. But like[00:11:18] Martin Casado: that's another difference that[00:11:19] Sarah Wang: you said[00:11:21] Martin Casado: it. We should talk, we should actually talk about that.[00:11:22] swyx: Yeah,[00:11:22] Sarah Wang: that's[00:11:23] swyx: Go for it. Take it. Take,[00:11:23] Sarah Wang: yeah.[00:11:24] Character.AI, Founder Goals (AGI vs Product), and GPU Allocation Tradeoffs[00:11:24] Sarah Wang: I was gonna say, I think, um. The, the, the character thing raises actually a different issue, which actually the Frontier Labs will face as well. So we'll see how they handle it.[00:11:34] But, um, so we invest in character in January, 2023, which feels like eons ago, I mean, three years ago. Feels like lifetimes ago. But, um, and then they, uh, did the IP licensing deal with Google in August, 2020. Uh, four. And so, um, you know, at the time, no, you know, he's talked publicly about this, right? He wanted to Google wouldn't let him put out products in the world.[00:11:56] That's obviously changed drastically. But, um, he went to go do [00:12:00] that. Um, but he had a product attached. The goal was, I mean, it's Nome Shair, he wanted to get to a GI. That was always his personal goal. But, you know, I think through collecting data, right, and this sort of very human use case, that the character product.[00:12:13] Originally was and still is, um, was one of the vehicles to do that. Um, I think the real reason that, you know. I if you think about the, the stress that any company feels before, um, you ultimately going one way or the other is sort of this a GI versus product. Um, and I think a lot of the big, I think, you know, opening eyes, feeling that, um, anthropic if they haven't started, you know, felt it, certainly given the success of their products, they may start to feel that soon.[00:12:39] And the real. I think there's real trade-offs, right? It's like how many, when you think about GPUs, that's a limited resource. Where do you allocate the GPUs? Is it toward the product? Is it toward new re research? Right? Is it, or long-term research, is it toward, um, n you know, near to midterm research? And so, um, in a case where you're resource constrained, um, [00:13:00] of course there's this fundraising game you can play, right?[00:13:01] But the fund, the market was very different back in 2023 too. Um. I think the best researchers in the world have this dilemma of, okay, I wanna go all in on a GI, but it's the product usage revenue flywheel that keeps the revenue in the house to power all the GPUs to get to a GI. And so it does make, um, you know, I think it sets up an interesting dilemma for any startup that has trouble raising up until that level, right?[00:13:27] And certainly if you don't have that progress, you can't continue this fly, you know, fundraising flywheel.[00:13:32] Martin Casado: I would say that because, ‘cause we're keeping track of all of the things that are different, right? Like, you know, venture growth and uh, app infra and one of the ones is definitely the personalities of the founders.[00:13:45] It's just very different this time I've been. Been doing this for a decade and I've been doing startups for 20 years. And so, um, I mean a lot of people start this to do a GI and we've never had like a unified North star that I recall in the same [00:14:00] way. Like people built companies to start companies in the past.[00:14:02] Like that was what it was. Like I would create an internet company, I would create infrastructure company, like it's kind of more engineering builders and this is kind of a different. You know, mentality. And some companies have harnessed that incredibly well because their direction is so obviously on the path to what somebody would consider a GI, but others have not.[00:14:20] And so like there is always this tension with personnel. And so I think we're seeing more kind of founder movement.[00:14:27] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:14:27] Martin Casado: You know, as a fraction of founders than we've ever seen. I mean, maybe since like, I don't know the time of like Shockly and the trade DUR aid or something like that. Way back in the beginning of the industry, I, it's a very, very.[00:14:38] Unusual time of personnel.[00:14:39] Sarah Wang: Totally.[00:14:40] Talent Wars, Mega-Comp, and the Rise of Acquihire M&A[00:14:40] Sarah Wang: And it, I think it's exacerbated by the fact that talent wars, I mean, every industry has talent wars, but not at this magnitude, right? No. Yeah. Very rarely can you see someone get poached for $5 billion. That's hard to compete with. And then secondly, if you're a founder in ai, you could fart and it would be on the front page of, you know, the information these days.[00:14:59] And so there's [00:15:00] sort of this fishbowl effect that I think adds to the deep anxiety that, that these AI founders are feeling.[00:15:06] Martin Casado: Hmm.[00:15:06] swyx: Uh, yes. I mean, just on, uh, briefly comment on the founder, uh, the sort of. Talent wars thing. I feel like 2025 was just like a blip. Like I, I don't know if we'll see that again.[00:15:17] ‘cause meta built the team. Like, I don't know if, I think, I think they're kind of done and like, who's gonna pay more than meta? I, I don't know.[00:15:23] Martin Casado: I, I agree. So it feels so, it feel, it feels this way to me too. It's like, it is like, basically Zuckerberg kind of came out swinging and then now he's kind of back to building.[00:15:30] Yeah,[00:15:31] swyx: yeah. You know, you gotta like pay up to like assemble team to rush the job, whatever. But then now, now you like you, you made your choices and now they got a ship.[00:15:38] Martin Casado: I mean, the, the o other side of that is like, you know, like we're, we're actually in the job hiring market. We've got 600 people here. I hire all the time.[00:15:44] I've got three open recs if anybody's interested, that's listening to this for investor. Yeah, on, on the team, like on the investing side of the team, like, and, um, a lot of the people we talk to have acting, you know, active, um, offers for 10 million a year or something like that. And like, you know, and we pay really, [00:16:00] really well.[00:16:00] And just to see what's out on the market is really, is really remarkable. And so I would just say it's actually, so you're right, like the really flashy one, like I will get someone for, you know, a billion dollars, but like the inflated, um, uh, trickles down. Yeah, it is still very active today. I mean,[00:16:18] Sarah Wang: yeah, you could be an L five and get an offer in the tens of millions.[00:16:22] Okay. Yeah. Easily. Yeah. It's so I think you're right that it felt like a blip. I hope you're right. Um, but I think it's been, the steady state is now, I think got pulled up. Yeah. Yeah. I'll pull up for[00:16:31] Martin Casado: sure. Yeah.[00:16:32] Alessio: Yeah. And I think that's breaking the early stage founder math too. I think before a lot of people would be like, well, maybe I should just go be a founder instead of like getting paid.[00:16:39] Yeah. 800 KA million at Google. But if I'm getting paid. Five, 6 million. That's different but[00:16:45] Martin Casado: on. But on the other hand, there's more strategic money than we've ever seen historically, right? Mm-hmm. And so, yep. The economics, the, the, the, the calculus on the economics is very different in a number of ways. And, uh, it's crazy.[00:16:58] It's cra it's causing like a, [00:17:00] a, a, a ton of change in confusion in the market. Some very positive, sub negative, like, so for example, the other side of the, um. The co-founder, like, um, acquisition, you know, mark Zuckerberg poaching someone for a lot of money is like, we were actually seeing historic amount of m and a for basically acquihires, right?[00:17:20] That you like, you know, really good outcomes from a venture perspective that are effective acquihires, right? So I would say it's probably net positive from the investment standpoint, even though it seems from the headlines to be very disruptive in a negative way.[00:17:33] Alessio: Yeah.[00:17:33] What's Underfunded: Boring Software, Robotics Skepticism, and Custom Silicon Economics[00:17:33] Alessio: Um, let's talk maybe about what's not being invested in, like maybe some interesting ideas that you would see more people build or it, it seems in a way, you know, as ycs getting more popular, it's like access getting more popular.[00:17:47] There's a startup school path that a lot of founders take and they know what's hot in the VC circles and they know what gets funded. Uh, and there's maybe not as much risk appetite for. Things outside of that. Um, I'm curious if you feel [00:18:00] like that's true and what are maybe, uh, some of the areas, uh, that you think are under discussed?[00:18:06] Martin Casado: I mean, I actually think that we've taken our eye off the ball in a lot of like, just traditional, you know, software companies. Um, so like, I mean. You know, I think right now there's almost a barbell, like you're like the hot thing on X, you're deep tech.[00:18:21] swyx: Mm-hmm.[00:18:22] Martin Casado: Right. But I, you know, I feel like there's just kind of a long, you know, list of like good.[00:18:28] Good companies that will be around for a long time in very large markets. Say you're building a database, you know, say you're building, um, you know, kind of monitoring or logging or tooling or whatever. There's some good companies out there right now, but like, they have a really hard time getting, um, the attention of investors.[00:18:43] And it's almost become a meme, right? Which is like, if you're not basically growing from zero to a hundred in a year, you're not interesting, which is just, is the silliest thing to say. I mean, think of yourself as like an introvert person, like, like your personal money, right? Mm-hmm. So. Your personal money, will you put it in the stock market at 7% or you put it in this company growing five x in a very large [00:19:00] market?[00:19:00] Of course you can put it in the company five x. So it's just like we say these stupid things, like if you're not going from zero to a hundred, but like those, like who knows what the margins of those are mean. Clearly these are good investments. True for anybody, right? True. Like our LPs want whatever.[00:19:12] Three x net over, you know, the life cycle of a fund, right? So a, a company in a big market growing five X is a great investment. We'd, everybody would be happy with these returns, but we've got this kind of mania on these, these strong growths. And so I would say that that's probably the most underinvested sector.[00:19:28] Right now.[00:19:29] swyx: Boring software, boring enterprise software.[00:19:31] Martin Casado: Traditional. Really good company.[00:19:33] swyx: No, no AI here.[00:19:34] Martin Casado: No. Like boring. Well, well, the AI of course is pulling them into use cases. Yeah, but that's not what they're, they're not on the token path, right? Yeah. Let's just say that like they're software, but they're not on the token path.[00:19:41] Like these are like they're great investments from any definition except for like random VC on Twitter saying VC on x, saying like, it's not growing fast enough. What do you[00:19:52] Sarah Wang: think? Yeah, maybe I'll answer a slightly different. Question, but adjacent to what you asked, um, which is maybe an area that we're not, uh, investing [00:20:00] right now that I think is a question and we're spending a lot of time in regardless of whether we pull the trigger or not.[00:20:05] Um, and it would probably be on the hardware side, actually. Robotics, right? And the robotics side. Robotics. Right. Which is, it's, I don't wanna say that it's not getting funding ‘cause it's clearly, uh, it's, it's sort of non-consensus to almost not invest in robotics at this point. But, um, we spent a lot of time in that space and I think for us, we just haven't seen the chat GPT moment.[00:20:22] Happen on the hardware side. Um, and the funding going into it feels like it's already. Taking that for granted.[00:20:30] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. But we also went through the drone, you know, um, there's a zip line right, right out there. What's that? Oh yeah, there's a zip line. Yeah. What the drone, what the av And like one of the takeaways is when it comes to hardware, um, most companies will end up verticalizing.[00:20:46] Like if you're. If you're investing in a robot company for an A for agriculture, you're investing in an ag company. ‘cause that's the competition and that's surprising. And that's supply chain. And if you're doing it for mining, that's mining. And so the ad team does a lot of that type of stuff ‘cause they actually set up to [00:21:00] diligence that type of work.[00:21:01] But for like horizontal technology investing, there's very little when it comes to robots just because it's so fit for, for purpose. And so we kinda like to look at software. Solutions or horizontal solutions like applied intuition. Clearly from the AV wave deep map, clearly from the AV wave, I would say scale AI was actually a horizontal one for That's fair, you know, for robotics early on.[00:21:23] And so that sort of thing we're very, very interested. But the actual like robot interacting with the world is probably better for different team. Agree.[00:21:30] Alessio: Yeah, I'm curious who these teams are supposed to be that invest in them. I feel like everybody's like, yeah, robotics, it's important and like people should invest in it.[00:21:38] But then when you look at like the numbers, like the capital requirements early on versus like the moment of, okay, this is actually gonna work. Let's keep investing. That seems really hard to predict in a way that is not,[00:21:49] Martin Casado: I think co, CO two, kla, gc, I mean these are all invested in in Harvard companies. He just, you know, and [00:22:00] listen, I mean, it could work this time for sure.[00:22:01] Right? I mean if Elon's doing it, he's like, right. Just, just the fact that Elon's doing it means that there's gonna be a lot of capital and a lot of attempts for a long period of time. So that alone maybe suggests that we should just be investing in robotics just ‘cause you have this North star who's Elon with a humanoid and that's gonna like basically willing into being an industry.[00:22:17] Um, but we've just historically found like. We're a huge believer that this is gonna happen. We just don't feel like we're in a good position to diligence these things. ‘cause again, robotics companies tend to be vertical. You really have to understand the market they're being sold into. Like that's like that competitive equilibrium with a human being is what's important.[00:22:34] It's not like the core tech and like we're kind of more horizontal core tech type investors. And this is Sarah and I. Yeah, the ad team is different. They can actually do these types of things.[00:22:42] swyx: Uh, just to clarify, AD stands for[00:22:44] Martin Casado: American Dynamism.[00:22:45] swyx: Alright. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh, I actually, I do have a related question that, first of all, I wanna acknowledge also just on the, on the chip side.[00:22:51] Yeah. I, I recall a podcast that where you were on, i, I, I think it was the a CC podcast, uh, about two or three years ago where you, where you suddenly said [00:23:00] something, which really stuck in my head about how at some point, at some point kind of scale it makes sense to. Build a custom aic Yes. For per run.[00:23:07] Martin Casado: Yes.[00:23:07] It's crazy. Yeah.[00:23:09] swyx: We're here and I think you, you estimated 500 billion, uh, something.[00:23:12] Martin Casado: No, no, no. A billion, a billion dollar training run of $1 billion training run. It makes sense to actually do a custom meic if you can do it in time. The question now is timelines. Yeah, but not money because just, just, just rough math.[00:23:22] If it's a billion dollar training. Then the inference for that model has to be over a billion, otherwise it won't be solvent. So let's assume it's, if you could save 20%, which you could save much more than that with an ASIC 20%, that's $200 million. You can tape out a chip for $200 million. Right? So now you can literally like justify economically, not timeline wise.[00:23:41] That's a different issue. An ASIC per model, which[00:23:44] swyx: is because that, that's how much we leave on the table every single time. We, we, we do like generic Nvidia.[00:23:48] Martin Casado: Exactly. Exactly. No, it, it is actually much more than that. You could probably get, you know, a factor of two, which would be 500 million.[00:23:54] swyx: Typical MFU would be like 50.[00:23:55] Yeah, yeah. And that's good.[00:23:57] Martin Casado: Exactly. Yeah. Hundred[00:23:57] swyx: percent. Um, so, so, yeah, and I mean, and I [00:24:00] just wanna acknowledge like, here we are in, in, in 2025 and opening eyes confirming like Broadcom and all the other like custom silicon deals, which is incredible. I, I think that, uh, you know, speaking about ad there's, there's a really like interesting tie in that obviously you guys are hit on, which is like these sort, this sort of like America first movement or like sort of re industrialized here.[00:24:17] Yeah. Uh, move TSMC here, if that's possible. Um, how much overlap is there from ad[00:24:23] Martin Casado: Yeah.[00:24:23] swyx: To, I guess, growth and, uh, investing in particularly like, you know, US AI companies that are strongly bounded by their compute.[00:24:32] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, I, I would view, I would view AD as more as a market segmentation than like a mission, right?[00:24:37] So the market segmentation is, it has kind of regulatory compliance issues or government, you know, sale or it deals with like hardware. I mean, they're just set up to, to, to, to, to. To diligence those types of companies. So it's a more of a market segmentation thing. I would say the entire firm. You know, which has been since it is been intercepted, you know, has geographical biases, right?[00:24:58] I mean, for the longest time we're like, you [00:25:00] know, bay Area is gonna be like, great, where the majority of the dollars go. Yeah. And, and listen, there, there's actually a lot of compounding effects for having a geographic bias. Right. You know, everybody's in the same place. You've got an ecosystem, you're there, you've got presence, you've got a network.[00:25:12] Um, and, uh, I mean, I would say the Bay area's very much back. You know, like I, I remember during pre COVID, like it was like almost Crypto had kind of. Pulled startups away. Miami from the Bay Area. Miami, yeah. Yeah. New York was, you know, because it's so close to finance, came up like Los Angeles had a moment ‘cause it was so close to consumer, but now it's kind of come back here.[00:25:29] And so I would say, you know, we tend to be very Bay area focused historically, even though of course we've asked all over the world. And then I would say like, if you take the ring out, you know, one more, it's gonna be the US of course, because we know it very well. And then one more is gonna be getting us and its allies and Yeah.[00:25:44] And it goes from there.[00:25:45] Sarah Wang: Yeah,[00:25:45] Martin Casado: sorry.[00:25:46] Sarah Wang: No, no. I agree. I think from a, but I think from the intern that that's sort of like where the companies are headquartered. Maybe your questions on supply chain and customer base. Uh, I, I would say our customers are, are, our companies are fairly international from that perspective.[00:25:59] Like they're selling [00:26:00] globally, right? They have global supply chains in some cases.[00:26:03] Martin Casado: I would say also the stickiness is very different.[00:26:05] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:26:05] Martin Casado: Historically between venture and growth, like there's so much company building in venture, so much so like hiring the next PM. Introducing the customer, like all of that stuff.[00:26:15] Like of course we're just gonna be stronger where we have our network and we've been doing business for 20 years. I've been in the Bay Area for 25 years, so clearly I'm just more effective here than I would be somewhere else. Um, where I think, I think for some of the later stage rounds, the companies don't need that much help.[00:26:30] They're already kind of pretty mature historically, so like they can kind of be everywhere. So there's kind of less of that stickiness. This is different in the AI time. I mean, Sarah is now the, uh, chief of staff of like half the AI companies in, uh, in the Bay Area right now. She's like, ops Ninja Biz, Devrel, BizOps.[00:26:48] swyx: Are, are you, are you finding much AI automation in your work? Like what, what is your stack.[00:26:53] Sarah Wang: Oh my, in my personal stack.[00:26:54] swyx: I mean, because like, uh, by the way, it's the, the, the reason for this is it is triggering, uh, yeah. We, like, I'm hiring [00:27:00] ops, ops people. Um, a lot of ponders I know are also hiring ops people and I'm just, you know, it's opportunity Since you're, you're also like basically helping out with ops with a lot of companies.[00:27:09] What are people doing these days? Because it's still very manual as far as I can tell.[00:27:13] Sarah Wang: Hmm. Yeah. I think the things that we help with are pretty network based, um, in that. It's sort of like, Hey, how do do I shortcut this process? Well, let's connect you to the right person. So there's not quite an AI workflow for that.[00:27:26] I will say as a growth investor, Claude Cowork is pretty interesting. Yeah. Like for the first time, you can actually get one shot data analysis. Right. Which, you know, if you're gonna do a customer database, analyze a cohort retention, right? That's just stuff that you had to do by hand before. And our team, the other, it was like midnight and the three of us were playing with Claude Cowork.[00:27:47] We gave it a raw file. Boom. Perfectly accurate. We checked the numbers. It was amazing. That was my like, aha moment. That sounds so boring. But you know, that's, that's the kind of thing that a growth investor is like, [00:28:00] you know, slaving away on late at night. Um, done in a few seconds.[00:28:03] swyx: Yeah. You gotta wonder what the whole, like, philanthropic labs, which is like their new sort of products studio.[00:28:10] Yeah. What would that be worth as an independent, uh, startup? You know, like a[00:28:14] Martin Casado: lot.[00:28:14] Sarah Wang: Yeah, true.[00:28:16] swyx: Yeah. You[00:28:16] Martin Casado: gotta hand it to them. They've been executing incredibly well.[00:28:19] swyx: Yeah. I, I mean, to me, like, you know, philanthropic, like building on cloud code, I think, uh, it makes sense to me the, the real. Um, pedal to the metal, whatever the, the, the phrase is, is when they start coming after consumer with, uh, against OpenAI and like that is like red alert at Open ai.[00:28:35] Oh, I[00:28:35] Martin Casado: think they've been pretty clear. They're enterprise focused.[00:28:37] swyx: They have been, but like they've been free. Here's[00:28:40] Martin Casado: care publicly,[00:28:40] swyx: it's enterprise focused. It's coding. Right. Yeah.[00:28:43] AI Labs vs Startups: Disruption, Undercutting & the Innovator's Dilemma[00:28:43] swyx: And then, and, but here's cloud, cloud, cowork, and, and here's like, well, we, uh, they, apparently they're running Instagram ads for Claudia.[00:28:50] I, on, you know, for, for people on, I get them all the time. Right. And so, like,[00:28:54] Martin Casado: uh,[00:28:54] swyx: it, it's kind of like this, the disruption thing of, uh, you know. Mo Open has been doing, [00:29:00] consumer been doing the, just pursuing general intelligence in every mo modality, and here's a topic that only focus on this thing, but now they're sort of undercutting and doing the whole innovator's dilemma thing on like everything else.[00:29:11] Martin Casado: It's very[00:29:11] swyx: interesting.[00:29:12] Martin Casado: Yeah, I mean there's, there's a very open que so for me there's like, do you know that meme where there's like the guy in the path and there's like a path this way? There's a path this way. Like one which way Western man. Yeah. Yeah.[00:29:23] Two Futures for AI: Infinite Market vs AGI Oligopoly[00:29:23] Martin Casado: And for me, like, like all the entire industry kind of like hinges on like two potential futures.[00:29:29] So in, in one potential future, um, the market is infinitely large. There's perverse economies of scale. ‘cause as soon as you put a model out there, like it kind of sublimates and all the other models catch up and like, it's just like software's being rewritten and fractured all over the place and there's tons of upside and it just grows.[00:29:48] And then there's another path which is like, well. Maybe these models actually generalize really well, and all you have to do is train them with three times more money. That's all you have to [00:30:00] do, and it'll just consume everything beyond it. And if that's the case, like you end up with basically an oligopoly for everything, like, you know mm-hmm.[00:30:06] Because they're perfectly general and like, so this would be like the, the a GI path would be like, these are perfectly general. They can do everything. And this one is like, this is actually normal software. The universe is complicated. You've got, and nobody knows the answer.[00:30:18] The Economics Reality Check: Gross Margins, Training Costs & Borrowing Against the Future[00:30:18] Martin Casado: My belief is if you actually look at the numbers of these companies, so generally if you look at the numbers of these companies, if you look at like the amount they're making and how much they, they spent training the last model, they're gross margin positive.[00:30:30] You're like, oh, that's really working. But if you look at like. The current training that they're doing for the next model, their gross margin negative. So part of me thinks that a lot of ‘em are kind of borrowing against the future and that's gonna have to slow down. It's gonna catch up to them at some point in time, but we don't really know.[00:30:47] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:30:47] Martin Casado: Does that make sense? Like, I mean, it could be, it could be the case that the only reason this is working is ‘cause they can raise that next round and they can train that next model. ‘cause these models have such a short. Life. And so at some point in time, like, you know, they won't be able to [00:31:00] raise that next round for the next model and then things will kind of converge and fragment again.[00:31:03] But right now it's not.[00:31:04] Sarah Wang: Totally. I think the other, by the way, just, um, a meta point. I think the other lesson from the last three years is, and we talk about this all the time ‘cause we're on this. Twitter X bubble. Um, cool. But, you know, if you go back to, let's say March, 2024, that period, it felt like a, I think an open source model with an, like a, you know, benchmark leading capability was sort of launching on a daily basis at that point.[00:31:27] And, um, and so that, you know, that's one period. Suddenly it's sort of like open source takes over the world. There's gonna be a plethora. It's not an oligopoly, you know, if you fast, you know, if you, if you rewind time even before that GPT-4 was number one for. Nine months, 10 months. It's a long time. Right.[00:31:44] Um, and of course now we're in this era where it feels like an oligopoly, um, maybe some very steady state shifts and, and you know, it could look like this in the future too, but it just, it's so hard to call. And I think the thing that keeps, you know, us up at [00:32:00] night in, in a good way and bad way, is that the capability progress is actually not slowing down.[00:32:06] And so until that happens, right, like you don't know what's gonna look like.[00:32:09] Martin Casado: But I, I would, I would say for sure it's not converged, like for sure, like the systemic capital flows have not converged, meaning right now it's still borrowing against the future to subsidize growth currently, which you can do that for a period of time.[00:32:23] But, but you know, at the end, at some point the market will rationalize that and just nobody knows what that will look like.[00:32:29] Alessio: Yeah.[00:32:29] Martin Casado: Or, or like the drop in price of compute will, will, will save them. Who knows?[00:32:34] Alessio: Yeah. Yeah. I think the models need to ask them to, to specific tasks. You know? It's like, okay, now Opus 4.5 might be a GI at some specific task, and now you can like depreciate the model over a longer time.[00:32:45] I think now, now, right now there's like no old model.[00:32:47] Martin Casado: No, but let, but lemme just change that mental, that's, that used to be my mental model. Lemme just change it a little bit.[00:32:53] Capital as a Weapon vs Task Saturation: Where Real Enterprise Value Gets Built[00:32:53] Martin Casado: If you can raise three times, if you can raise more than the aggregate of anybody that uses your models, that doesn't even matter.[00:32:59] It doesn't [00:33:00] even matter. See what I'm saying? Like, yeah. Yeah. So, so I have an API Business. My API business is 60% margin, or 70% margin, or 80% margin is a high margin business. So I know what everybody is using. If I can raise more money than the aggregate of everybody that's using it, I will consume them whether I'm a GI or not.[00:33:14] And I will know if they're using it ‘cause they're using it. And like, unlike in the past where engineering stops me from doing that.[00:33:21] Alessio: Mm-hmm.[00:33:21] Martin Casado: It is very straightforward. You just train. So I also thought it was kind of like, you must ask the code a GI, general, general, general. But I think there's also just a possibility that the, that the capital markets will just give them the, the, the ammunition to just go after everybody on top of ‘em.[00:33:36] Sarah Wang: I, I do wonder though, to your point, um, if there's a certain task that. Getting marginally better isn't actually that much better. Like we've asked them to it, to, you know, we can call it a GI or whatever, you know, actually, Ali Goi talks about this, like we're already at a GI for a lot of functions in the enterprise.[00:33:50] Um. That's probably those for those tasks, you probably could build very specific companies that focus on just getting as much value out of that task that isn't [00:34:00] coming from the model itself. There's probably a rich enterprise business to be built there. I mean, could be wrong on that, but there's a lot of interesting examples.[00:34:08] So, right, if you're looking the legal profession or, or whatnot, and maybe that's not a great one ‘cause the models are getting better on that front too, but just something where it's a bit saturated, then the value comes from. Services. It comes from implementation, right? It comes from all these things that actually make it useful to the end customer.[00:34:24] Martin Casado: Sorry, what am I, one more thing I think is, is underused in all of this is like, to what extent every task is a GI complete.[00:34:31] Sarah Wang: Mm-hmm.[00:34:32] Martin Casado: Yeah. I code every day. It's so fun.[00:34:35] Sarah Wang: That's a core question. Yeah.[00:34:36] Martin Casado: And like. When I'm talking to these models, it's not just code. I mean, it's everything, right? Like I, you know, like it's,[00:34:43] swyx: it's healthcare.[00:34:44] It's,[00:34:44] Martin Casado: I mean, it's[00:34:44] swyx: Mele,[00:34:45] Martin Casado: but it's every, it is exactly that. Like, yeah, that's[00:34:47] Sarah Wang: great support. Yeah.[00:34:48] Martin Casado: It's everything. Like I'm asking these models to, yeah, to understand compliance. I'm asking these models to go search the web. I'm asking these models to talk about things I know in the history, like it's having a full conversation with me while I, I engineer, and so it could be [00:35:00] the case that like, mm-hmm.[00:35:01] The most a, you know, a GI complete, like I'm not an a GI guy. Like I think that's, you know, but like the most a GI complete model will is win independent of the task. And we don't know the answer to that one either.[00:35:11] swyx: Yeah.[00:35:12] Martin Casado: But it seems to me that like, listen, codex in my experience is for sure better than Opus 4.5 for coding.[00:35:18] Like it finds the hardest bugs that I work in with. Like, it is, you know. The smartest developers. I don't work on it. It's great. Um, but I think Opus 4.5 is actually very, it's got a great bedside manner and it really, and it, it really matters if you're building something very complex because like, it really, you know, like you're, you're, you're a partner and a brainstorming partner for somebody.[00:35:38] And I think we don't discuss enough how every task kind of has that quality.[00:35:42] swyx: Mm-hmm.[00:35:43] Martin Casado: And what does that mean to like capital investment and like frontier models and Submodels? Yeah.[00:35:47] Why “Coding Models” Keep Collapsing into Generalists (Reasoning vs Taste)[00:35:47] Martin Casado: Like what happened to all the special coding models? Like, none of ‘em worked right. So[00:35:51] Alessio: some of them, they didn't even get released.[00:35:53] Magical[00:35:54] Martin Casado: Devrel. There's a whole, there's a whole host. We saw a bunch of them and like there's this whole theory that like, there could be, and [00:36:00] I think one of the conclusions is, is like there's no such thing as a coding model,[00:36:04] Alessio: you know?[00:36:04] Martin Casado: Like, that's not a thing. Like you're talking to another human being and it's, it's good at coding, but like it's gotta be good at everything.[00:36:10] swyx: Uh, minor disagree only because I, I'm pretty like, have pretty high confidence that basically open eye will always release a GPT five and a GT five codex. Like that's the code's. Yeah. The way I call it is one for raisin, one for Tiz. Um, and, and then like someone internal open, it was like, yeah, that's a good way to frame it.[00:36:32] Martin Casado: That's so funny.[00:36:33] swyx: Uh, but maybe it, maybe it collapses down to reason and that's it. It's not like a hundred dimensions doesn't life. Yeah. It's two dimensions. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like and exactly. Beside manner versus coding. Yeah.[00:36:43] Martin Casado: Yeah.[00:36:44] swyx: It's, yeah.[00:36:46] Martin Casado: I, I think for, for any, it's hilarious. For any, for anybody listening to this for, for, for, I mean, for you, like when, when you're like coding or using these models for something like that.[00:36:52] Like actually just like be aware of how much of the interaction has nothing to do with coding and it just turns out to be a large portion of it. And so like, you're, I [00:37:00] think like, like the best Soto ish model. You know, it is going to remain very important no matter what the task is.[00:37:06] swyx: Yeah.[00:37:07] What He's Actually Coding: Gaussian Splats, Spark.js & 3D Scene Rendering Demos[00:37:07] swyx: Uh, speaking of coding, uh, I, I'm gonna be cheeky and ask like, what actually are you coding?[00:37:11] Because obviously you, you could code anything and you are obviously a busy investor and a manager of the good. Giant team. Um, what are you calling?[00:37:18] Martin Casado: I help, um, uh, FEFA at World Labs. Uh, it's one of the investments and um, and they're building a foundation model that creates 3D scenes.[00:37:27] swyx: Yeah, we had it on the pod.[00:37:28] Yeah. Yeah,[00:37:28] Martin Casado: yeah. And so these 3D scenes are Gaussian splats, just by the way that kind of AI works. And so like, you can reconstruct a scene better with, with, with radiance feels than with meshes. ‘cause like they don't really have topology. So, so they, they, they produce each. Beautiful, you know, 3D rendered scenes that are Gaussian splats, but the actual industry support for Gaussian splats isn't great.[00:37:50] It's just never, you know, it's always been meshes and like, things like unreal use meshes. And so I work on a open source library called Spark js, which is a. Uh, [00:38:00] a JavaScript rendering layer ready for Gaussian splats. And it's just because, you know, um, you, you, you need that support and, and right now there's kind of a three js moment that's all meshes and so like, it's become kind of the default in three Js ecosystem.[00:38:13] As part of that to kind of exercise the library, I just build a whole bunch of cool demos. So if you see me on X, you see like all my demos and all the world building, but all of that is just to exercise this, this library that I work on. ‘cause it's actually a very tough algorithmics problem to actually scale a library that much.[00:38:29] And just so you know, this is ancient history now, but 30 years ago I paid for undergrad, you know, working on game engines in college in the late nineties. So I've got actually a back and it's very old background, but I actually have a background in this and so a lot of it's fun. You know, but, but the, the, the, the whole goal is just for this rendering library to, to,[00:38:47] Sarah Wang: are you one of the most active contributors?[00:38:49] The, their GitHub[00:38:50] Martin Casado: spark? Yes.[00:38:51] Sarah Wang: Yeah, yeah.[00:38:51] Martin Casado: There's only two of us there, so, yes. No, so by the way, so the, the pri The pri, yeah. Yeah. So the primary developer is a [00:39:00] guy named Andres Quist, who's an absolute genius. He and I did our, our PhDs together. And so like, um, we studied for constant Quas together. It was almost like hanging out with an old friend, you know?[00:39:09] And so like. So he, he's the core, core guy. I did mostly kind of, you know, the side I run venture fund.[00:39:14] swyx: It's amazing. Like five years ago you would not have done any of this. And it brought you back[00:39:19] Martin Casado: the act, the Activ energy, you're still back. Energy was so high because you had to learn all the framework b******t.[00:39:23] Man, I f*****g used to hate that. And so like, now I don't have to deal with that. I can like focus on the algorithmics so I can focus on the scaling and I,[00:39:29] swyx: yeah. Yeah.[00:39:29] LLMs vs Spatial Intelligence + How to Value World Labs' 3D Foundation Model[00:39:29] swyx: And then, uh, I'll observe one irony and then I'll ask a serious investor question, uh, which is like, the irony is FFE actually doesn't believe that LMS can lead us to spatial intelligence.[00:39:37] And here you are using LMS to like help like achieve spatial intelligence. I just see, I see some like disconnect in there.[00:39:45] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. So I think, I think, you know, I think, I think what she would say is LLMs are great to help with coding.[00:39:51] swyx: Yes.[00:39:51] Martin Casado: But like, that's very different than a model that actually like provides, they, they'll never have the[00:39:56] swyx: spatial inte[00:39:56] Martin Casado: issues.[00:39:56] And listen, our brains clearly listen, our brains, brains clearly have [00:40:00] both our, our brains clearly have a language reasoning section and they clearly have a spatial reasoning section. I mean, it's just, you know, these are two pretty independent problems.[00:40:07] swyx: Okay. And you, you, like, I, I would say that the, the one data point I recently had, uh, against it is the DeepMind, uh, IMO Gold, where, so, uh, typically the, the typical answer is that this is where you start going down the neuros symbolic path, right?[00:40:21] Like one, uh, sort of very sort of abstract reasoning thing and one form, formal thing. Um, and that's what. DeepMind had in 2024 with alpha proof, alpha geometry, and now they just use deep think and just extended thinking tokens. And it's one model and it's, and it's in LM.[00:40:36] Martin Casado: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.[00:40:37] swyx: And so that, that was my indication of like, maybe you don't need a separate system.[00:40:42] Martin Casado: Yeah. So, so let me step back. I mean, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, these things are like nodes in a graph with weights on them. Right. You know, like it can be modeled like if you, if you distill it down. But let me just talk about the two different substrates. Let's, let me put you in a dark room.[00:40:56] Like totally black room. And then let me just [00:41:00] describe how you exit it. Like to your left, there's a table like duck below this thing, right? I mean like the chances that you're gonna like not run into something are very low. Now let me like turn on the light and you actually see, and you can do distance and you know how far something away is and like where it is or whatever.[00:41:17] Then you can do it, right? Like language is not the right primitives to describe. The universe because it's not exact enough. So that's all Faye, Faye is talking about. When it comes to like spatial reasoning, it's like you actually have to know that this is three feet far, like that far away. It is curved.[00:41:37] You have to understand, you know, the, like the actual movement through space.[00:41:40] swyx: Yeah.[00:41:40] Martin Casado: So I do, I listen, I do think at the end of these models are definitely converging as far as models, but there's, there's, there's different representations of problems you're solving. One is language. Which, you know, that would be like describing to somebody like what to do.[00:41:51] And the other one is actually just showing them and the space reasoning is just showing them.[00:41:55] swyx: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. Got it, got it. Uh, the, in the investor question was on, on, well labs [00:42:00] is, well, like, how do I value something like this? What, what, what work does the, do you do? I'm just like, Fefe is awesome.[00:42:07] Justin's awesome. And you know, the other two co-founder, co-founders, but like the, the, the tech, everyone's building cool tech. But like, what's the value of the tech? And this is the fundamental question[00:42:16] Martin Casado: of, well, let, let, just like these, let me just maybe give you a rough sketch on the diffusion models. I actually love to hear Sarah because I'm a venture for, you know, so like, ventures always, always like kind of wild west type[00:42:24] swyx: stuff.[00:42:24] You, you, you, you paid a dream and she has to like, actually[00:42:28] Martin Casado: I'm gonna say I'm gonna mar to reality, so I'm gonna say the venture for you. And she can be like, okay, you a little kid. Yeah. So like, so, so these diffusion models literally. Create something for, for almost nothing. And something that the, the world has found to be very valuable in the past, in our real markets, right?[00:42:45] Like, like a 2D image. I mean, that's been an entire market. People value them. It takes a human being a long time to create it, right? I mean, to create a, you know, a, to turn me into a whatever, like an image would cost a hundred bucks in an hour. The inference cost [00:43:00] us a hundredth of a penny, right? So we've seen this with speech in very successful companies.[00:43:03] We've seen this with 2D image. We've seen this with movies. Right? Now, think about 3D scene. I mean, I mean, when's Grand Theft Auto coming out? It's been six, what? It's been 10 years. I mean, how, how like, but hasn't been 10 years.[00:43:14] Alessio: Yeah.[00:43:15] Martin Casado: How much would it cost to like, to reproduce this room in 3D? Right. If you, if you, if you hired somebody on fiber, like in, in any sort of quality, probably 4,000 to $10,000.[00:43:24] And then if you had a professional, probably $30,000. So if you could generate the exact same thing from a 2D image, and we know that these are used and they're using Unreal and they're using Blend, or they're using movies and they're using video games and they're using all. So if you could do that for.[00:43:36] You know, less than a dollar, that's four or five orders of magnitude cheaper. So you're bringing the marginal cost of something that's useful down by three orders of magnitude, which historically have created very large companies. So that would be like the venture kind of strategic dreaming map.[00:43:49] swyx: Yeah.[00:43:50] And, and for listeners, uh, you can do this yourself on your, on your own phone with like. Uh, the marble.[00:43:55] Martin Casado: Yeah. Marble.[00:43:55] swyx: Uh, or but also there's many Nerf apps where you just go on your iPhone and, and do this.[00:43:59] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. [00:44:00] Yeah. And, and in the case of marble though, it would, what you do is you literally give it in.[00:44:03] So most Nerf apps you like kind of run around and take a whole bunch of pictures and then you kind of reconstruct it.[00:44:08] swyx: Yeah.[00:44:08] Martin Casado: Um, things like marble, just that the whole generative 3D space will just take a 2D image and it'll reconstruct all the like, like[00:44:16] swyx: meaning it has to fill in. Uh,[00:44:18] Martin Casado: stuff at the back of the table, under the table, the back, like, like the images, it doesn't see.[00:44:22] So the generator stuff is very different than reconstruction that it fills in the things that you can't see.[00:44:26] swyx: Yeah. Okay.[00:44:26] Sarah Wang: So,[00:44:27] Martin Casado: all right. So now the,[00:44:28] Sarah Wang: no, no. I mean I love that[00:44:29] Martin Casado: the adult[00:44:29] Sarah Wang: perspective. Um, well, no, I was gonna say these are very much a tag team. So we, we started this pod with that, um, premise. And I think this is a perfect question to even build on that further.[00:44:36] ‘cause it truly is, I mean, we're tag teaming all of these together.[00:44:39] Investing in Model Labs, Media Rumors, and the Cursor Playbook (Margins & Going Down-Stack)[00:44:39] Sarah Wang: Um, but I think every investment fundamentally starts with the same. Maybe the same two premises. One is, at this point in time, we actually believe that there are. And of one founders for their particular craft, and they have to be demonstrated in their prior careers, right?[00:44:56] So, uh, we're not investing in every, you know, now the term is NEO [00:45:00] lab, but every foundation model, uh, any, any company, any founder trying to build a foundation model, we're not, um, contrary to popular opinion, we're

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every Saturday with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently.Today, let's look at another,  common conversational phrase - “I'm into…”We use I'm into to mean I really like or I'm interested in something. And here's the cool thing - we use it for both romantic situations and everyday interests.For example, in a romantic way, you might say:“I think I'm really into her.”Or, “He's into girls who love to travel.”But we also use it for hobbies and interests. Like:“I'm really into photography these days.”Or, “I'm not into horror movies.”So I'm into just means you have a strong interest in something - or someone. It's casual, natural, and you'll hear it all the time in everyday conversation.So remember, the next time you want to say you really like something - or someone - try using “I'm into…”Lemme know in the comments what you're into these days, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next week's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Happy English Podcast – Speak English Naturally I'm Michael from Happy English, and I help people speak English more naturally, confidently, and clearly.

Off the bat, Ringmaster James T. says Pam Bondi should be fired! The dramatic back and forth between AG Bondi and the Dems during the congressional hearings put on display what we already knew, all talk, no perp walks. We go over interactions with Bondi and Ted Lieu, Hank Johnson, Eric Swalwell, Jasmine Crockett, and more. Speaking of congressional hearings, head official of ICE Todd Lyons was berated by Dems, he was even condemned to hell by Rep McIver. While national job reports reflect a strong Trump economy, Arizona wages rank one of the lowest in the country thanks to the Hobbs economy. Plus, Kurt Cobain case, Canada goes even more liberal even in tragedy, stupid people in government, the California first partner, and more.

During a congressional hearing with lead of ICE Todd Lyons, Representative McIver "axed" him if he was going to hell. Well, the Ringmaster James T. had something to say about that.

On this episode of Vitality Radio, we continue Formula Face Off with a deep dive into two popular microbiome gummies from Lemme—one designed for bloating and digestion, and the other positioned for daily immune support. Rather than judging hype or branding, we go straight to what matters most: the Supplement Facts panel. You'll learn why probiotic strains, CFU transparency, dosing formats, and ingredient compatibility matter far more than marketing claims. We break down probiotics vs. postbiotics, explain when spore-based strains make sense in gummies, and expose common examples of “window dressing” ingredients that look impressive but fall short of clinical relevance. We also discuss essential cofactors like vitamin K2, magnesium, and copper—and why their absence can undermine otherwise solid formulas. The goal here, as always, is to help you become a smarter, more confident supplement consumer.Products:Back on TractPrecision Probiotic Vital SporesNordic Naturals Probiotic GummiesVitality Radio POW! Product of the Week: Ridgecrest Herbals Hair Revive and Hairs a Million Nutrient Infused Hair Serum $59.99 for the combo ($40 savings off full retail!) with PROMO CODE: POW26Additional Information:#609: Formula Face Off: Sleep, Metabolism & Libido Gummies - Do They Actually Work?Visit the podcast website here: VitalityRadio.comYou can follow @vitalitynutritionbountiful and @vitalityradio on Instagram, or Vitality Radio and Vitality Nutrition on Facebook. Join us also in the Vitality Radio Podcast Listener Community on Facebook. Shop the products that Jared mentions at vitalitynutrition.com. Let us know your thoughts about this episode using the hashtag #vitalityradio and please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Thank you!Just a reminder that this podcast is for educational purposes only. The FDA has not evaluated the podcast. The information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. The advice given is not intended to replace the advice of your medical professional.

This week's episode of Wealth Formula features an interview with Claudia Sahm, and I want to share a quick takeaway before you listen — because she's often misunderstood in the headlines. First, a quick explanation of the Sahm Rule, in plain English. The rule looks at unemployment and asks a very simple question:Has the unemployment rate started rising meaningfully from its recent low? Specifically, if the three-month average unemployment rate rises by 0.5% or more above its lowest level over the past year, the Sahm Rule is triggered. Historically, that has happened early in every U.S. recession since World War II. That's why it gets cited so much. And to be clear — it's cited a lot. The Sahm Rule is tracked by the Federal Reserve, Treasury economists, Wall Street banks, macro funds, and economic research shops globally. When it triggers, it shows up everywhere. That's not by accident. Claudia built one of the cleanest early-warning indicators we have. But here's the part that often gets lost. The Sahm Rule is not a market-timing tool and it's not a prediction machine. Claudia emphasized this repeatedly. It was designed as a policy signal — a way to say, “Hey, if unemployment is rising this fast, waiting too long to respond makes things worse.” In other words, it's a call to action for policymakers, not a command for investors to panic. What makes this cycle unusual — and why talking to Claudia directly was so helpful — is what's actually driving the data. We're not seeing mass layoffs. Layoffs remain low by historical standards. What we're seeing instead is very weak hiring. Companies aren't firing people — they're just not expanding. That distinction matters. And this is where I think the big picture comes in — not just for understanding the economy, but for investing in general. When you step back, the big picture includes a government with massive debt loads that needs interest rates to come down over time. It includes fiscal pressures that make prolonged high rates politically and economically painful. And it includes the reality that if the current Fed leadership won't ease fast enough, future leadership will. History tells us that governments eventually get the monetary conditions they need — even if it takes time, even if it takes new appointments, and even if it takes a shift toward a more dovish Federal Reserve. That doesn't mean reckless money printing tomorrow. But it does mean that structurally high rates are unlikely to be permanent. And when you combine that with investing, the question becomes less about this month's headline and more about what's positioned to benefit when the environment normalizes. That's why I continue to focus on real assets that are already deeply discounted — things like multifamily real estate — assets that were repriced brutally during the rate shock, but still sit at the center of a growing, rent-dependent economy. This conversation with Claudia reinforced something I've been talking about for a long time:The biggest investing mistakes usually happen when people zoom in too far and forget to zoom back out. I've made this mistake myself. If you want a thoughtful, non-sensational, data-driven discussion about where we actually are in this cycle — and what the indicators really mean — I think you'll get a lot out of this episode. Transcript Disclaimer: This transcript was generated by AI and may not be 100% accurate. If you notice any errors or corrections, please email us at phil@wealthformula.com. Welcome everybody. This is Buck Joffrey with the Well Formula Podcast coming to you from Montecito, California. Before we begin today, I wanna remind you, uh, listen, we’re back in, uh, back in the saddle in here in, uh, 2026. I know it’s takes some time to get used to it, but we’re, gosh, we’re at the end of the month actually by the time this plays. I think we’re in February. It’s time again to start thinking about investing. And so if you are interested in potentially using this year, which I believe and which many believe to potentially be the last year, uh, big discounts, uh, in real estate and, uh, various other types of offerings. Make sure. To sign up for the Accredit Investor group, our investor club, as we call it wealthformula.com. You do need to be an accredit investor and then you get onboarded. An accredit investor is just defined by who you are. If you make over $300,000 per year filing jointly, or 200 by yourself, every reasonable expectation to do so in the future. Or you have a net worth of a million dollars outta your personal, outside of your personal residence, you’re an accredit investor. Congratulations. Join the club wealthformula.com. Interesting podcast. Today we have, uh, Claudia Sahm She’s a Big Deal, Claudia Sahm. You may recognize that last name som, for this som rule. And what is a som rule in plain English. You actually have heard of the som rule multiple times from other economists who’ve been on the show. The som rule looks at unemployment. And asks a very simple question. Now, has the unemployment rate started rising meaningfully from its recent low? So specifically, if the three month average unemployment rate rises 0.5% or more above its lowest level, over the past year, this som rule is triggered. Now, historically, that has happened early in every US recession since the World War ii. That’s why it gets cited so much. It gets cited a lot. By the way, the sum rule is tracked by the Fed treasury economists, wall Street Banks, macro funds, economic research shops globally, and when it triggers, it shows up everywhere, and that’s not by accident. Uh, Claudia has built one of the cleanest early warning indicators we have, but here’s the part that often gets lost. The som rule is not a market timing tool, and it’s not a prediction machine. Claudia, uh, emphasized that repeatedly. It was designed as a policy signal, a way to say, Hey, if unemployment’s rising this fast, wait, waiting too long to respond makes things worse. In other words, it’s call to action for policy makers, not a command for investors to panic per se. So what makes this cycle unusual and why talking to Claudia directly was so helpful? Well, it’s what’s actually driving the data. We’re not seeing mass layoffs. Layoffs remain low by historical standards. Um, what we’re seeing instead is very weak. Hiring companies aren’t firing people, they’re just not expanding, and that distinction matters. This is where the big picture comes in, not just for understanding the economy. For investing in general and when you step back, the big picture includes a government with massive debt loads that need interest rates to come down over time. It includes fiscal pressures that make prolonged high rates politically and economically painful. I’ve mentioned this before and it includes the reality that have to fed, fed, uh, if the current Fed leadership won’t ease fast enough. I am likely the case that future leadership appointed by. Donald Trump himself, uh, will, so history tells us that governments eventually get the monetary conditions they need, even if it takes time, even if it takes new appointments. And even if it takes a shift towards a more dovish federal reserve. Uh, that doesn’t mean, uh, reckless money printing tomorrow, but it does mean that structurally. High interest rates are unlikely to be permanent. Okay? And when you combine that with investing, the question becomes less about this month’s headline and more about what’s positioned to benefit when the environment normalizes. Okay? That’s really, really important, and that’s why I continue to focus on things like real estate, right? Real estate is currently. Not for long, in my opinion, but deeply discounted things like multifamily real estate, um, that were repriced brutally during the rate shot, uh, but are still at the center of a growing and, and rent dependent economy. And again, uh, this conversation with Claudia reinforced something that I’ve been talking about a long time, which is the biggest investing mistakes usually happen when people zoom in too far and forget to zoom back out. I’ve made that mistake myself. I am not immune. I have made lots of mistakes, and that’s one of them. So this is a great conversation. Hopefully you’ll enjoy it, especially if you want a thoughtful, nons sensational data-driven discussion. Where we are actually at in this cycle and what these indicators really mean. I think you’ll get a lot of this episode and we will have this conversation for you right after these messages. Wealth formula banking is an ingenious concept powered by whole life insurance, but instead of acting just as a safety net. The strategy supercharges your investments. First, you create a personal financial reservoir that grows at a compounding interest rate much higher than any bank savings account. As your money accumulates, you borrow from your own bank to invest in other cash flowing investments. Here’s the key. Even though you borrowed money at a simple interest rate, your insurance company keeps. Paying you compound interest on that money even though you’ve borrowed it at result, you make money in two places at the same time. That’s why your investments get supercharged. This isn’t a new technique. It’s a refined strategy used by some of the wealthiest families in history, and it uses century old rock solid insurance companies as its backbone. Turbocharge your investments. Visit Wealthformulabanking.com. Again, that’s wealth formula banking.com. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Today my guest on Wealth Formula podcast is Dr. Claudia Sahm. Uh, she’s an American, uh, macroeconomic expert, uh, known for her work, uh, on monetary and fiscal policy and real-time economic indicators. She developed this som rule, which I think, uh, people have mentioned on this show before, so this is a great opportunity to talk to her about that. Uh, it’s a widely, uh, followed recession signal based on unemployment. She’s also a former Federal Reserve economist and senior policy advisor in government. Um, so welcome, uh, Dr. Sahm. Great. Happy to be here. Thank you. Well, let’s, let’s kind of start out with this som rule because, uh, you know, it’s funny, we, we have had a few different people, uh, at various times bring up the SOM rule, and I think one had actually said that it was triggered, but I don’t don’t think it was at any rate, let’s, let’s start with that. What is the som rule? Lemme start with why is there a som rule, and then we’ll then we’ll get to specifically what the, what the rule is itself. So when I started out on the project, it wasn’t so much about. Calling a recession, like there are some really fancy technical ways that economists like look at the tea leaves and the data and either try to forecast a recession, which is incredibly hard, or even just say we’re in a recession in real time. So like that’s a useful endeavor. But what actually was behind the development of my recession indicator was more of a call to action. How do we develop policies that, that the Congress can put into place very quickly if a recession comes? So these kind of what are referred to as automatic stabilizers, so they’re decided upon ahead of time, but then you do need a trigger that says a recession is here. So now that enhance the unemployment benefits, send out the stimulus checks, whatever it is that we kind of have as our typical tools that are used in recessions, we could have those ready to go as kind of guardrails. Then like you, you turn the policy on. So that was really my emphasis was on how do we do better policy and recessions, get the support out quickly. ’cause that’s the best chance of kind of stabilizing the situation. And then it’s like, well it was in a, it was in a policy volume that they asked for, like a really concrete proposal. So if I’m gonna say an automatic stabilizer, I need to have a proposal for what a trigger could be. So that’s really where the som rule came. So I think it is important. It’s definitely important to me to, I always remember like what the kind of reason for it’s sure. Now that also guided what the indicator itself looks like. So again, it was gonna be in, in fiscal policy. It needs to be simple, it needs to be something that we track it and it needs to, I felt it was important that it capture the reason that we. Fight recessions, why there’s such a bad, uh, you know, outcome. And so it looks at the, the unemployment rate. I use the national unemployment rate, take a three month average. ’cause we wanna smooth out, like there’s bumps and wiggles in the data from month to month. So you kind of, you know, three month average. One way to smooth it out. So you take that series of three month averages, you look at the current value, you compare to the lowest value over the prior 12 months, if you’ve seen an increase of a half, a percentage point or more. Which is really pretty modest, but half a percentage point or more. Historically, we have been in the early months of a recession, so it’s not a forecast. It’s supposed to be like we’re in it. Let’s go. It’s an empirical pattern. It’s one that’s worked in the United States. It reflects kind of our labor market institutions, the way unemployment rate moves and recessions. It historically is the case that once you get past a certain threshold of increased unemployment rate, it tends to build on itself. And in a typical recession, we see increases of. Two, three or more percentage points in the unemployment rate. Uh, so that’s, that’s what the summer rule is. And in fact, it did trigger in the summer of 2024. At that time I had said like, look around, we are not in a recession. GP is still expanding. Job creation is still happening. We don’t see the other hallmarks of a recession. And pointed to the fact that we’d had a very disrupted labor market after the pandemic in particular. You know, there had been a lot of immigration at that point. The unemployment rate is the total number of unemployed. So people who don’t have a job but are actively looking for one out of the labor force, right? And so these people that have to either be employed or looking for jobs, and so we actually saw from the pandemic. Both with the pandemic and then later with the surge and now the reversal in immigration. We’ve seen a lot of movement in the, in the labor force, which makes unemployment rate a little tricky to interpret. And then I’d also argue, we saw early in the pandemic, the unemployment rate dropped very rapidly. We even had labor shortages. So in some ways unemployment rate rising and it has risen over. I mean, it continued to rise last year in 2025. A lot of that’s also normalization. We’d had a very low unemployment rate. So I think the, the pandemic recession has a lot of features that were very unusual. We’ll talk probably more about the labor market continued to be kind of unusual. So the, you know, the somal was not the only recession indicator to fall flat on its face in the cycle. Um, but I think it’s still a useful, useful guide and I, and. You know, even if it’s not a recession, the, the unemployment rate is a full percentage point above, its low in 2023. So, I mean, that, that could, that could be a reason for policymakers to respond, even if it’s not responding to a recession. Right. That was the first time that it, that triggered and, and actually didn’t. End up in a recession, right? There’s some back in the 1950s, earlier, but it’s, it’s the first time where there’ve been some false positives in the past or, or near false positives. Like in 2003. It was kind of close, uh, is like the unemployment rate rises a little bit and then it falls back down. What we saw after it triggered in 2024 is it stabilized. Then last year it continued to rise. So this the pattern that we’ve seen since the pandemic of rapid recovery dropping unemployment rate and then it’s like gradually rising and yet has risen a full percentage point that you go all the way back in the post World War II period. We don’t see anything that looks like that. So that is a very unusual. Paris. So something’s more is going on in the labor market than just our typical business cycle, boom, bust, recession type dynamics. So what is that? What is the thing that’s happening that’s unusual right now in the labor market? Right? So the thing that is driving the unemployment rate up, I think this is a good lesson, a reminder to all of us. It’s not about layoffs. The rate of layoffs in the United States is really quite low. You look at unemployment insurance claims, they’re also quite low. What’s been pushing the unemployment rate up over the last two and a half years has been a very low rate of hiring and, and it’s, and it is something that over time will at least gradually put upward pressure on the unemployment rate and frankly. Until hiring picks up and we really don’t have many signs of it. Even as we enter 2026 unemployment rate’s gonna probably keep drifting up ’cause we’re not keeping job creation’s, not keeping up with, you know, people coming into the, into the labor market and, and that what’s, I think the puzzle right now is that hiring has been very low. But what we’ve seen in terms of consumer spending, business investment, so the kind of the big pieces of GDP, they’ve really held up pretty well, so. Business. It’s not, again, not that recession of the customers have disappeared. And so we’re not hiring, or we may even be firing workers. The customers are there for the businesses, but they’re choosing in this environment not to add, uh, to their payrolls. And that’s slowly pushing up down point rate. Yeah. Um, you know, it, it’s interesting what you’re, you’re talking about, but essentially you’re, people aren’t getting fired. They’re just, when they retire or leave, they’re just not replacing those. Individuals, you know, makes me think a little bit about what’s going on in the big, you know, in the tech push with artificial intelligence and that kind of thing, and increased in efficiency. Certainly you see that in the larger companies like Amazon and all that, where they’re just becoming massively more productive and cutting expenses essentially by, you know, using tech. Do you think that this is sort of an early indication, potentially of that kind of movement? So it. It’s possible, but I think we’re at the very front end of AI disrupting the labor market. This low hiring rate that we’ve talked about. You see this across all kinds of industries, including ones that don’t show high levels of AI adoption, and frankly, a AI adoption is pretty low. I mean, there are some sectors like tech and increasingly finance and some professional services have higher adoption rates. Uh, but in terms of it being able to explain the low hiring. I think it’s pretty tough ’cause the low hiring is such a, such a broad based, um, phenomenon. Now, AI might be, I think, indirectly contributing in that one of, one of the hypotheses about why, um, businesses have been, uh, not hiring despite, you know, economic activity. Continuing to push ahead could be that there’s a lot of uncertainty. Now there is a long list that we could draw of, of factors that might be causing businesses to be uncertain and hesitant to add to their payrolls. Uh, a lot of times you talk about things with tariffs or, you know, economic policy, regulations changing, you know, so there’s a lot going on there. But it could also be, there’s a lot of uncertainty about what this technology means for the future. Maybe you don’t need to bring on more workers because your ability to kind of use and adapt this technologies coming online. And so like that could be part of it. I think there’s another piece, you know, we have a lot of discussion about ai, but I do think that there’s, there could be a, a technology angle to this that’s, that is. Not in the AI technologies, but maybe just some of the more basic kind of automation is again, right after, you know, the, the pandemic recession as we came out of a, you know, very rapid recovery, uh, there was, there was a lot of hiring or that, ’cause businesses had done a lot of firing and they needed to bring back workers really rapidly and we actually had a period of labor shortages. There were workers moving around a lot and there were, that also put a lot of pressure on some employers, particularly in service sector, to automate more ’cause they just couldn’t get the workers, so they needed to bring technology. Online to help, you know, fill the gap. And over time, you know, businesses though, they haven’t done as much hiring, they have been firing. So the workers, they have longer tenures, have more experience, they’re probably more productive. So maybe businesses can kind of, you know, get away with not doing more hiring. ’cause the people they have there can kind of keep up with it. Um, and they’ve done some more automation. I don’t think those are sustainable. I think we’re going to need to see hiring pickup in terms of, of staying with, um, you know, as expanding, uh, demand from customers. But I won’t pretend to know what AI means for the future of the labor force. Right. So like there could be, I think that’s a big conversation about we’re headed, where we’re headed. I think it’s probably a pretty small slice of explaining. Where we’re at right now. You know, it’s interesting because obviously there was a lot of concerns about rising inflation, and particularly in the context of, you know, tariffs and, and among those types of things that were, were, um, coming down the pipe. And as it turns out, inflation seems to be coming down. How do you explain that from where you sit? Because it, it, it seems sort of to contradict a lot of what, you know, many economists believe to be likely. So when thinking about the effects of tariffs on inflation and this, this idea that it didn’t end up being as much of a factors we had really feared, uh, you know, a year ago. I think there’s a few things to keep in mind. One, the announced tariffs, uh. Didn’t come to pass fully. Right? So there’s a big difference between some of the, the, the initial announcements, whether it was on Liberation Day, April 2nd, or the initial kind of retaliation tit for tat with China, where we ended up with some triple digit, uh, tariff numbers. Those didn’t end up being where we, we ended now tariff, the effect of tariff rate. Is much higher than it was before. Right. Uh, president Trump came into office for the second time, so like, I don’t wanna minimize the, the, the increase in tariffs and the US government collected about $200 billion last year in, in additional tariffs. But there is a, there’s a good bit of daylight between what was announced and where we actually ended up. Businesses also proved very capable of trying to avoid those tariffs and not in like a. Illegal kind of way of avoiding them, but, but using inventories like trying to get ahead of them. We know the tariffs are tariffs. There’s been some evidence that, that it’s businesses are gonna start passing on the tariff cost increase when it’s actually tied to the inventories that they’re putting out in front of customers. And for some of our goods, like say apparel or things that have long seasons or come from, you know, all across the world, it actually takes quite a bit of time from the inventories being what actually shows up in front of customers. So there’s been the ability to. Kind of get around the tariffs ’cause they were rolling in. And so do be smart in terms of your inventories. And then it just takes time for those inventories to be, you know, um, to come down. Mm-hmm. By, there’s been several studies at this place, at this point that, that demonstrate that the, the tariffs, the cost of the tariffs is coming into the us. So the, it’s always the importer that pays the tariff, like literally writes the check to the US government. But it’s possible that the foreign producer could say, reduce their prices on what they’re, you know, paying or what they’re asking to be paid for that, uh, imported good. And then that would be a way of the foreign producer sharing the cost of the tariff. But everything that we see from the M Court data suggests that a very small fraction, probably less than 10%. Of the total tariff burden is being born by, at least at this point, born by the foreign producers. So it’s coming into the us. It’s sitting with either US businesses that are importing the goods or have the goods at some point in their, you know, in their supply chains and, and with us customers, the consumers we have, we’ve seen. I think you can really look at the inflation data. You can see the goods prices, which often are kind of a drag on inflation that they did turn around. They’re, they’re putting upward pressure on inflation. It’s not massive. It doesn’t explain all of these, you know, 200 billion in tariff costs, but then it is, it’s sitting with businesses. The effects still, it’s still just not that long enough to really understand. You know what, what the implications. It’s possible. I, I think that’s true with any, with any big policy change. Like it doesn’t happen overnight. I think that’s one thing that a lot of, a lot of economic models that, like, they’re, they’re very sensitive, right? Like as soon as a policy change happens, the models will kind of tell us something pretty dramatic in terms of adjustments. But this last year was a reminder, like when there’s, when there’s a big cost, there’s gonna be a lot of attempts to adjust around it to try to minimize that cost and then. It takes time, like in the real world, like the interactions are much more complex. You know, inventory lags all of the, like, it takes time to move its way through. So I think we’re not done with the pass through. I think we’ll probably still see more come to consumers, but businesses could decide to bear that cost. They, they could, you know, with profit margins. I mean some of, some of the inflationary environment in the pandemic did allow. There were very broad base increases in prices. You did see some companies be profitable from that because it was, there was a, you know, some of the costs were more targeted, but the, you know, the, the price increases were broad. So it could be a time where businesses see that, you know, consumers are more price sensitive now than they were in 21, 20 21, 20 22, so they’re not passing as much on it. Could be that that’s part of where. Like the cost businesses are dealing with that cost by maybe doing less hiring as opposed to passing it on to consumers. Uh, you know, they could be taking a hit with their profits. They, you know, so like, it doesn’t have to go all the way through to consumers. There are different levers that can be pulled. I do think we’ll still see some pass through in the, in probably the first half of this year, and that’s assuming that our whole tariff regime. Sit still, right? It looks like once again we might be, uh, increasing those tariffs, but, um, so yeah, I think it’s just tracing, you know, the tariffs through the system is really complicated. And one last thing I’ll say about the tariffs is they’re not just tariffs on goods that go to consumers. These tariffs have been broad enough that we’re also taring imported goods that are used by our manufacturers used for our, by our businesses in their production. So then it can take a really long time for that to end up with the, you know, the end customer could be a business to start with, and then it moves its way down. So I think these are just, you know, the costs are real. We can see the tariffs have been collected, the costs are there. We can see in the import data, there haven’t been import price data, there haven’t been a lot of adjustments by the foreign suppliers. So then it’s just a question of, we have these costs. Where did the cost go? I believe the last GEP was 4.3% and, uh, inflation was around 2.6, 2.7, or at least core. You’ve obviously, uh, worked at the Fed. Um, give us a sense of the situation that the Fed is trying to figure out here. Like what do they do with these numbers and, you know, all of the issues that surround them. The work at the Fed, I mean, it, it’s laser focused on the, the response, the mandates that the Fed has. So with maximum employment and price stability and with maximum employment, that’s not something that can be easily defined. It’s not like it’s a particular unemployment rate, it’s not a particular payroll number. But I mean, broadly speaking, it’s, you know, do, are, you know, the people who wanna work, are they working? In such a way that it’s not putting pressure on inflation, right? Like labor shortages that end up with wage increases that just, you know, end up with inflation. Like that would be a situation where the Fed would actually want to kind of help restrain some of the. Uh, employment growth. And we, we saw that in this cycle. I mean, the Fed raised rates a lot in 2022 and 2023. Uh, so that’s the maximum employment on the stable prices. The Fed has set a target of the 2%, uh, year over year PCE inflation. So a little different than the CPI inflation, but very much related. And, and it’s one, I mean, that’s, that’s the goal, right? And it, uh. So it starts with those two pieces and, and what’s been, I think what’s been challenging in say the last year as the Fed was, you know, trying to figure out what it was gonna do with interest rates was the fact that it, there was pressure on both sides of the mandate. Mm-hmm. Um, and not necessarily the, well, I mean, inflation itself has, was above the 2%. It continues to be above the 2%. Target has been. Since 2021. Now the Fed’s policy doesn’t have a look back, but I mean, they do worry that the longer inflation stays closer to three than two businesses. Consumers are gonna start to kind of embed three into their actions, their expectations. Then you kind of get stuck there. So like that, that both, you know, they were missing on the inflation mandate and there were, there were concerns that the, that we might see inflation get stuck above the mandate and the way you dislodge it if it gets stuck. Could end up risking a recession, right? So the Fed doesn’t want that to happen. So that’s a real concern. But then on the employment side, you know, we started out talking about the small rule, the rising unemployment rate. We’ve seen the unemployment rate rising. And then last year in particular, it wasn’t just the unemployment rate rising, we saw job creation just really take a leg down. Um. Some of that probably is less immigration population aging, so less supply of workers, which isn’t something the Fed would react to. ’cause that, I mean, if you don’t have as many people that wanna work, you don’t need to create as many jobs. But the unemployment rate was rising, so it’s clear, like there just wasn’t, there wasn’t enough job creation to keep up with, um, the workers who were there, uh, to work. And, and there was a concern that this could, could spiral out. Those small increased unemployment rate that, that very low level of job creation. And frankly, if you look at, I mean the, I mean, we have multiple months and probably more after revisions of declines in payroll employment. Mm-hmm. Like if you looked at the labor market data, you’d be like, aren’t we in a recession or like on the edge of one? Again, that’s not where we’re at, but it, it certainly gave that, that risk. Things could be slowing down. And, and the, the last piece that was really important in the Fed’s decisions was where, where’s the federal funds rate? Where are the interest rate, the policy interest rate they control? And it was still relatively high. For, for recent history, right. Not in the long history of the Fed, but mm-hmm. And so, like the Fed had raised, they’d raised interest rates quite aggressively to fight the inflation in 2022. They’d very gradually lowered it. Some was taken out in 2023 because made some pro, made quite a bit of progress on inflation in, or in 2024, they lowered the rates in 2025, the 75 basis points of cuts that the Fed did. It was out of concern. Of the labor market unraveling a risk, not a, not saying, hey, the labor market is unraveling, but saying the risk that the downside risk to employment are larger and more worrisome than the upside risk to inflation. So this inflation getting stuck, is that still the case as a going into 2026 here? So, you know, even, even last year we saw, we listened to Fed officials, there’s quite a bit of disagreement. Because it was a tough situation to read. There are some Fed officials that were more focused on inflation, some that were more focused on the employment side. Uh, and it really was just a matter of kind of reading the economy and trying to figure out this, a very unusual situation, like where, where was this headed? What did the Fed need to do? In the end, the consensus on the Fed was to do the rate cuts, kind of front load them. They talked a lot about it as insurance. They’re taking out insurance against the labor market deteriorating. And I think with that approach, in all likelihood, and there’s been certainly signaling of this, that when they meet at the end of January, it’ll, they’re unlikely to move again. That this is, this will be an opportunity to hold steady, be patient the Fed has, has taken out their restriction. So they don’t have the higher rates, so they’ve pulled rates down. We also know that early this year there’s various kinds of fiscal support that are coming online or tax cuts to households and to businesses that should give a little extra lift, uh, to the economy. So I think it’s a period of the Fed waiting to see what the effects of their policy changes are, seeing what the effects of the fiscal policy with the expectation this will be enough to stabilize the labor market. Even help get it back on track and really what the Fed would like. I mean, we’ll see what they get, but they’d really like the next cut to be a good news cut. Like inflation. Oh look, it’s moving back down again. We’re making clear progress back to 2%. I think that’s probably gonna take maybe even till the middle of this year to build that case. A strong case for the disinflation. Mm-hmm. But that’s, that’s what they would, would like to do. But they’re gonna keep an eye on the labor market. But nothing we’ve seen in the most recent data suggests that they gotta get moving like that. There’s some, you know, real pressure building. Um, in fact, the labor market looks a little bit better probably than when they met in December and inflation. Showing some signs of progress, but it, it’s pretty bumpy in terms of, there’s a lot of noise in the data at the moment. You mentioned, um, the Fed’s mandate and you know, certainly that’s something, um, that, uh, you know, that, that we know the Fed looks at these unemployment numbers that look at inflation. I’m curious though, that there’s, you know, there is this push and pull with the treasury. In particular, you know, looking at the amount of, of, of, of bonds that need to be refinanced, that kind of thing. I mean, presumably that’s one of the reasons why the Trump administration is pushing so hard, uh, on the Fed to reduce, um, you know, to reduce rates so that you know, this sovereign debt can be refinanced at a, something a little bit more palatable. How much of that actually. I know it’s not supposed to play a part in the Federal Reserve’s actions, but in reality is there, is there that kind of, you know, thinking that, you know, they have to, they, they may try to play ball a little bit with the, with the situation, with the debt. Yeah. There, the, the Fed is not playing ball right now with the administration. Uh, but, but there have been, there have been times in our past. So during World War II, there was an explicit cooperation between the Fed and the Treasury. The Fed kept interest rates low. Both the federal funds rates, so the short term interest rates, they also did, uh, some purchases of longer term to help keep longer term rates down. Right. So I mean, the, the Fed really, they, their policy was oriented exactly on this objective, keeping the borrowing cost of the US government low because it was financing the war effort. So, so there have been times where the Fed has cooperated with treasury. Now, when they came out of World War ii. What happened is, you know, treasury wants to keep interest rates low. This is good for, you know, the economy, good for growth, but it was, it really was creating a lot of inflationary pressures and it took until the early 1950s for the Fed to kind of regain its kind of operational independence from treasury and then go back to pursuing, you know, inflation as a key goal. And then also in the late seventies and maximum employment was added as an explicit goal. So we’re in a place now where. It’s employment, it’s inflation, it, there was quite, um, I mean, president Trump and some other officials have been, you know, very open about saying rates should be low to help with the deficit, with funding the gov. So like, it’s, it’s been in the discussion in the air. But that’s not, that’s not a mandate that Congress has given the Fed. That’s not what they’re pursuing. It does, you know, but things can change at the Fed. We’re gonna see a change in leadership this year with a new Fed chair. Um, the Fed always, I mean, Congress created the Federal Reserve. It’s changed its abilities, its responsibilities over time. I don’t wanna say that we’ll never get back to a place where the Fed thinks about. Its effect on the deficit. I mean, they’re watching it, they know, right? They’re tracking all these aspects of the economy. But in terms of what’s driving the Fed’s decisions about what the, the federal funds rate should be, that’s not part of the calculus right now. Yeah. Um, you know, another, just another question is for clarity. You know, the, the, um, officially right now there’s, there’s no quantitative easing. However, there is. Uh, you know, I’ve been reading, uh, about even, I think even today, there was a, a fair amount of liquidity, uh, being injected in by the Fed. Can you, for people who don’t understand the mechanics of this and what the difference in terminology is, can you explain to us maybe what the difference is between quantitative easing and what’s being done right now? So just as for context, where quantitative easing even came from. So if we go back to the global financial crisis in 2008, the Federal Reserve, in response to that recession, pulled the federal funds rate all the way to zero. Cut rates to zero And as sure many of us remember that that recession was a very deep and long recession. So, and the unemployment rate was, you know, 10% and inflation was not a problem. So the, the Fed would want in that environment to do more to support the economy. But when the federal funds rate is at zero, that’s, its, that has been its primary tool. Well, that’s, that’s. Stepped out. So then as a question of, well, what else could we do to help support the economy? And, and there, there were. Different possibilities. Uh, some European central banks looked at, you know, they actually did negative interest rates or tried to pull their policy rates, and that’s not what the US did. What was done was to do purchases of, uh, treasuries. Uh, there’s also been purchases of mortgage backed securities, and this is where the Fed is. I mean, and, and they’re creating reserves. So the fed, I guess, secretary, uh. Treasury doesn’t refer to it as magic money. Um, you know, they create reserves and then they’re going out and they’re buying tr so they’re pushing that liquidity, that demand into markets. And if you’re, if there’s a lot more demand for treasuries, well, the price of the treasuries will go up. The yield comes down. Interest rates go down. Yep. Interest rates go down. So they. They were, the Fed wanted to support the economy more. That was the tool that they used to do it. So when, when the Fed talks about quantitative easing, it’s not just the tool, the asset purchases, it’s also the intent, right? They wouldn’t do quantitative easing right now. ’cause if the Fed thought they really need to stimulate the economy more, they’ve still got like. More than three percentage points they could cut from the federal funds rate. Like if the issue were right now, we need to like get the economy going, they’re gonna like cut the funds rate and do it that way. They wouldn’t be pur like purchasing assets, purchasing treasuries to do that. But what what happened is between the global financial crisis, the Great recession, so all the asset purchases done then. There was some, some runoff of the balance sheet, but then again, in the pandemic there were a lot of asset purchases. Uh, the Fed has a really big balance sheet, and it has, uh, it, it kind of changes the way that the Fed can even just move around the federal funds rate. Like, I don’t wanna get too much into the, the technicals, but it’s, it’s just, you know, when the Fed says, well, we wanna lower the, the funds rate to 3.5%. In the old days, they could kind of do, you know, with the bank reserves and they could like, make these small purchases and it would, it would make that stick. Now with, there’s, uh, banks have a lot of reserves, so they’re not as responsive. And so just to kind of, there’s like the, the technical, the tools, the Fed has to just make it happen. In terms of operationally, it means that they have to do some purchases now and then they call their, I mean the new name they have for these are reserve management. Purchases. So it’s really about operations. It’s not about, but it does mean they’re purchasing assets. So if you’re just focused on like the Fed’s purchasing assets, they’re putting liquidity into the system. Yes, they are doing that, but it’s not with the intent to kind of push the economy to run harder. It’s just enough liquidity to keep. The federal funds rate stable at the level that they wanted to be at, to just make sure that all these operations are short in the very short term lending markets amongst banks, that it’s all kind of working as mm-hmm. As it should be. So it’s more about operations and it’s about stimulus policy. Right. A lot of our, um, a lot of our listeners are real estate owners, investors, and they’re, you know, they think about, um. Mortgage rates and that kind of thing. There was recently a, a pretty significant, well, I don’t know how significant it really was. I think it was about, was it maybe $250 billion worth of mortgage backed securities purchased by Fannie Mae. Um, that ca can you talk about the purpose of that and really the, you know, what kind of effect that would actually, we could actually expect from that. It’s certainly been, I mean it’s, it is clear. You know, we talked about one reason that the administration would want interest rates down. It’d be like financing the deficit. Right. Another reason that very much pulls into kind of the affordability debate is we want interest rates lower, one of them lower for consumers. Now the White House has put a lot of pressure on the Fed for them to lower rates even faster than they have. Has not played ball with that. But then the Fed has lowered its rates. The Feds rates are very short term rates, and the federal funds rate is like an overnight rate with between banks. Right. So it, and it has an effect on, you know. Credit card rates, short term rates, but it’s not one, it, it has an effect, but it’s really not like driving necessarily 30 year mortgage rates or you know, some of the longer term rates. There’s a lot of other factors that go into that, and so in this kind of, you know, push for lower mortgage rates. Pushing on the Fed is not the only lever to pull, right? The administration has other levers that they could potentially pull, um, in trying to influence mortgage rates. Now, there, I’d argue the administration’s tools here, like the, the $200 billion, Fannie and Freddie purchase that you mentioned. That really is about trying to reduce the spread. Between mortgages and treasuries. So in some ways it sounds similar, like, oh, fed and Franny, which are, you know, GSEs. So part, part of the, you know, government right now, at least they were privatized during the global financial crisis. You think, oh, they’re going out and purchasing this Sounds a lot like the Fed going out and purchasing. There are there, there’s some parallels, but we need to remember, Fannie and Freddie don’t create money. The Fed, when they start, when they start the process of their quantitative easing, they’re creating reserves like they’re actually creating liquidity and money supply. Fannie and Freddie have authorization to be able to make these purchases, but they’re not like the fed. They’re not creating reserves, but they can, so I don’t wanna think about them like bringing down the whole set of interest rates, but they can affect this spread between mortgages and say treasuries. Right? And so, because again, if you’re, if the. If the GSEs are going out, they’re purchasing mortgage backed securities, well that’s increasing demand for those, and that can push down the rates, that can like squeeze that spread. And, and while the announcement has been made, you know, I mean they’re, they’re in the early stages of putting that in place, but we even on the announcements, saw a response in financial markets and you’re seeing some movement down, uh, in mortgage rates now. It was. Pretty modest, right? And, and 200 billion while, you know, not nothing, uh, really pales in comparison to like the scale of say, the quantitative easing that the Fed did. Um, and there are probably other, but the, you know, the administration’s not done. It doesn’t necessarily have to be that Fannie and Freddie do more purchases. The the spread between mortgage rates and treasuries is pretty substantial. There’s other places where, you know, the fees that go into getting a mortgage are quite a bit larger than they were before the, the global financial crisis. So maybe they go in and try to chip away at the fees and, you know, so there’s, there’s different levers. And I fully expect, and I think we’re gonna get some announcements here again soon on the White Houses. Housing affordability agenda. So there may be other, other ways that they’re trying to, uh, influence, uh, the mortgage spreads. But that’s, that’s what that is all about. And it, it should have, and it looks like, you know, it’s having some effect in terms of bringing rates down, but it likely, it’d be modest, like in the 10 basis points, maybe 20 if they ramp up the program some. But like, it, you know, it’s, it, it, you know, every, every bit counts. But this is not a. Uh, this won’t be enough to, you know, move rates down, dramatic mortgage rates down dramatically, uh, when you, when you look at the economy. Um, and I, I, I think just, you know, one last question. I mean, I just in terms of, you know, the people listening to this are. They’re, they’re people, you know, with jobs and who are trying to invest their money, and they’re trying to, you know, build long-term wealth, but they’re, you know, everybody’s worried about what’s happening with the economy. What, what, what do you think, like, just as, um, um, you know, perspective for people to understand or try to have some framework for how to look at what’s going on in the economy. How they should judge it. Like what would you suggest, like just for mom and pop investors trying to, what is happening with the economy? I’m not an economist. What, what are the, what are the things that you think they should consider studying up on, looking into a little bit? One challenge for a lot of investors, I mean, frankly, it’s, it’s been a challenge that I try to deal with too. Uh, we’re, we’re in an environment where there’s just. There’s so much news coming out of DC uh, with the White House and policies and the Fed, and you know, I mean, like, there’s just, there’s a lot. The headlines are big. And like I talked about with the tariffs, we had like really big tariff announcements. The really scary numbers were, and then it like dialed back and then we pushed through it and it’s like, and it’s this remembering that, um. There’s always a tendency to have this idea that the, the president really runs the economy. I mean, that’s not just about this administration. That’s like a longstanding, you know, the president gets, uh, blame or credit for the economy when really, right. Like we have a over 33, $30 trillion economy, hundreds of millions of workers, tens of millions of businesses. Like this is not about one administration. And so we always need to be careful about. Putting too much weight on the policies coming out of dc. Uh, and you know, last year if you really just listened to all the, you know, we’re cutting immigration, we’re raising tariffs, we’re doing, you know, all, there’s a lot of uncertainty in Doge. Well then you might have missed, like, there’s a bunch of AI investment happening and we’ve got a lot of growth in the economy and while consumers are still pretty resilient, so you, it’s kind of like. Tuning down the volume, some coming out of Washington, especially the like every twist and turn. Uh, and then kind of focusing in on the fundamentals. I will say, you know, you don’t wanna turn down DC too far because we, we do have some like big picture events that could play out over many years. Right. So kind of keeping an eye on it, but for the long game. As opposed to reacting to every twist and turn, every policy announcement, because a lot of this clearly is more of a negotiation than it is like, we’re gonna actually do this. So, you know, as investors, you don’t wanna get whipped around by the latest headline, but you also can’t put your head in the sand. Like you gotta kind of try and find a way to pull the signal out of the noise. And it is really. It’s really hard. Yeah. Like this has been a challenging time and the, the US economy’s been doing things that are not typical. We talked about some of the things with the labor market and we are running some policy experiments that haven’t been run in a long time, so things could change pretty dramatically. But I think it’s just trying to absorb the information, not get too wound up about it, but like also keep an eye on like what’s good for long-term growth. Yeah. Because it’s good for long-term productivity. Thank you so much Dr. Sahm. It’s uh, it’s been a pleasure talking to you on, uh, wealth Formula Podcast today. Great. Thank you so much. You make a lot of money but are still worried about retirement. Maybe you didn’t start earning until your thirties. Now you’re trying to catch up. Meanwhile, you’ve got a mortgage, a private school to pay for, and you feel like you’re getting further and further behind. Now, good news, if you need to catch up on retirement, check out a program put out by some of the oldest and most prestigious life insurance companies in the world. It’s called Wealth Accelerator, and it can help you amplify your returns quickly, protect your money from creditors, and provide financial protection to your family if something happens to you. The concept. Here are used by some of the wealthiest families in the world, and there’s no reason why they can’t be used by you. Check it out for yourself by going to wealthformulabanking.com. Welcome back to the show everyone. Hope you enjoyed it. It was Claudia Sahm. She is, uh, she’s a very, very smart lady. And, uh, just a reminder, if you have not done so, uh, I, I don’t frequently ask to do, do this, but, uh, make sure you give the show. Five stars and a positive review because that’s how we’re getting, you know, really high quality people like Claudia on the show, I’ve been around for a long time. It helps that the show is, you know, like over a decade old and all that stuff too. But, uh, anything you can do to support would be very helpful. And also one more reminder, uh, if you have not done so and you weren’t a credit investor, make sure you sign up for that investor club. At Wealth formula.com. That’s it for me. This week on Wealth Formula Podcast. This is about Joffrey signing out. If you wanna learn more, you can now get free access to our in-depth personal finance course featuring industry leaders like Tom Wheelwright and Ken m. Visit wealthformularoadmap.com.

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every week with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently.Today, let's look at another natural conversational phrase - “long story short.”We use long story short when we want to summarize a situation and skip all the details. It's like saying, “I'm just gonna tell you the main point.”Like,  “What a morning! Long story short, I missed the train and got to work late.”Or when talking about a problem:  “Long story short, the project took longer than we expected.”You can also use it when explaining how something ended:  “Yeah, we were going to go hiking, but, long story short, we decided not to go.”You'll hear long story short a lot in casual conversation, especially when people don't want to or don't need to give a full explanation. It helps your English sound more relaxed and natural - just like everyday spoken English.So remember, the next time you want to summarize a situation quickly, try using “long story short.”Lemme know in the comments how it goes, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next week's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Happy English Podcast – Speak English Naturally I'm Michael from Happy English, and I help people speak English more naturally, confidently, and clearly.

Setting up an IC-DISC the right way can mean the difference between maximizing tax savings and having issues down the road. In this episode of The IC-DISC Show, I sit down with Brian Schwam, IC-DISC specialist and tax attorney, to walk through the complete IC-DISC setup and compliance process from start to finish. This conversation was inspired by a CPA request for a comprehensive guide covering every step of the IC-DISC journey. Brian breaks down the entire process chronologically, from the initial consultation to determine if a business qualifies, through the critical formation steps that can make or break your IC-DISC. We cover proper capitalization requirements, the infamous 90-day election window, why non-interest bearing bank accounts matter, and the draconian 60-day payment rule that catches many businesses off guard. He explains the difference between simple and transaction-by-transaction calculations, sharing an example where detailed analysis increased a client's commission from $4 million to $17 million on $100 million in export sales. Whether you're a CPA learning about IC-DISC for the first time or a business owner considering this strategy, Brian's systematic approach demonstrates why working with a true specialist matters when navigating these complex regulations.     SHOW HIGHLIGHTS A detailed transaction-by-transaction calculation increased one client's IC-DISC commission from $4 million to $17 million on the same $100 million in export sales. Missing the 90-day election filing window requires a private letter ruling costing $35,000-$40,000 to fix, making it cheaper to just set up a new IC-DISC. The 60-day payment rule requires paying at least 50% of your estimated commission in cash or promissory note within 60 days of year-end to avoid disqualification. Setting up an IC-DISC with no par value stock is a fatal error that will cause the IRS to reject your election, regardless of everything else done correctly. A non-interest bearing bank account is essential because even $1.50 of interest income can disqualify your IC-DISC if no commission is paid that year. Export sales typically need to reach $3-5 million before an IC-DISC makes economic sense, though exceptions exist for businesses with exceptionally high profit margins.   Contact Details LinkedIn - Brian Schwam LINKSShow Notes Be a Guest About IC-DISC Alliance Brian SchwamAbout Brian TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dave: Good morning, Brian. Welcome to the podcast. Brian Hey, good morning David. Good to be here. Dave: So I, I now refer to you as the Bob Hope of the podcast because I believe that Bob Hope holds the record for the most appearances on the Johnny Carson Show. So that's why you're like the Bob Hope of the podcast. You have more appearances than anyone else with today's appearance. Brian That's good company to be in if you're of a certain, if you're of a certain age. Dave: Yeah. And I'm not even sure you and I are quite old enough to even be of that certain age. Brian I probably never saw him on Johnny Carson. Dave: Yeah, me too. So this is an episode that was requested by a CPA of one of our clients who was retiring and he had a new. Partner taken over and he said, Hey Dave, can you send over a link to the episode that just goes through all the details of the IC disc from start to finish? And I'm like, well, we don't have that episode, but it's a great idea. So that's what's behind this. So let's start at the very beginning. Somebody calls you up and says, Hey Brian, I need an IC disc, or I want an IC disc. What's the very first step? Brian Very first step for me is to say why. Dave: Okay, Brian tell me about your business. Dave: Okay. Brian You know, do you have qualified export receipts? Do you have qualified export property? That those are very complex areas. And some people might think they do when they don't, and others might think they don't when they do. Dave: Okay. Brian And more likely than not, they heard about IC disc from. Somebody they met at a, you know, business leader meeting or something and somebody said, oh, hey, I have an IC disc. You should have one. Dave: Okay. Brian And not everybody can utilize one, but there's many out there that can utilize 'em that do not. Dave: Okay. And do you charge anything for that consultation? Brian No, because to me it's just a fact finding. Dave: Okay. So step one, figure out if their fact pattern warrants having an IC disc. Brian Right? Right. Well, it's, it's actually, that's one step. If you deter, if we determine that yes, an IC disc makes sense because they do have qualified export property, they do have qualified export receipts, then we have to talk about volumes. Because, you know, if you have 500,000 of export sales, most like more likely than not. Disc isn't gonna make sense. Dave: Economic sense when Brian you factor Right. Economic, the Dave: costs Brian not right. There's not enough benefit to offset the cost at that, at that level, most likely. Of course. It [depends on what, what it is they're selling. Dave: Sure. Do you have a rule of thumb you typically use? Is it like three or 5 million where it typically makes sense or every case Brian For most, for most businesses, that's sort of the range that where it starts to make sense, but there are always exceptions to that. Dave: Sure. Brian So like I had a client that had, you know, 600,000 of export sales, but their bottom line profit was 80%. Dave: Okay. Brian So in that instance, hey, it made sense, but for most companies that have 600,000 of export sales, it, it probably doesn't make sense. Dave: Okay. So let's say they have 5 million of exports, good margins, looks like it makes economic sense. What's the next step then? Brian Well then we talk about what is the tax structure of that exporting company? Is it a flow through entity? Is it a C Corp? And how is it owned? Sometimes [00:04:00] it's owned by a foreign company that makes things way more complicated. Okay. It's owned by a combination of different shareholders, some of which are individuals, some of which are corporations. So that can be complicated. And sometimes it's just a, it's just a pass through entity that's owned by, you know, let's say it's an S corporation that's owned by a family owned. Dave: Sure. Brian You know, so you, you can have a lot of different fact patterns and that will dictate a lot of things with, with respect. Dave: Okay. Brian To how the disc is organized. Dave: Might that also be the time? You inquire as to whether multiple discs might make sense for their structure, or do you typically just focus on kind of getting the initial disc in place and then exploring that over time? Brian Probably the latter. Dave: Yeah. Brian Initially I, you know, the goal is, you know, do you have enough activity? Do you have the right kind of activity? What kind of benefit is it that you think you can, we can get for you? And then, okay, if the answer to all those are in the positive, then it's like, okay, how should this disc be owned based on what we're trying to achieve and where should it be set up? Because that also can have a lot of negative surprises if you set it up in the wrong place. Dave: Yeah. So let's say and I think there's some rules of thumb like if if the. Exporting company is a C corp, you typically don't want the C Corp to own the disc, is that correct? Brian That is, that is correct. And that's because a C corporation pays tax on a dividend. It receives from the IC dis, so effectively there's no benefit. Dave: Okay. So with a C corp, typically it would be the individuals, individual or [individuals that Brian are Oh, the, the shareholders typically, Dave: yeah. Brian You know, possibly a management group could be involved as well, but typically we're talking about the shareholders of the C corporation. Dave: Yeah. And the shareholders of the disc do not necessarily have to mirror the shareholders of the C corp. Right. Brian That is sort of up in the air. I, I prefer that to be the case, but it doesn't have to be the case. Dave: Yeah, like in a simple example, census C Corp owned by one person and when they set it up, they wanna add a couple key employees to it. Brian Yeah. That, that, that's probably fine. You know, there's some old revenue rulings out there from the early 1980s that have a bad fact pattern, which the IRS held that the structure created gift tax issues, but that was like a mom and a dad and a son and a daughter, and mom and dad set up a disc and then gave the stock to the son and the daughter. And, and so that, that's, I see that's a bad fact pattern. What you described is a completely different fact pattern. There's no donative intent in that fact Dave: pattern. Yeah. Okay. In Brian fact, that I have a client that started out where the disc and the C Corp was. It did have mirror ownership, but over time, that has changed dramatically. But still, there's no donor of intent because we have all these unrelated families that own shares in the company in this quote company. And when there have been redemption opportunities over the years, they have the choice redeemed, the disc shares redeemed. The, the C corp shares redeemed them both. So some of like kept their dis shares, but gotten rid of the C Corp shares and vice versa. But really without the donative intent, plus some court case you know, precedent, I, I'm not [00:08:00] so concerned about that issue. Dave: Okay. Now let's switch gears and let's say it's a flow through an S-Corp partnership et cetera. Do you typically want the individuals to own it in that situation? Say that the company has three shareholders, would you just make them the three owners of the disc? More often than not, no. Okay. And why is that? Brian Because it, you get the same benefit by making the disc a subsidiary of the S corporation without some of the extra complexity associated with having the disc be owned by the shareholders. Now that, that's, that's preferred, but there are also situations where that doesn't make sense. Dave: Okay. Brian So let's say the, the S corporation is in California and the shareholder lives in Texas, or Florida. Or Nevada. Dave: Okay. Brian So they might want that dividend income flowing directly to them so that there's [00:09:00] no state Oh. So that there's no state income tax on the dividend. Dave: Sure, sure. Brian Okay. Okay. Yeah. So again, it's just another fact you need to uncover in the process of trying to figure all this out. Dave: Okay, so you've met with the client, you've figured out a disc makes sense, you've dug further you figured out the ownership structure of the disc. That makes sense. So then I guess you have to figure out where to incorporate, huh? Brian Yeah. And that again, there are good states and bad states. Dave: Okay. Brian Some states will tax an IC dis as a regular C corporation, you wanna avoid those states. Some states don't have an income tax at all, and those are good states to deal with. Dave: Okay. Brian And the three, you know, I'd say there's three states that are predominantly viewed as positive, and that would be Delaware, Texas, and Nevada. Okay. They're all fairly similar. For filing. And, and none of them have a corporate income tax on the dis so that's, that's all good in terms of not adding additional costs to the, the structure. Dave: Okay. So I'm in Texas and thus you, it seems like most of my clients end up incorporating in Texas. Do you just so here we are January 8th. We're recording this of 2026. So do you just do you just get around to doing it anytime before the end of the year and then you could use the disc the whole year? Is that how it works? Brian It's not how it works. It's generally a prospective opportunity. So you wanna get that entity formed as quickly as possible. Dave: Okay. Yeah. I've had people, I've heard [00:11:00] people say that if you don't do it on January 1st, you just have to wait till the next year. Brian No. That, well, that's certainly not true. And from any date forward that you set it up, you can certainly get benefits or shipments. Okay. That they, but one other item that I forgot to mention earlier, they also like to ask if the, if the related supplier entity, which is the exporter, if they're an accrual based company or a cash basis, Dave: ah, Brian that's an, that's an incredibly important issue Dave: Sure. Brian Dealt with. That's why. Dave: Okay. Brian Because the disc is an accrual base taxpayer by default. Dave: Yeah. Okay, we'll get into that when we get further around the, Brian okay. Dave: I think about when I was a kid, there was a, there was a Saturday morning TV series I think called schoolhouse Rock. And one of the episodes was how, how a bill becomes a Law [00:12:00] And there's the whole steps, the Brian episode, everybody remembers. Dave: Yep. Yep. So everybody our age at least. Okay, so you've got the disc set up and say you do it in Texas and let's say they make the decision January 8th, takes a few days to, you know, just kind of get stuff, you know, information from the client set up. And let's say you get it set up January 15th, so then they're good to go, huh? They can just start using that disc and away we go. Anything else? Ha. That has to be done Or is it, is it that some Brian on the, on the surface, yes, that's true. Dave: Okay. Brian But beneath the surface, there's other things that have to take place. Dave: Okay. What's the next thing that has to happen after you've formed the disc? Brian Well, you have a, there's a 90 day window to file a disc collection with the IRS. That's probably the most critical thing that has to happen. You have to file an actual paper form with the IRS to elect disc status for the company, because the company, when you set it up, it's just a corporation. Without that election, it's not a disc. Dave: And that election, is this the famous form 48, 76 dash a, is that said election, Brian famous or infamous in some cases, Dave: yes. Yeah. Okay. So you have to, so you just well, you just go to the IRS website. Download the form, send it in, bing, bam. Boom. You're done. You're good to go. Brian Not exactly. Dave: Okay. That's the Brian first Dave: step. Brian Skip. That's the first step. But the I mean, first of all, when you're setting up the disc, you have to make sure you incorporate it properly. Dave: Okay. Brian I kind of glossed over that. Dave: And what are some of the elements of proper incorporation? Brian Well, for example, when you go to a, the Texas website or any other secretary of State website to organize the company, because it can be done all online, [00:14:00] like the default is always, you know, no par value stock, right. Brian If you just select the default, you are going to have a problem because Okay. Dis rules require, you know, par or stated value of $2,500 on the, issued an issued an outstanding stock of, of the disk. So I had a client that came to me years ago. They had set up a company in, well, they used Wyoming, which is also possible to use, and it's not a bad jurisdiction. And they had, he had his quote unquote friend that who was an attorney, set it up for him. And there were some issues with the DISC collection and it went back and forth and then ultimately took a look at the articles of incorporation and it had, you know, $1 power stock, 1000 shares. Dave: Ah, that's a problem. Brian That's, [00:15:00] yeah. So no matter what happened with the disc election and the back and forth with the IRS, the disc election was ultimately never approved because the entity didn't meet the requirement. Having enough outstanding capital stock. So you have to have one and it can only have one class of shares. So there are, you know, there are some hoops you have to jump through in terms of not doing things incorrectly or doing things correctly. So you have to make sure there's one class of stock, $2,500 par value. There can't be foreign sales corporation in the same patrol group, which years ago was a big deal, but now it's not really a big deal because those have been gone for many years and almost nobody has one left. Not, not really an issue there. And what, you know, those are the formation matters that, that mattered, that are important to make sure you, you meet when you form the entity. Okay? If it's formed wrong, right from the get go, you have a problem. If [00:16:00] it's formed correctly, then the next step is yes, file a disc election. Dave: And, but before you file the disc election, there's a step we're missing, right? Doesn't the DISC election require. To put the corresponding EIN for the distance. Oh yes. I mean, I just assumed we, yeah, you obviously you have to apply for an ID number for the new entity that does not come automatically with the incorporation. Brian 'cause that's done with the state as opposed with the IRS yes. Dave: Yeah. And that's become more challenging. It used to be pretty easy to get an EIN you could apply under a corporate name or Brian yeah. But there, there's a, you know, there is an online portal with the IRS to get an EIN for a domestic company. So it's not, it's not Dave: terrible. Yeah. Brian It's not terrible. Dave: Yeah. So you have the EIN that you need for the 48 76 ae. Brian Right. Dave: You have you have 90 days, Brian you have the proper capitalization. Dave: Yeah. Brian You figured out who's gonna own the disc because the, the disc collection is. Signed, you know, it's not just made by the disc entity. It's made by the disc entity, then consented to by the shareholder. So you have to make sure that all that takes place. I can't tell you the number of times where somebody filled out part one, the disc signed it, and then the shareholder forgot the consent to it. And if you don't do the 48 76 dash eight correctly, you get it filed timely. It's an extremely expensive fix to try and get that Dave: rectified. Brian Generally, you have to try to get a private letter ruling, which will grant an extension of time to file the late disc collection. Dave: Okay. Brian And that's that's an expensive process. It's a 25 to $30,000 exercise to [00:18:00] file the private letter, really. Plus you have to pay a user fee to the IRS of 10,000, 11,000. Dave: Wow. Yeah. It seems that seems inconvenient at, at best. Brian And for most companies, they're better off just setting up a second dose Dave: Sure. Brian As opposed Dave: to process, Brian because how much volume there is. Dave: Yeah. Yeah. And I understand the IRS itself refers to these as a, a paper entity. So I guess since it's a paper entity, that's it. No need to fuss around with a bank account or actually have to capitalize it with actual money is there. Brian It's, it's recommended, but you're right, it's not required. There's no requirement in the disk rules to set up a bank account. Dave: Okay. Brian So there it could simply have. A receivable receiv for the capital stock. And that can be, its working capital doesn't have to have a bank account, but that's sort of a misnomer that people think it must have a bank account. Okay. In the original regulations, that was a requirement, but when the regulations are finalized, the requirement was removed. Dave: Okay. But practically speaking, it you probably wanna have a bank account. Brian Yes. Practically speaking, it makes all the sense in the world to have a bank account, a non-interest bearing bank account. Dave: And why is the non-interest bearing important? Brian Well, it, it has to do with one of the annual requirements of a disc. That 95% of its receipts have to be qualified export assets. I'm sorry, receipts. And so let's say in a year the company decides. You can't always decide not to use the DIS even though you've got it in place. So let's say the company says, well we're not gonna use the, this year we had a loss. In our business there's no using. Dave: Okay. Brian We say, okay, and then the DIS bank account earned a dollar 50 of interest income. Dave: Okay, Brian well 100% of the receipts are now not qualified receipts. Okay. Income and no other revenue. If there was a non-interest bearing bank account, it would just have no receipts and then it would be fine. But the earning, the dollar 50 of interest would disqualify that. Dave: Okay. So non-interest bearing account and then I guess the dollar amount in the bank account, what you start with, $2,500 initially. Brian Yeah, pretty much keep it there forever. Dave: But, but it doesn't matter if you end up, oh, if you're a little lazy and you forget to distribute all the money and you end up with 50 grand at the end of the year, that, that's not a problem, is it? Brian It is. Dave: It is. Everything's a problem Brian with you, Brian, because everything, 'cause the, these rules are draconian and everything can become a problem. So a commission dis anyway, a comm, [00:21:00] you know, a paper entity commission dis doesn't need $50,000 of working capital. And the IRS would hold that, that that's not a qualified export out. Like having too much working capital in DIS will cause it to fail. The other test, which is the 95 qualified export asset test 2,500, you know, an amount of cash equal to the capital stock is fine. Dave: Sure. Brian Amounts above that start to, you know, raise questions as to whether. That's reasonable working capital or not? Given that the entity's a paper entity, it doesn't really have any expenses. Maybe some bank fees. That would be about it. In most cases, it really doesn't need cash sitting. Dave: Yeah. Yeah. So maybe 3000, 3,500 to account for some bank fees or, Brian yeah, at most, yeah, we start getting about 5,000. It really starts to [00:22:00] look questionable. Dave: Okay. Oh, I just realized, I think in the initial assessment there was a step we forgot and that's, do they want to make it a buy sell disc or a commission disc? What percentage of your clients are commission discs? Mine a hundred percent. That's Brian 99%. Dave: Yeah. So we're just stepping ahead assuming that it would be a commission disc, Brian right. I mean, the only time you would really have a buy sell disc. 'cause if you have a business where. They're buying inventory from unrelated parties. And all the inventory is manufactured in the US and all of it is export. Dave: Yeah. Brian Okay. That, that, that I do have, like I said, two clients that have adopted that structure. One was commissioned disc with an S-corp and they converted, they merged the S-corp into the disc and just became an operating disc. You know, and that's a little different than a buy sell disc. I mean, an operating disc. People think of buy, sell dis an operating disc for the same thing. They're really not. I mean, 'cause you could have a, the equivalent of a commission disc, but have it be by sell where it could buy product from its related exporter and then export it. Dave: Okay. Brian It's possible that, that, that tho that fact pattern, I don't have any clients in. Dave: Okay. Brian It's possible. Dave: Okay. So we've got the election filed and then at some point the IRS will send the taxpayer letter approving the election, right? Brian Correct. That is, that was true. Dave: And then so we've got the, the B and usually it makes more sense to have the disc bank account at the same bank as the operating company, right? Brian It typically does, Dave: yes. Yeah. And we'll get into that when we get further into the operation of the disc. Okay. So it's all set up. And elections filed, election approved. So now certainly we're done with incorporation and government governance matters, right? Brian No. No, Dave: not yet. Brian Not yet. Not yet. Okay. We still have to make sure there's a a call, a related supplier agreement or disc commission supplier agreement in place between the, the exporting entity or entities and the disc itself. This document is, it's not, again, it's not required in the regulations, but it is recommended. It gives the related supplier a lot of flexibility in how it uses the disc and if it uses the disc and it gives it unilateral powers to decide not to use the disc. It also lays out the, you know, sort of boil legal boilerplate language about an inter intercompany agreement between the two business. Dave: So you could just go to chat GPT and have them spool up a one page sales agent agreement. Is that right? Brian Maybe. I don't know. I haven't tried that 'cause I don't wanna teach chat GPT how to, how to do that, but because every time you ask it a question, you teach it, right? Dave: Sure. Brian General, no, it's a pretty specific agreement and it has very specific provisions in it. Provisions and so somebody that knows what they're doing really needs to draft them. Dave: Okay. Okay. So this is kind of pointing away from just having your general corporate attorney who's never heard of a disc, do all that quote paperwork. Brian Yeah. I never recommend. I always recommend that a specialist do it, namely myself take care of it. Dave: Okay. Yeah. 'cause you are, in addition to having an accounting background, you're also a tax attorney, correct? Brian Correct. Dave: Correct. Okay. Brian Yeah. And you know, some of the documents that need to be created, yeah. That can be done by a general corporate attorney like bylaws and those as well and or other organizational documents that aren't disc specific can only be done by any attorney. But but if, but really it doesn't make sense to split that work up amongst different attorneys. Dave: Okay. Sure. Brian It all sort of be done by the same party to make sure that it's, that everything gets taken here. Dave: Okay. Brian And timely because there's a 90 day window to get this, in my opinion, to get this all done. Dave: Yeah, to co to coincide with the election filing. Brian Right. Because typically I don't provide any of the documents, including the election, to the, to the client until all these things are done. Dave: Yeah. Oh, I see. Sure, sure. Because then there's, Brian you know, they have to sign the disc election and there's all these other documents they need to sign and put in a minute book. And so rather than piecemeal it, we just give it to them all at once. Dave: Okay. So they've got their binder with all their signed documents or a signed copy of the 48 76 A that was filed a copy of the approval from the IRS. So now finally, are we ready to get started using our disc? Is there. Brian Collection the I. Yeah. As you've probably seen in the news, things are changing at the postal service as far as postmarks and what they can be relied on as when something was considered filed. So they're not promising the postmark things that they, you drop them in the mail anymore. Dave: Oh, really? Okay. I hadn't heard that. Brian Yeah. So it's recommended to go, like, walk it to a counter and have it hands stamped with [00:28:00] a postmark. Yeah. But more importantly, and unfortunately not everybody listens to this, send the form certified mail return receipt requested. 'cause many times document is sent to Kansas City and they lose track. Oh, we never got your dis election. We can't process your dis return, whatever. And then there's proof that it was sent and then they have to, you know, find it basically. Dave: Okay. Or Brian at least accept it, maybe even if they never find. Dave: Yeah. Brian But there's one other thing about the disc and that we didn't talk about and, and I'm reminded of it because something you asked me in passing last week, which is something about the year end of the disc, the year end of the disc must coincide with its principal shareholder. So if I have a C corp that's a fiscal year, but the owners of the disc aren't gonna be [00:29:00] individuals, that disc will be a calendar year disc. Dave: Sure. Brian Not be a fiscal year company. And you know, if. It's owned by, let's say an S corp that has a fiscal year, then the disc will have a fiscal year. It, it must have the same year as its principalship. Dave: Okay. Yeah. Good. Thanks for the reminder of that. Brian And sometimes the disc collection gets filled out incorrectly. Somebody assumes one thing and, and then when a return is filed, the IRS, they're like, they, they dunno what to do. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Alright. Now finally, do we have a little bouncing baby disc to be delivered to its proud parents? I think so. Dave: Okay. Okay. Okay. Brian And that's usually, it's usually about three to five months after it was formed. Dave: Okay. Brian Is when it started eating solids. Dave: Okay. Alright, so now we've got the disc set up and 9:45 AM I'm, I'm sorry, I keep touching my watch and it says the time, apparently it's time to just take off my watch. Okay. So now, so let's just say that they have not yet set up the bank account. They've done everything else, and now it's time to set up the bank account so they, you know, call their local banker. They get it set up at the same bank, so it can be on the same online banking platform. And then they fund it. And does it matter where the funding comes, comes from for that bank account? Can they just like say the company. I mean, can just anybody fund it? Say there's three shareholders, can just one shareholder write a check for $2,500 to fund it? Or how does that all look? Brian Well, I mean, there, there will be a subscription agreement that shows how much each shareholder owes for their shares, and each shareholder should pay for them. Okay. Can't just be one. Dave: Okay. So we have the bank account set up, we're ready to go. And so now we're at the end of the year, or approaching the end of the year. Let's say we're in November of 2026. Anything we need to do before the end of the year Brian for an accrual based taxpayer? No. Okay. There's nothing paid to do, but before the end of the year. Dave: And what about for a cash basis? Brian For a cash basis, taxpayer, if we want a deduction in 2026. We need to pay the DIS in 2026, so Dave: we Brian would need to gather information in order to estimate a DIS commission for 2026 before the end of the year. Dave: Okay. So cash basis, that's what we need to do by the end of the year. Accrual basis. Basis, no. Do I need to do [00:32:00] anything by the end of the year? Brian You don't need to. You have an option to, if you'd like to, if you wanna have an idea of what the disc commission might be, or you actually wanna pay it before the end of the year, but there's no requirement. Dave: Yeah. And if you don't, and if you don't pay it by the end of the year, you get a deferral benefit Brian possibly. Dave: Yeah so say, say you did a hundred million of exports and your commission was $20 million. You just get to defer that whole thing till the next year, right? Brian No, Dave: no. Brian, all you say is No. Every good idea have you just say No. Brian It could defer 10% of it to the next year because only the income related to 10 million of export sales can be deferred, and it'd be a little less than 10% because the disc wasn't there the whole year. So we'd have to prorate that 10 million for the number of days the disc existed. And then some sliver can be deferred, but the rest of it is gonna be taxed to the shareholders as a deemed dividend Dave: in the current year. In the Brian current. Dave: Okay. Brian Then not taxed when physically distributed in the following. Dave: Okay, so we have an accrual tax payer. We get into the to 2027, and let's say they're extending their corporate return and they're planning to file that in August of 27. So we're done. We don't have anything else to do before August. Right? Brian That's not true either. Dave: Brian, Brian you're Dave: killing me. Brian Yeah, well, it, I mean, it depends. If nothing was done before the end of the year, then something needs to be done within the first 60 days after the accrual base taxpayer. Or, you know, let's say the cash base taxpayer says, I don't [00:34:00] care if I get my deduction next year, so I'm not gonna pay anything this year. Something needs to be paid at this within 60 days of the end of the year. Dave: So is this one of those things like the sales agent agreement, that that's just recommended? Brian No, this is required. Dave: Required. Okay. Brian Yeah. This is required. This is, this is one of the hot buttons the IRS will try to use to disqualify your disc. Dave: Okay. Brian So the disc accrues a receivable at the end of the year, even though it doesn't know the amount at the end of the year for all, for, for disc purposes and books an an accrual for the income at the end of the year. That accrual or the receivable is only a qualified export asset if, if the payment rules around that receivable or satisfy. Dave: Okay. Okay. Brian One Dave: rule Rules. Rules. There's always rules. Brian Yeah. It's very draconian. You have a 60 day rule and a 90 day rule. 60 day rule says you must pay a reasonable estimate of the disc commission to the disc within 60 days of the end of the year in cash or. It could be cash, it could be a note. Dave: And reasonable is just any old amount. You just put your finger in the air and ah, I think a hundred dollars is reasonable. Brian Again, that's not the case. There is a safe harbor for what is reasonable, and that safe harbor is f at least 50% of the final commission amount that you Dave: determine. But how do you know that in February Brian you have, Dave: if you're not preparing the corporate, Brian you have to try to compute an estimate before the end of FE Dave: and you have to nail it exactly at 50%. So if you think the commission's gonna be $1,217,412, you need to pay exactly 50% of that, Brian at least. [00:36:00] Dave: Oh, at least. So you could pay more. At Brian least you could pay more. And we always recommend maybe paying 75 to 80%. Dave: Okay. Brian Because if you pay whatever you pay. That amount is gonna be your limit. So if you thought it was gonna be a million and you paid 500,000 and it turns out to be 1,000,500, too bad. So sad, you only paid 500,000, you're capped at a million. Dave: Okay? I mean, that's the safe harbor. I suppose there might be circumstances where, where one could argue that they maybe the first year of the disc, and you know, they, they, Brian you can argue it, you can try to argue it, but there's no guarantee that the IS will accept any of the arguments. And the private letter rulings that exist from the 1970s would imply that they, they're really not going to accept just about any rationale for being reasonable other than that 50% bright [00:37:00] line safe harbor. Dave: Okay so you make the payment, Brian make that payment, and. Dave: Can you just book a journal entry? Do you, do you actually have to really move the money? It sounds like a hassle. Brian I mean, in, in general you have to, you have to either create a note or move cash. Dave: Okay. Brian Okay. Dave: But that might be a lot of money though. Like what if, what if it's like $2 million and million? The company only has a million dollars in the bank. Brian They could use the same capital multiple times. Dave: Oh, okay. Brian And roundtrip the money as many times as they need to, or like I said, use the, use the promissory note. Dave: Okay. Brian Short term promissory note to satisfy that requirement because it does say cash or property. Dave: Okay. So we get through February, we've made our, our 60 day payment. We've, we've, you know, sh sh we've, we, instead of doing 50%, we did about 80% of what we thought it was gonna be to give us some cushion, and now we can go take a vacation till the till the corporate returns ready. Brian Yeah. I, I, I think so. Dave: Okay. Brian I think so. Dave: Okay. So it's time to now. So it's time. Now, if they extend that corporate return, I guess they're gonna have to extend the disc return as well. Brian Well, the disc return is due September 15th as a matter of course. Dave: Oh, Brian are handy. There are no extensions. So really as far as the disc and its compliance goes, once you make that 60 day payment, there's really not much you can or should do or are able to do until the related entities tax return. Prepared. [00:39:00] So a lot of times they'll say, well, that's not gonna be done till September 15th, and we have to have a discussion about how that doesn't work because the disc return has to be done by September 15th, but in order to do the disc return, you need to basically a completed within it supplier returns. So then we have to work backwards from September 15th to figure out like when's the latest they can have that, that other return done in order Dave: to Brian get the disc return done. Now that's relatively easy in the past through context because all those pass through returns are also due September 15th on extension. Dave: Sure. Brian Whereas a C corporation, it's not so easy because the extended due date for a C corporation, if it's a calendar year is October 15th. So it may be that you have to file a disc return with a made up number on time and then amend it after. Okay. After September 15th. I've done that a number of times. Dave: Okay. So that makes sense. Brian Because as is good as CPAs are, they're deadline driven. So if a return is due October 15th, they're unlikely to have it done by the end of August. Dave: Yeah. Okay. So it's time to file the disc return. I assume the CPA firm probably has that disc return and their standard tax software with all the other forms. So you just have the CPA go ahead and prepare the disc return. I've looked at it, it's a short return. It's like 10 pages long. So you just go ahead and have the CPA prepare the disc return, then bing, bam, boom, you're done. Brian Could do that. Dave: Okay. Is there a drawback to doing that? Brian Yeah, it would probably be wrong. Dave: Okay. Why do you say that? Now, remember [Brian, we have a lot of CPAs who we have very good relationships with that we share clients, you know, saying that they're probably gonna do it wrong. I mean, heck, I don't really wanna annoy all my great CPAs we work with Brian Well, okay, but it, well, it's just a fact. It'll probably okay Dave: be Brian wrong because they might see one or two or three a year. They, they think they know what all the different terms on the district return mean, but they're not as familiar with that as they are with a S Corp return or a partnership return, or 1120. So they do what they think is right, and it may be right, it may not be right. So again, I, in my opinion, you want a specialist preparing the district return. Dave: Okay. Brian Okay. Because we know exactly how it's supposed to be filled out. And then if, if the calculation is done on a transaction by transaction [00:42:00] basis, there's this schedule P that gets attached to the return. Well, if you don't do a T by T, there's one Schedule P. If you do a T by T, there could be thousands of them. So I don't think CPAs and their software are equipped to complete thousands of schedule Ps and attach Dave: Yeah. Brian To the district. Dave: No, good point. And you're, you're getting your your enthusiasm to get to T by t had me, you got a little ahead of me. 'cause I was gonna ask, so client says, Hey, we have a desk. Our accounting department's busy. What's just the bare minimum of information we need to send you? What's the bare minimum? Brian Bare minimum would be qualified export sales. Dave: They just need to send you a number. Brian Yes. Dave: Then you take that number and how hard can it be? Right. Just take the, Brian it's not, it's not necessarily that hard at that point. Dave: Yeah. But say the profit on those sales [00:43:00] is the average profit of the company and taxable profit. And you compute the disc commission, you go through the Schedule P and compute the disc commission and pick the higher of the two numbers that you, that you compute. So you would just be like the final draft, corporate return and that total export number, you know, dollar amount for the year. And, and that's really all you need to, to do. That's Brian the bare bone. That's the bare bones, yeah. Dave: Okay. And that's what some people would call the standard calculation or a simple calculation, Brian I'd call it simple. Yeah. Dave: Okay. And that's also known as the 4% 50% calculation in some circles. Right. How does that work? Brian Well, it's also known as the safe harbor calculation in certain circles as well. Back to that, Dave: back to that safe harbor again. Brian Yeah. But that's actually not a safe harbor, so that's why I bring that up. Dave: Okay, well Brian that's the safe harbor calculation. I'm like, no, it's not. It's just the [00:44:00] calculation. There's nothing safe harbor about Dave: it. Okay. Brian Okay. It's just the rules that are found in the code and regs for computing and disc commission, and they're the two predominant methods. 4% of sales and the 50% of net profit, Dave: you just cherry pick whichever one works better. Brian Yeah, but the 4% method has limitations. So Dave: more limitations probably. Why? Why can't this just be simple? You said it was the simple calculation and now you're already telling me there's inherent complexity. Brian Even if it's simple, it's not totally simple. Dave: Okay. Okay, Brian so the, and I've seen this done wrong. Millions, well, not millions, hundreds of times, and I can say it is hundreds of times. Client computes the 4% method just by choosing 4% of sales. They don't look at what their net income is on the, on the [00:45:00] activity. They just say, oh, I'm allowed to use 4% of sales. The limit there is you cannot create a loss. There's something called the no loss rules. You can't create a loss with a disc commission if one doesn't already exist. So if the profit on, say, on the sales are 2% of sales, you can't take 4% of sales. You're limited to 2% of sales. And if, for example, you have a loss of the company, you're limited to zero. But I've seen situations where that's completely ignored. Dave: Okay? Brian Properly computed this commission of 4% of sales, but it should have been something less or possibly zero. Dave: Okay? So more complexity, but the good news, that's the extent of the complexity. One, schedule P, 4%, 50%, you know, make sure you, you don't create a loss. Now we're, we're all done. Pop. You [00:46:00] know what, what? Dusted and dusted and delivered we're, we're good to go. They've maximized their dis commission, right? And we're all done. They have a nice 10 page return to send to the IRS. Which by the way, can they file that electronically, that return? Brian Fortunately, there are no provisions for electronic filing of the disc return. It must be, Dave: what is this, the 1970s or something? Brian Pretty much Dave: Okay Brian with, with regard to the disc? Yeah. And, and some other forms. Yeah. But the, the, the benefit of that, here, I'll give you a benefit. The benefit of the fact that you must file a paper return is they can have an electronic signature on it. Okay. It doesn't have to have a wet signature. Dave: Okay? Okay. Brian So you could theoretically, for example, send your client the return using DocuSign, have them sign it. You print it, you file it for, Dave: okay. Okay. But, but now we're finally done. It's signed, it's done. And they say, boy, thank you very much, Brian. You've done, your team did a great job, and boy, I really appreciate, you know, we had 10 million of exports. We have all kinds of variability in our profit margins. And, but thank you very much. You, you created the amazing $400,000 or you calculated the 400,000 disc commission. Thank you very much. I couldn't imagine you went above and beyond. I couldn't imagine you could have done anything more. And then what do you say? Do you graciously say, oh, you're welcome. It was our pleasure. Brian I would graciously say, you know, we, we've just computed your minimum disc commission. Dave: Okay, Brian not your maximum. Because you have Dave: vast, lemme guess. Lemme guess. There's more complexity coming. Brian More complexity, which relies on more data being. Pulled from the client's [00:48:00] records to, to allow for a calculation of the DISC commission at a more detailed level, ideally at a line item by invoice level, Dave: line item. That sounds like a lot of work. Brian It can be. Can be a Dave: lot. What if the client says, our accounting department's busy? Sounds like we're gonna have to spend weeks gathering all this data for you. Eh, it's just, we're too busy, it's not worth it. What do you say then? Brian I gu I almost can guarantee you it will be worth it. Okay. Because looking at the detail is likely to cause at Disconnect commission to be anywhere from 50 to three, 400% higher than what it otherwise would've been. Now, unfortunately, in that first year, since you've already filed with a certain number, you're limited to two times what you paid in that 60 day window. But going forward. You know, there's no limit. Dave: Okay. Brian Whatever we compute can be your disc commission. So different industries have different amount of variability and t and transaction by transaction calculations have different impacts depending upon the industry, the profitability of the business, how many products they have, who they sell to. But it can vary. But I'll give you an example of one that we worked on recently where company had a hundred million of export sales. They took 4% of sales, and they've been taking 4% of sales year after year, after year, after year, after year, Dave: okay. Brian They brought us in like three weeks before the district return. Dave: Okay. Brian And we went through the calculations and we actually calculated 17 million Dave: as opposed to 4 million. Brian As opposed to four. Dave: [00:50:00] Yikes. That's a big difference. Brian It's a huge difference. And fortunately they were, you know, well, I mean they were very pleased with the result. And so now on a going forward basis, we're not doing 4% of sales. Dave: Okay? But you still have this. But if they were able to get a $17 million commission, then that means their corporate taxable income must have been at least 17 million. 'cause didn't I hear you say the disc commission cannot cause a loss. Brian It cannot cause a loss at the level at which you're computing the commission. So there's no, you're killing me, Brian. Just more complexity. Yeah. Well, it's very complex area. There's, there's no overall no loss rule. Like if you, you can, as long as you're meeting the rules as they're written, you can cause your entity to go into a loss position. Now, this particular instance, it did not do that, but [00:51:00] you could do that. Dave: Okay. And then if you get into a loss position, there are other non disc complexities that come into play that impact whether you want to maximize the loss in that entity or you want to target a particular loss in that entity. And that's not something that we get involved with, but we're certainly sensitive to it. Sure. Sure. And so you're saying for this client, even though I've heard some people say you've got the simple calc and then the hard calc. And so you'd wonder why would anyone do the hard calc? Well, it's because their commission went from 4 million to 17 million, which saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars. You created hundreds or millions of dollars with additional tax savings. Brian Right, right. Dave: Okay. Brian And by the way, after the first conversation we had with them, they said, oh [00:52:00] yeah, this is not something we can do. The accounting department said, this is not something we can do. Then the owner said, this is something you're gonna, Dave: it's funny how that, how that works. Okay. And then I'm guessing this extra work. You, you're probably gonna have to create another schedule P or two. So now the disc return, it's gonna be 10 pages. It's what? 20 pages? Is that kind of a typical page count? Brian No, it could be Dave: no. Brian Thousands of pages. Dave: Thousands. I mean, Brian, a ream of paper is 500. So thousands would be reams of paper. Brian Yes. I've had some returns that have like 15 binders of paper. Dave: Yikes. Brian Yeah. Just goes in a big box and I'm sure the IRS types, all those schedule Ps into their, Dave: I'm sure they do. Okay. So the return gets filed, so the return's ready. You take that box, you just slap a you print off a postal label online, drop it off at the post office. And you're done, right? You just give it to carrier, Brian understand, Dave: carrier, carrier your house or whatever. Brian Well, you can send it via FedEx. You can send it via UPS. And actually, in some ways, I think that might be better these days than the postal service. Dave: And why do you have to do that? Can you just slap, I mean, if you have your 15 binders, couldn't you just put a hundred stamps, you know, on the, the box and ship it in because they'll get it, right? I mean, it's not like they're gonna lose it or anything. Brian They might, they could very well lose it. And you definitely want proof of delivery and you want proof of mailing. So again, it's a certified mail if you're using the postal service or if you're using a private carrier like FedEx, you know, you get all that documentation about when it was shipped and when it was delivered.[00:54:00] Dave: Okay, well now at least we're finally done. Right? You ship it off. The CPA pulls the numbers from the disc return, puts it on the corporate and shareholder returns. Now we're done. It's gone to the IRS. We never have to think about it again. Right. Brian I'm not sure if that's a trick question or not, but in some ways that could be true, Dave: right? Yeah. But it, but I guess you could get audited, right? Brian Could get audited by an agent who has no idea what they're doing, which is typically the case. Dave: So that's why you want your CPA defending you in that case. 'cause then it's like the blind leading the blind. Brian No, I think it's better if someone with site is involved. So again, the specialist who did the disc work should represent the taxpayer or be involved with the representation of taxpayer in the case of the audit. Dave: Okay. Brian And the should be involved. Because really what's under, what's really in question is the [00:55:00] deduction on that entity's tax return. The dis itself doesn't pay tax. So they rarely audit a dis quote. Dave: Okay? So if I break it down, you to do it really right? You need a specialist to guide you on the initial structure of the disc. You need another specialist to set up the, the disc. You need another specialist to do all the paperwork, make sure the document's correct another specialist to prepare the return, and then another specialist to defend you. So is that about right? So do you need like five different people to make sure everything's done right? Brian? Isn't there some way that you could just have one person that could just do it all for you and be done with it? Brian Well, of course. Dave: Okay. Finally, finally, I get a simple answer, Brian right? So if you, if you engage a disc specialist, that [specialist should be able to do all that. Dave: Okay? Brian Okay. Now, not every disc specialist is created equally. Dave: Sure. Brian You know, I brought up during our conversation that there are some non disc things that can also add complexity to the situation. Not every disc specialist will be sensitive to those things. Not every disc specialist will understand those things. So the benefits that like our organization brings is that. Least myself in particular, I didn't always just do IC disc work. I, I, I have a well-rounded knowledge of all of the, of the tax world. And so I am sensitive to non disc things. You know, for example, you know, another example, oh, a company has a lot of export sales. You would think it's a no brainer. They should have a dis, they should use the dis. They should, they, they should want to convert that ordinary income to qualified dividend [00:57:00] income. Well, what if the S-corp is owned by an ebit? What if there are passive shareholders? All of those things impact whether the disc commission actually helps or hurts their tax situation. And I would get, I would venture a guess that, you know, if you went out and Googled, you know, I see this specialist, you would find a handful. At most that understand all that stuff and how all it all interplays together as opposed to the multitude of those that won't understand any of it. Dave: Okay. Brian So I think a, a disc specialist that is sensitive to all the other tax rules is, is definitely something that is valuable. Dave: And you probably want someone with some experience who's done maybe, you know, what a dozen disc returns in their career, maybe 50 if they're really good. Like how many, how many have we done organization wide? Probably Brian probably 10,000. Dave: 10,000? Well, that's a lot more than 50. Brian Yes. Over the years it's probably close to that number. And we've probably claimed billions of dollars of just deductions and saved clients, hundreds of millions of dollars of tax. And, and I'm proud to say that every dollar we've ever claimed we've. Okay. Dave: So Brian I've never had an adjustment from the IRS. Dave: Well, that sounds like a, a good a good record. So bottom line, Brian that's, that's the best you can come up with a good record. I'd say it's Dave: well, I didn't wanna say a perfect record. I didn't want to jinxy. Brian No, but it's, it's, it's, it's pretty outstanding record. Dave: Yeah. It's a, it's an impressive record Brian because there are also just providers out there that say, well, you know, Dave: it's the Wild West. Brian The wild west, the IRS doesn't really understand it, so let's be as aggressive as possible. And, and that's not the way we approach it. Dave: Yeah. Wow. Well, this has been this has been a lot. So really it's that simple. So the person who wants to just do all this themselves, we've laid out the whole playbook for them. Brian Yeah. The only simple thing they have to do is call us. Dave: There you go. That is it. Yeah. And, and oh, the other thing, not only are you the Bob, hope you now have moved from number two to number one for the most experienced icy disc guy. I know now that Neil Block is retired. Brian Well, that's, I don't know if that's a plus or not. Whether I'll take it just means I've been doing it a long time myself. So Dave: yeah, Neil was, I think my second, first or second guess. And and I was just happy. 'cause his billing rate back then was like $1,500 an hour. I was just glad I didn't get a bill a month later for him being on the podcast. But he, [01:00:00] he did it for exactly 50 years at one firm, baker and McKinsey in Chicago. He had one office, one phone number, like the whole 50 years. Brian Yeah. That's, Dave: that is something you don't see much anymore. Brian Definitely not, no. It's, but it's very, that's. That's very cool. And Neil is a very, you know, is a very intelligent savvy guy. Dave: Yeah, that is for sure. Well, Brian, anything else that we didn't cover that you can think of? Brian I can't think of anything. I think we covered a, a great deal here. Dave: Okay. Brian Can't think. Dave: Well, I, I'll let Brian we omitted. Dave: Well, great. Well, hey, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it. And I'll let you get back to your, your exploration of your yard there. Brian Yeah. I feel like, it's funny I shrunk the kids. Dave: I know. Well, hey, well, well again, thanks again, Brian. We all appreciate your time. Brian You're welcome. Have a good day. Dave: You too.

Join Christina Warren and Brett Terpstra as they navigate the freezing Minnesotan cold without running water, delve into the intersection of tech and political turmoil, and explore the latest in AI agents and multi-agent workflows. Dive into a whirlwind of emotions, tech tips, and political ranting, all while contemplating the ethics of open source funding and AI coding. From brutal weather updates to philosophical debates on modern fascism, this episode pulls no punches. Sponsor Copilot Money can help you take control of your finances. Get a fresh start with your money for 2026 with 2 months free when you visit try.copilot.money/overtired. Show Links Crimethinc: Being “Peaceful” and “Law-Abiding” Will Not Stop Authoritarianism Gas Town Apex OpenCode Backdrop Cindori Sensei Moltbot Chapters 00:00 Introduction and Host Updates 00:21 Brett’s Water Crisis 02:27 Political Climate and Media Suppression 06:32 Police Violence and Public Response 18:31 Social Media and Surveillance 22:15 Sponsor Break: Copilot Money 26:20 Tech Talk: Gas Town and AI Agents 31:58 Crypto Controversies 37:09 Ethics in Journalism and Personal Dilemmas 39:45 The Future of Open Source and Cryptocurrency 45:03 Apex 1.0? 48:25 Challenges and Innovations in Markdown Processing 01:02:16 AI in Coding and Personal Assistants 01:06:36 GrAPPtitude 01:14:40 Conclusion and Upcoming Plans Join the Conversation Merch Come chat on Discord! Twitter/ovrtrd Instagram/ovrtrd Youtube Get the Newsletter Thanks! You’re downloading today’s show from CacheFly’s network BackBeat Media Podcast Network Check out more episodes at overtiredpod.com and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Find Brett as @ttscoff, Christina as @film_girl, Jeff as @jsguntzel, and follow Overtired at @ovrtrd on Twitter. Transcript AI Agents and Political Chaos Introduction and Host Updates Christina: [00:00:00] Welcome back. You’re listening to Overtired. I’m Christina Warren. Joined as always by Brett Terpstra. Jeff Severns. Guntzel could not be with us this week, um, but uh, but Brett and I are here. So Brett, how are you? How’s the cold? Brett: The cold. Brett’s Water Crisis Brett: So I’m going on day four without running water. Um, I drove to my parents last night to shower and we’re, we’re driving loads of dishes to friends’ house to wash them. We have big buckets of melted snow in our bathtub that we use to flush the Toyland. Um, and we have like big jugs with a spout on them for drinking water. So we’re surviving, but it is highly inconvenient. Um, and we don’t know yet if it’s a frozen pipe. Or if we have [00:01:00] a bad pump on our, well, uh, hopefully we’ll find that out today. But no guarantees because all the plumbers are very busy right now with negative 30 degree weather. They tend to get a lot of calls, lots of stuff happens. Um, so yeah, but I’m, I’m staying warm. I got a fireplace, I got my heat’s working Christina: I mean, that’s the important thing. Brett: and that went out, that went out twice, in, twice already. This winter, our heat has gone out, um, which I’m thankful. We, we finally, we added glycol to our, so our heat pumps water through, like, it’s not radiators, it’s like baseboard heat, but it, it uses water and. Um, and though we were getting like frozen spots, not burst pipes, just enough that the water wouldn’t go through fast enough to heat anything. So we added glycol to that [00:02:00] system to bring the freeze point down to like zero degrees. So it’s not perfect, but we also hardwired the pump so that it always circulates water, um, even when the heat’s not running. So hopefully it’ll never freeze again. That’s the goal. Um, and if we replace the well pump, that should be good for another 20 years. So hopefully after this things will be smoother. Political Climate and Media Suppression Brett: Um, yeah, but that, that’s all in addition to, you know, my state being occupied by federal agents and even in my small town, we’ve got people being like, abducted. Things are escalating quickly at this point, and a lot of it doesn’t get talked about on mainstream media. Um, but yeah, things, I don’t know, man. I think we’re making progress because, um, apparently Binos [00:03:00] getting retired Christina: I was going to say, I, I, I, I heard, I heard that, and I don’t know if that’s good or if that’s bad. Um, I can’t, I can’t tell. Brett: it’s, it’s like, it’s like if Trump died, we wouldn’t know if that was good or bad because JD Vance as president, like maybe things get way worse. Who knows? Uh, none of these, none of these actual figureheads are the solution. Removing them isn’t the solution to removing the kinda maga philosophy behind it. But yeah, and that’s also Jeff is, you know, highly involved and I, I won’t, I won’t talk about that for him. I hope we can get him monsoon to talk about that. Christina: No, me, me, me too. Because I’ve, I’ve been thinking about, about him and about you and about your whole area, your communities, you know, from several thousand miles away. Like all, all we, all we see is either what people post online, which of course now is being suppressed. [00:04:00] Uh, thanks a lot. You know, like, like the, oh, TikTok was gonna be so terrible. Chi the, the Chinese are gonna take over our, uh, our algorithms. Right? No, Larry Ellison is, is actually going to completely, you know, fuck up the algorithms, um, and, and suppress anything. I, yeah. Yeah. They’re, they’re Brett: is TikTok? Well, ’cause Victor was telling me that, they were seeing videos. Uh, you would see one frame of the video and then it would black out. And it all seemed to be videos that were negative towards the administration and we weren’t sure. Is this a glitch? Is this coincidence? Christina: well, they claim it’s a glitch, but I don’t believe it. Brett: Yeah, it seems, it seems Christina: I, I mean, I mean, I mean, the thing is like, maybe it is, maybe it is a glitch and we’re overreacting. I don’t know. Um, all I know is that they’ve given us absolutely zero reason to trust them, and so I don’t, and so, um, uh, apparently the, the state of California, this is, [00:05:00] so we are recording this on Tuesday morning. Apparently the state of California has said that they are going to look into whether things are being, you know, suppressed or not, and if that’s violating California law, um, because now that, that, that TikTok is, is controlled by an American entity, um, even if it is, you know, owned by like a, you know, uh, evil, uh, billionaire, you know, uh, crony sto fuck you, Larry Ellison. Um, uh, I guess that means we won’t be getting an Oracle sponsorship. Sorry. Um, uh, Brett: take it anyway. Christina: I, I know you wouldn’t, I know you wouldn’t. That’s why I felt safe saying that. Um, but, uh, but even if, if, if that were the case, like I, you know, but apparently like now that it is like a, you know, kind of, you know, state based like US thing, like California could step in and potentially make things difficult for them. I mean, I think that’s probably a lot of bluster on Newsom’s part. I don’t think that he could really, honestly achieve any sort of change if they are doing things to the algorithm. Brett: Yeah. Uh, [00:06:00] if, if laws even matter anymore, it would be something that got tied up in court for a long time Christina: Right. Which effectively wouldn’t matter. Right. And, and then that opens up a lot of other interesting, um, things about like, okay, well, you know, should we, like what, what is the role? Like even for algorithmically determined things of the government to even step in or whatever, right now, obviously does, I think, become like more of a speech issue if it’s government speech that’s being suppressed, but regardless, it, it is just, it’s bad. So I’ve been, I’ve been thinking about you, I’ve been thinking about Jeff. Police Violence and Public Response Christina: Um, you know, we all saw what happened over the weekend and, and, you know, people be, people are being murdered in the streets and I mean that, that, that’s what’s happening. And, Brett: white people no less, Christina: Right. Well, I mean, that’s the thing, right? Like, is that like, but, but, but they keep moving the bar. They, they keep moving the goalpost, right? So first it’s a white woman and, oh, she, she was, she was running over. The, the officer [00:07:00] or the ice guy, and it’s like, no, she wasn’t, but, but, but that, that’s immediately where they go and, and she’s, you know, radical whatever and, and, and a terrorist and this and that. Okay. Then you have a literal veterans affair nurse, right? Like somebody who literally, like, you know, has, has worked with, with, with combat veterans and has done those things. Who, um, is stepping in to help someone who’s being pepper sprayed, you know, is, is just observing. And because he happens to have, um, a, a, a, a gun on him legally, which he’s allowed to do, um, they immediately used that as cover to execute him. But if he hadn’t had the gun, they would’ve, they would’ve come up with something else. Oh, we thought he had a gun, and they, you know what I mean? So like, they, they got lucky with that one because they removed the method, the, the, the weapon and then shot him 10 times. You know, they literally executed him in the street. But if he hadn’t had a gun, they still would’ve executed. Brett: Yeah, no, for sure. Um, it’s really frustrating that [00:08:00] they took the gun away. So he was disarmed and, and immobilized and then they shot him. Um, like so that’s just a straight up execution. And then to bring, like, to say that it, he, because he had a gun, he was dangerous, is such a, an affront to America has spent so long fighting against gun control and saying that we had the right to carry fucking assault rifles in the Christina: Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle Rittenhouse was literally acquitted. Right? Brett: Yeah. And he killed people. Christina: and, and he killed people. He was literally walking around little fucking stogey, you know, little blubbering little bitch, like, you know, crying, you know, he’s like carrying around like Rambo a gun and literally snipe shooting people. That’s okay. Brett: They defended Christina: if you have a. They defended him. Of course they did. Right? Of course they did. Oh, well he has the right to carry and this and that, and Oh, you should be able to be armed in [00:09:00] these places. Oh, no, but, but if you’re, um, somebody that we don’t like Brett: Yeah, Christina: and you have a concealed carry permit, and I don’t even know if he was really concealed. Right. Because I think that if you have it on your holster, I don’t even think that counts as concealed to Brett: was supposedly in Christina: I, I, I don’t, I don’t, I don’t. Brett: like it Christina: Which I don’t think counts as concealed. I think. Brett: No. Christina: Right, right. So, so, so, so, so that, that, that wouldn’t be concealed. Be because you have someone in, in that situation, then all of a sudden, oh, no. Now, now the, the key, the goalpost, okay, well, it’s fine if it’s, you know, uh, police we don’t like, or, or other people. And, and, and if you’re going after protesters, then you can shoot and kill whoever you want, um, because you’ve perceived a threat and you can take actions into your, to your own hands. Um, but now if you are even a white person, um, even, you know, someone who’s, who’s worked in Veterans Affairs, whatever, if, if you have, uh, even if you’re like a, a, a, you know, a, a gun owner and, and have permits, um, now [00:10:00] if we don’t like you and you are anywhere in the vicinity of anybody associated with law enforcement, now they have the right to shoot you dead. Like that’s, that’s, that’s the argument, which is insanity. Brett: so I’m, I’m just gonna point out that as the third right came to power, they disarmed the Jews and they disarmed the anarchists and the socialists and they armed the rest of the population and it became, um, gun control for people they didn’t like. Um, and this is, it’s just straight up the same playbook. There’s no, there’s no differentiation anymore. Christina: No, it, it, it actively makes me angry that, um, I, I could be, because, ’cause what can we do? And, and what they’re counting on is the fact that we’re all tired and we’re all kind of, you know, like just, [00:11:00] you know, from, from what happened, you know, six years ago and, and, and what happened, you know, five years ago. Um, and, and, and various things. I think a lot of people are, are just. It kind of like Brett: Sure. Christina: done with, with, with being able to, to, to, right. But now the actual fascism is here, right? Like, like we, we, we saw a, a, you know, a whiff of this on, on, on January 6th, but now it’s actual fascism and they control every branch of government. Brett: Yeah. Christina: And, um, and, and, and I, and I don’t know what we’re supposed to do, right? Like, I mean it, because I mean, you know, uh, Philadelphia is, is, is begging for, for, for them to come. And I think that would be an interesting kind of standoff. Seattle is this, this is what a friend of mine said was like, you know, you know Philadelphia, Filch Philadelphia is begging them to come. Seattle is like scared. Um, that, that they’re going to come, um, because honestly, like we’re a bunch of little bitch babies and, um, [00:12:00] people think they’re like, oh, you know the WTO. I’m like, yeah, that was, that was 27 years ago. Um, uh, I, I don’t think that Seattle has the juice to hold that sort of line again. Um, but I also don’t wanna find out, right? Like, but, but, but this is, this is the attack thing. It’s like, okay, why are they in Minnesota? Right? They’re what, like 130,000, um, Brett: exactly Christina: um, immigrants in, in Minnesota. There are, there are however many million in Texas, however many million in Florida. We know exactly why, right? This isn’t about. Anything more than Brett: in any way. Christina: and opt. Right, right. It has nothing, it has nothing to do with, with, with immigration anyway. I mean, even, even the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal who a, you know, ran an op-ed basically saying get out of Minnesota. They also, they also had like a, you know, a news story, which was not from the opinion board, which like broke down the, the, the footage showing, you know, that like the, the video footage doesn’t match the administration’s claims, but they also ran a story. Um, that [00:13:00] basically did the math, I guess, on like the number of, of criminals, um, or people with criminal records who have been deported. And at this point, like in, you know, and, and when things started out, like, I guess when the raid started out, the, the majority of the people that they were kind of going after were people who had criminal records. Now, whether they were really violent, the worst, the worst, I mean that’s, I’m, I’m not gonna get into that, but you could at least say like, they, they could at least say, oh, well these were people who had criminal records, whatever. Now some, some huge percentage, I think it’s close to 80% don’t have anything. And many of the people that do the, the criminal like thing that they would hold would be, you know, some sort of visa violation. Right. So it’s, it’s, it’s Brett: they deported a five-year-old kid after using him as bait to try to get the rest of his family. Christina: as bait. Brett: Yeah. And like it’s, it’s pretty deplorable. But I will say I am proud of Minnesota. Um, they have not backed [00:14:00] down. They have stood up in the face of increasing increasingly escalated attacks, and they have shown up in force thousands of people out in the streets. Like Conti, like last night they had a, um, well, yeah, I mean, it’s been ongoing, but, uh, what’s his name? Preddy Alex. Um, at the place where he was shot, they had a, like continuing kind of memorial protest, I guess, and there’s footage of like a thousand, a thousand mins surrounding about 50, um, ICE agents and. Like basically corralling them to the point where they were all backed into a corner and weren’t moving. And I don’t know what happened after that. Um, but thus far it hasn’t been violent on the part of protesters. It’s been very violent on the part of ice. I [00:15:00] personally, I don’t know where I stand on, like, I feel like the Democrats are urging pacifism because it affects their hold on power. And I don’t necessarily think that peace when they’re murdering us in the street. I don’t know if peace is the right response, but I don’t know. I’m not openly declaring that I support violence at this point, but. At the same time, do I not? I’m not sure. Like I keep going back and forth on is it time for a war or do we try to vote our way out of this? Christina: I mean, well, and the scary thing about voting our way out of this is will we even be able to have free elections, right? Be because they’re using any sort of anything, even the most benign sort of legal [00:16:00] protest, even if violence isn’t involved in all of a sudden, talks of the Insurrection Act come Brett: yeah. And Trump, Trump offered to pull out of Minnesota if Minnesota will turn over its voter database to the federal government. Like that’s just blatant, like that’s obviously the end goal is suppression. Christina: Right, right. And, and so to your point, I don’t know. Right. And I’m, I’m never somebody who would wanna advocate outwardly for violence, but I, I, I, I, I don’t know. I mean, they’re killing citizens in the streets. They’re assassinating people in cold blood. They’re executing people, right. That’s what they’re doing. They’re literally executing people in the streets and then covering it up in real time. Brett: if the argument is, if we are violent, it will cause them to kill us. They’re already killing Christina: already doing it. Right. So at, at this point, I mean, like, you know, I mean, like, w to your point, wars have been started for, for, for less, or for the exact same things. Brett: [00:17:00] Yeah. Christina: So, I don’t know. I don’t know. Um, I know that that’s a depressing way to probably do mental health corner and whatnot, but this is what’s happening in our world right now and in and in your community, and it’s, it’s terrifying. Brett: I’m going to link in the show notes an article from Crime Think that was written by, uh, people in Germany who have studied, um, both historical fascism and the current rise of the A FD, which will soon be the most powerful party in Germany, um, which is straight up a Nazi party. Um, and it, they offered, like their hope right now lies in America stopping fascism. Christina: Yeah. Brett: Like if we can, if we can stop fascism, then they believe the rest of Europe can stop fascism. Um, but like they, it, it’s a good article. It kind of, it kind of broaches the same questions I do about like, is it [00:18:00] time for violence? And they offer, like, we don’t, we’re not advocating for a civil war, but like Civil wars might. If you, if you, if you broach them as revolutions, it’s kind of, they’re kind of the same thing in cases like this. So anyway, I’ll, I’ll link that for anyone who wants to read kinda what’s going on in my head. I’m making a note to dig that up. I, uh, I love Crime Fake Oh and Blue Sky. Social Media and Surveillance Brett: Um, so I have not, up until very recently been an avid Blue Sky user. Um, I think I have like, I think I have maybe like 200 followers there and I follow like 50 people. But I’ve been expanding that and I am getting a ton of my news from Blue Sky and like to get stories from people on the ground, like news as it happens, unfiltered and Blue Sky has been [00:19:00] really good for that. Um, I, it’s. There’s not like an algorithm. I just get my stuff and like Macedon, I have a much larger following and I follow a lot more people, but it’s very tech, Christina: It’s very tech and, Brett: there for. Christina: well, and, and MAs on, um, understandably too is also European, um, in a lot of regards. And so it’s just, it’s not. Gonna have the same amount of, of people who are gonna be able to, at least for instances like this, like be on the ground and doing real-time stuff. It’s not, it doesn’t have like the more normy stuff. So, no, that makes sense. Um, no, that’s great. I think, yeah, blue Sky’s been been really good for, for these sorts of real-time events because again, they don’t have an algorithm. Like you can have one, like for a personalized kind of like for you feed or whatever, but in terms of what you see, you know, you see it naturally. You’re not seeing it being adjusted by anything, which can be good and bad. I, I think is good because nothing’s suppressing things and you see things in real time. It can be bad because sometimes you miss things, but I think on the whole, it’s better. [00:20:00] The only thing I will say, just to anyone listening and, and just to spread onto, you know, people in your communities too, from what I’ve observed from others, like, it does seem like the, the government and other sorts of, you know, uh, uh, the, you know, bodies like that are finally starting to pay more attention to blue sky in terms of monitoring things. And so that’s not to say don’t. You know, use it at all. But the same way, you don’t make threats on Twitter if you don’t want the Feds to show up at your house. Don’t make threats on Blue Sky, because it’s not just a little microcosm where, you know, no one will see it. People are, it, it’s still small, but it’s, it’s getting bigger to the point that like when people look at like where some of the, the, the fire hose, you know, things observable things are there, there seem to be more and more of them located in the Washington DC area, which could just be because data centers are there, who knows? But I’ve also just seen anecdotally, like people who have had, like other instances, it’s like, don’t, don’t think [00:21:00] that like, oh, okay, well, you know, no one’s monitoring this. Um, of course people are so just don’t be dumb, don’t, don’t say things that could potentially get you in trouble. Um. Brett: a political candidate in Florida. Um, had the cops show up at her house and read her one of her Facebook posts. I mean, this was local. This was local cops, but still, yeah, you Christina: right. Well, yeah, that’s the thing, right? No, totally. And, and my, my only point with that is we’ve known that they do that for Facebook and for, for, you know, Twitter and, and, uh, you know, Instagram and things like that, but they, but Blue Sky, like, I don’t know if it’s on background checks yet, but it, uh, like for, uh, for jobs and things like that, I, I, I don’t know if that’s happening, but it definitely is at that point where, um, I know that people are starting to monitor those things. So just, you know, uh, not even saying for you per se, but just for anybody out there, like, it’s awesome and I’m so glad that like, that’s where people can get information out, but don’t be like [00:22:00] lulled into this false sense of security. Like, oh, well they’re not gonna monitor this. They’re not Brett: Nobody’s watching me here. Christina: It is like, no, they are, they are. Um, so especially as it becomes, you know, more prominent. So I’m, I’m glad that that’s. That’s an option there too. Um, okay. Sponsor Break: Copilot Money Christina: This is like the worst possible segue ever, but should we go ahead and segue to our, our, our sponsor break? Brett: Let’s do it. Let’s, let’s talk about capitalism. Christina: All right. This episode is brought to you by copilot money. Copilot money is not just another finance app. It’s your personal finance partner designed to help you feel clear, calm, and in control of your money. Whether it’s tracking your spending, saving for specific goals, or simply getting the handle on your investments. Copilot money has you covered as we enter the new year. Clarity and control over our finances has never been more important with the recent shutdown of Mint and rising financial stress, for many consumers are looking for a modern, trustworthy tool to help navigate their financial journeys. That’s where copilot money comes in. [00:23:00] With this beautifully designed app, you can see all your bank accounts, spending, savings and goals and investments all in one place. Imagine easily tracking everything without the clutter of chaotic spreadsheets or outdated tools. It’s a practical way to start 2026 with a fresh financial outlook. And here’s the exciting part. As of December 15th, copilot money is now available on the web so you can manage your finances on any device that you choose. Plus, it offers a seamless experience that keeps your data secure with a privacy first approach, when you sign up using our link, you’ll get two months for free. So visit, try. Copilot money slash Overtired to get started with features like automatic subscription tracking so you never miss a renewal date and customizable savings goals to help you stay on track. Copilot money empowers you to take charge of your financial life with confidence. So why wait Start 2026 with clarity and purpose. Download copilot money on your devices or visit. Try copilot money slash [00:24:00] overti today to claim you’re two months free and embrace a more organized, stress-free approach to your finances. Try copilot.money/ Overtired. Brett: Awesome that I appreciate this segue. ’cause we, we, we could, we could be talking about other things. Um, like it’s, it feels so weird, like when I go on social media and I just want to post that like my water’s out. It feels out of place right now because there’s everything that’s going on feels so much more important than, Christina: Right. Brett: than anything else. Um, but there’s still a place for living our lives, um, Christina: there are a absolutely. I mean, and, and, and in a certain extent, like not to, I mean, maybe this is a little bit of a cope, but it’s like, if all we do is focus on the things that we can’t control at the expense of everything else, it’s like then they win. You know? Like, which, which isn’t, which, which isn’t even to [00:25:00] say, like, don’t talk about what’s happening. Don’t try to help, don’t try to speak out and, and, um, and do what we can do, but also. Like as individuals, there’s very little we can control about things. And being completely, you know, subsumed by that is, is not necessarily good either. Um, so yeah, there’s, there, there are other things going on and it’s important for us to get out of our heads. It’s important, especially for you, you know, being in the region, I think to be able to, to focus on other things and, and hopefully your water will be back soon. ’cause that sucks like that. I’ve been, I’ve been worried about you. I’m glad that you have heat. I’m glad you have internet. I’m glad you have power, but you know, the pipes being frozen and all that stuff is like, not Brett: it, the, the internet has also been down for up to six hours at a time. I don’t know why. There’s like an amplifier down on our street. Um, and that has sucked because I, out here, I live in a, I’m not gonna call it rural. Uh, we’re like five minutes from town, [00:26:00] but, um, we, we don’t. We have shitty internet. Like I pay for a gigabit and I get 500 megabits and it’s, and it’s up and down all the time and I hate it. But anyway. Tech Talk: Gas Town and AI Agents Brett: Let’s talk about, uh, let’s talk about Gas Town. What can you tell me about Gastown? Christina: Okay. So we’ve talked a lot about like AI agents and, um, kind of like, uh, coding, um, loops and, and things like that. And so Gastown, uh, which is available, um, at, I, it is not Gas Town. Let me find the URL, um, one second. It’s, it’s at a gas town. No, it’s not. Lemme find it. Um. Right. So this is a thing that, that Steve Yy, uh, has created, and [00:27:00] it is a multi-agent workspace manager. And so the idea is basically that you can be running like a lot of instances of, um, of, of Claude Code or, um, I guess you could use Codex. You could use, uh, uh, uh, co-pilot, um, SDK or CLI agent and whatnot. Um, and basically what it’s designed to do is to basically let you coordinate like multiple coding agents at one time so they can all be working on different tasks, but then instead of having, um, like the context get lost when agents restart, it creates like a, a persistent, um, like. Work state, which it uses with, with git on the backend, which is supposed to basically enable more multi-agent workflows. So, um, basically the idea would be like, you get, have multiple agents working at once, kind of talking to one another, handing things off, you know, each doing their own task and then coordinating the work with what the other ones are doing. But then you have like a persistent, um, uh, I guess kind of like, you know, layer in the backend so that if an agent has to restart or whatever, it’s not gonna lose the, [00:28:00] the context, um, that that’s happening. And you don’t have to manually, um, worry about things like, okay, you know, I’ve lost certain things in memory and, and I’ve, you know, don’t know how I’m, I’m managing all these things together. Um, there, there’s another project, uh, called Ralph, which is kind of based on this, this concept of like, what of Ralph Wickham was, you know, coding or, or was doing kind of a loop. And, and it’s, it’s, it’s a, it’s kind of a similar idea. Um, there’s also. Brett: my nose wouldn’t bleed so much if I just kept my finger out of there. Christina: Exactly, exactly. My cat’s breath smells like cat food. Um, and um, and so. Like there are ideas of like Ralph Loops and Gastown. And so these are a couple of like projects, um, that have really started to, uh, take over. So like, uh, Ralph is more of an autonomous AI agent loop that basically like it runs like over and over and over again until, uh, a task is done. Um, and, and a lot of people use, use Gastown and, [00:29:00] and, and Ralph together. Um, but yeah, no Ga gastown is is pretty cool. Um, we’ll we’re gonna talk about it more ’cause it’s my pick of the week. We’ll talk about Molt bot previously known as Claude Bot, which is, uses some, some similar ideas. But it’s really been interesting to see like how, like the, the multi-agent workflow, and by multi-agent, I mean like, people are running like 20 or 30 of them, you know, at a time. So it’s more than that, um, is really starting to become a thing that people can, uh, can do. Um, Brett: gets expensive though. Christina: I was, I was just about to say that’s the one thing, right? Most people who are using things like Gastown. Are using them with the Claude, um, code Max plans, which is $200 a month. And those plans do give you more value than like, what the, what it would be if you spent $200 in API credits, uh, but $200 a month. Like that’s not an expensive, that’s, you know, that, that’s, that, that, like, you know what I mean? Like, like that, that, that, that, that, that’s a lot of money to spend on these sorts of things. Um, but people [00:30:00] are getting good results out of it. It’s pretty cool. Um. There have been some open models, which of course, most people don’t have equipment that would be fast enough for them to, to run, uh, to be able to kind of do what they would want, um, reliably. But the, the AgTech stuff coming to some of the open models is better. And so if these things can continue, of course now we’re in a ram crisis and storage crisis and everything else, so who knows when the hardware will get good enough again, and we can, when we as consumers can even reasonably get things ourselves. But, but in, in theory, you know, if, if these sorts of things continue, I could see like a, a world where like, you know, some of the WAN models and some of the other things, uh, potentially, um, or Quinn models rather, um, could, uh. Be things that you could conceivably, like be running on your own equipment to run these sorts of nonstop ag agentic loops. But yeah, right now, like it’s really freaking cool and I’ve played around with it because I’m fortunate enough to have access to a lot of tokens. [00:31:00] Um, but yeah, I can get expensive real, real fast. Uh, but, but it’s still, it’s still pretty awesome. Brett: I do appreciate that. So, guest Town, the name is a reference to Mad Max and in the kind of, uh, vernacular that they built for things like background agents and I, uh, there’s a whole bunch, there are different levels of, of the interface that they kind of extrapolated on the gas town kind of metaphor for. Uh, I, it was, it, it, there were some interesting naming conventions and then they totally went in other directions with some of the names. It, they didn’t keep the theme very well, but, but still, uh, I appreciate Ralph Wig and Mad Max. That’s. It’s at the very least, it’s interesting. Christina: No, it definitely is. It definitely is. Crypto Controversies Christina: I will say that there’s been like a little bit [00:32:00] of a kerfuffle, uh, involved in both of those, uh, developers because, um, they’re both now promoting shit coins and, uh, and so that’s sort of an interesting thing. Um, basically there’s like this, this, this crypto company called bags that I guess apparently like if people want to, they will create crypto coins for popular open source projects, and then they will designate someone to, I guess get the, the gas fees, um, in, um, uh, a Solana parlance, uh, no pun intended, with the gas town, um, where basically like that’s, you know, like the, the, the fees that you spend to have the transaction work off of the blockchain, right? Like, especially if there’s. A lot of times that it would take, like, you pay a certain percentage of something and like those fees could be designated to an individual. And, um, in this case, like both of these guys were reached out to when basically they were like, Hey, this coin exists. You’ve got all this money just kind of sitting in a crypto wallet waiting for you. [00:33:00] Take the money, get, get the, the transaction fees, so to speak. And, uh, I mean, I think that, that, that’s, if you wanna take that money right, it’s, it’s there for you. I’m not gonna certainly judge anyone for that. What I will judge you for is if you then promote your shit coin to your community and basically kind of encourage everyone. To kind of buy into it. Maybe you put in the caveat, oh, this isn’t financial advice. Oh, this is all just for whatever. But, but you’re trying to do that and then you go one step beyond, which I think is actually pretty dumb, which is to be like, okay, well, ’cause like, here’s the thing, I’m not gonna judge anyone. If someone who’s like, Hey, here’s a wallet that we’re gonna give you, and it has real cash in it, and you can do whatever you want with it, and these are the transaction fees, so to speak, like, you know, the gas fees, whatever, you know what you do. You, even if you wanna let your audience know that you’ve done that, and maybe you’re promoting that, maybe some people will buy into it, like, people are adults. Fine. Where, where I do like side eye a little bit is if you are, then for whatever reason [00:34:00] going to be like, oh, I’m gonna take my fees and I’m gonna reinvest it in the coin. Like, okay, you are literally sitting on top of the pyramid, like you could not be in a better position and now you’re, but right. And now you’re literally like paying into the pyramid scheme. It’s like, this is not going to work well for you. These are rug bulls. Um, and so like the, the, the, the gas town coin like dropped like massively. The Ralph coin like dropped massively, like after the, the, the Ralph creator, I think he took out like 300 K or something and people, or, you know, sold like 300 K worth of coins. And people were like, oh, he’s pulling a rug pull. And I’m like, well, A, what did you expect? But B it’s like, this is why don’t, like, if someone’s gonna give you free money from something that’s, you know, kind of scammy, like, I’m not saying don’t take the money. I am saying maybe be smart enough to not to reinvest it into the scam. Brett: Yeah. Christina: Like, I don’t know. Anyway, that’s the only thing I will mention on that. ’cause I don’t think that that takes [00:35:00] anything away from either of those projects or it says that you shouldn’t use or play around with it either of those ideas at all. But that is just a thing that’s happened in the last couple of weeks too, where it’s like, oh, and now there’s like crypto, you know, the crypto people are trying to get kind of involved with these projects and, um, I, I think that that’s, uh, okay. You know, um, like I said, I’m, I’m not gonna judge anybody for taking free money that, that somebody is gonna offer them. I will judge you if you’re gonna try to then, you know, try to like, promote that to your audience and try to be like, oh, this is a great way where we, where you can help me and we can all get rich. It’s like, no, there are, if you really wanna support creators, like there are things like GitHub sponsors and there are like other methods that you can, you can do that, that don’t involve making financial risks on shit coins. Brett: I wish anything I made could be popular enough that I could do something that’s stupid. Yeah. Like [00:36:00] I, I, I, I’m not gonna pull a rug pull on anyone, but the chances that I’ll ever make $300,000 on anything I’m working on, it’s pretty slim. Christina: Yeah, but at the same time, like if you, if you did, if you were in that position, like, I don’t know, I mean, I guess that’d be a thing that you would have to kind of figure out, um, yourself would be like, okay, I have access to this amount of money. Am I going to try to, you know, go all in and, and maybe go full grift to get even more? Some, something tells me that like your own personal ethics would probably preclude you from that. Brett: I, um, I have spent, what, um, how old am I? 47. I, I’ve been, since I started blogging in like 1999, 2000, um, I have always adhered to a very strict code and like turning down sponsors. I didn’t agree with [00:37:00] not doing anything that would be shady. Not taking, not, not taking money from anyone I was writing about. Ethics in Journalism and Personal Dilemmas Brett: Like, it’s been, it’s a pain in the ass to try to be truly ethical, but I feel like I’ve done it for 30 some years and, and I don’t know, I wouldn’t change it. I’m not rich. I’ll never be rich. But yeah, I think ethics are important, especially if you’re in any kind of journalism. Christina: Yeah, if you’re in any sort of journalism. I think so, and I think like how people wanna define those things, I think it’s up to them. And, and like I said, like I’m not gonna even necessarily like, like judge people like for, because I, I don’t know personally like what my situation would be like. Like if somebody was like, Christina, here’s a wallet that has the equivalent of $300,000 in it and it’s just sitting here and we’re not even asking you to do anything with this. I would probably take the money. I’m not gonna lie, I don’t, I don’t, I don’t [00:38:00] know if I would promote it or anything and I maybe I would feel compelled to disclose, Hey, Brett: That is Christina: wallet belongs to me. Brett: money though. Christina: I, I, right. I, I, I might, I might be, I might feel compelled to com to, to disclose, Hey, someone created this coin in this thing. They created the foam grow coin and they are giving me, you know, the, the, the gas fees and I have accepted Brett: could be, I’d feel like you could do it if you were transparent enough about it. Christina: Yeah, I mean, I, I, I think where I draw the line is when you then go from like, because again, it’s fine if you wanna take it. It’s then when you are a. Reinvesting the free money into the coin, which I think is just idiotic. Like, I think that’s just actually dumb. Um, like I just, I just do like, that just seems like you are literally, like I said, you’re at the top of the pyramid and you’re literally like volunteering to get into the bottom again. Um, and, or, or b like if you do that and then you try to rationalize in some way, oh, well, you know, I think [00:39:00] that this could be a great thing for everybody to, you know, I get rich, you know, you could get rich, we could all get money out of this because this is the future of, you know, creator economy or whatever. It’s like, no, it’s not. This is gambling. Um, and, and, and, and you could make the argument to me, and I’d probably be persuaded to be like, this isn’t that different from poly market or any of the other sorts of things. But you know what? I don’t do those things either. And I wouldn’t promote those things to any audience that I had either. Um, but if somebody wanted to give me free money. I probably wouldn’t turn it down. I’m not gonna pretend that my ethics are, are that strong. Uh, I just don’t know if I would, if I would, uh, go on the other end and be like, okay, to the Moom, everyone let, let’s all go in on the crypto stuff. It’s like, okay, The Future of Open Source and Cryptocurrency Brett: So is this the future of open source is, ’cause I mean like open source has survived for decades as like a concept and it’s never been terribly profitable. But a [00:40:00] lot of large companies have invested in open source, and I guess at this point, like most of the big open source projects are either run by a corporation or by a foundation. Um, that are independently financed, but for a project like Gastown, like is it the future? Is this, is this something people are gonna start doing to like, kind of make open source profitable? Christina: I mean, maybe, I don’t know. I think the problem though is that it’s not necessarily predictable, right? And, and not to say that like normal donations or, or support methods are predictable, but at least that could be a thing where you’re like, they’re not, but, but, but it’s not volatile to the extent where you’re like, okay, I’m basing, you know, like my income based on how well this shit coin that someone else controls the supply of someone else, you know, uh, uh, created someone else, you know, burned, so to speak, somebody else’s is going to be, uh, [00:41:00] controlling and, and has other things and could be responsible for, you know, big seismic like market movements like that I think is very different, um, than anything else. And so, I don’t know. I mean, I, I think that they, what I do expect that we’ll see more of is more and more popular projects, things that go viral, especially around ai. Probably being approached or people like proactively creating coins around those things. And there have been some, um, developers who’ve already, you know, stood up oddly and been like, if you see anybody trying to create a coin around this, it is not associated with me. I won’t be associated with any of it. I won’t do it. Right. Uh, and I think that becomes a problem where you’re like, okay, if these things do become popular, then that becomes like another risk if you don’t wanna be involved in it. If you’re involved with a, with a popular project, right? Like the, like the, like the creator of MPM Isaac, like, I think there’s like an MPM coin now, and that, that he’s, you know, like involved in and it’s like, you know, again, he didn’t create it, but he is happy to promote it. He’s happy to take the money. I’m like, look, I’m happy for [00:42:00] Isaac to get money from NPMI am at the same time, you know, bun, which is basically like, you know, the, you know, replacement for, for Node and NPM in a lot of ways, they sold to Anthropic for. I guarantee you a fuck load more money than whatever Isaac is gonna make off of some MPM shitcoin. So, so like, it, it’s all a lottery and it’s not sustainable. But I also feel like for a lot of open source projects, and this isn’t like me saying that the people shouldn’t get paid for the work, quite the contrary. But I think if you go into it with the expectation of I’m going to be able to make a sustainable living off of something, like when you start a project, I think that that is not necessarily going to set you up for, I think that those expectations are misaligned with what reality might be, which again, isn’t to say that you shouldn’t get paid for your work, it’s just that the reason that we give back and the reason we contribute open source is to try to be part of like the, the greater good and to make things more available to everyone. Not to be [00:43:00] like, oh, I can, you know, quit my job. Like, that would be wonderful. I, I wish that more and more people could do that. And I give to a lot of, um, open source projects on, on a monthly basis or on an annual basis. Um, Brett: I, I give basically all the money that’s given to me for my open source projects I distribute among other open source projects. So it’s a, it’s a, it’s a wash for me, but yeah, I am, I, I pay, you know, five, 10 bucks a month to 20 different projects and yeah. Christina: Yeah. I mean, I think it’s important, but, but I, I don’t know. I, I, I hope that it’s not the future. I’m not mad, I think like if that’s a way where people can make, you know, a, a, an income. But I do, I guess worry the sense that like, if, if, if, I don’t want that to be, the reason why somebody would start an open source project is because they’re like, oh, I, I can get rich on a crypto thing. Right? Like, ’cause that that’s the exact wrong Brett: that’s not open source. That’s not the open source philosophy. Christina: no, [00:44:00] it’s not. And, and so, I mean, but I think, I think if it already exists, I mean, I don’t know. I, I also feel like no one should feel obligated. This should go without saying that. If you see a project that you like that is involved in one of those coins. Do you have a zero obligation to be, uh, supportive of that in any way? And in fact, it is probably in your financial best interest to not be involved. Um, it, it is your life, your money, your, you do whatever you want, gamble, however you want. But, uh, I, I, I, I do, I guess I, I bristle a little bit. Like if people try to portray it like, oh, well this is how you can support me by like buying into this thing. I’m like, okay, that’s alright. Like, I, I, if you wanna, again, like I said, if you wanna play poly market with this, fine, but don’t, don’t try to wrap that around like, oh, well this is how you can give back. It’s like, no, you can give back in other ways. Like you can do direct donations, you can do other stuff. Like I would, I would much rather encourage people to be like, rather than putting a hundred dollars in Ralph Coin, [00:45:00] give a hundred dollars to the Ralph Guy directly. Apex 1.0? Brett: So, speaking of unprofitable open source, I have Apex almost to 1.0. Um, it officially handles, I think, all of the syntax that I had hoped it would handle. Um, it does like crazy things, uh, that it’s all built on common mark, GFM, uh, like cmar, GFM, GitHub’s project. Um, so it, it does all of that. Plus it handles stuff from like M mark with like indices. Indices, and it incorporates, uh. Uh, oh, I forget the name of it. Like two different ways of creating indices. It handles all kinds of bibliography syntax, like every known bibliography syntax. Um, I just added, you can, you can create insert tags with plus, plus, uh, the same way you would create a deletion with, uh, til detail. Um, and [00:46:00] I’ve added a full plugin structure, and the plugins now can be project local. So you can have global plugins. And then if you have specific settings, so like I have a, I, my blogs are all based on cramdown and like the bunch documentation is based on cramdown, but then like the mark documentation. And most of my writing is based on multi markdown and they have different. Like the, for example, the IDs that go on headers in multi markdown. If it’s, if it has a space in multi markdown, it gets compressed to no space in common Mark or GFM, it gets a dash instead of a space, which means if I have cross links, cross references in my document, if I don’t have the right header syntax, the cross reference will break. So now I can put a, a config into like my bunch documentation that tells Apex to use, [00:47:00] um, the dash syntax. And in my Mark documentation, I can tell it to use the multi markdown syntax. And then I can just run Apex with no command line arguments and everything works. And I don’t know, I, I haven’t gotten adoption for it. Like the one place I thought it could be really useful was DEVONthink, Christina: Mm-hmm. Brett: which has always been based on multi markdown, which. Um, is I love multi markdown and I love Fletcher and, um, it’s just, it’s missing a lot of what I would consider modern syntax. Christina: Right. Brett: so I, I offered it to Devin think, and it turned out they were working on their own project along the same lines at the same time. Um, but I’m hoping to find some, some apps that will incorporate it and maybe get it some traction. It’s solid, it’s fast, it’s not as fast as common Mark, but it does twice as much. Um, like the [00:48:00] benchmarks, it a complex document renders in common mark in about. Uh, 27 milliseconds, and in Apex it’s more like 46 milliseconds. But in the grand scheme of things, I could render my whole blog 10 times faster than I can with cramm down or Panoc and yeah, and, and I can use all the syntax I want. Challenges and Innovations in Markdown Processing Brett: Did I tell you about, did I tell you about, uh, Panoc Divs? The div extension, um, like you can in with the panoc D extension, you can put colon, colon, colon instead of like back, take, back, take backtick. So normally, like back ticks would create a code block with colons, it creates a div, and you can apply, you can apply inline attribute lists after the colons to make, to give it a class and an ID and any other attributes you wanna apply to it. I extended that so that you can do colon, [00:49:00] colon, colon, and then type a tag name. So if you type colon, colon, colon aside and then applied an attribute list to it, it would create an aside tag with those attributes. Um, the, the only pan deck extension that I wish I could support that I don’t yet is grid tables. Have you ever seen grid tables? Christina: I have not. Brett: There, it’s, it’s kind of like multi markdown table syntax, except you use like plus signs for joints and uh, pipes and dashes, and you actually draw out the table like old ASCI diagrams Christina: Okay. Brett: and that would render that into a valid HTML table. But that supporting that has just been, uh, tables. Tables are the thing. I’ve pulled the most hair out over. Christina: Yeah, I was gonna say, I think I, they feel like tables are hard. I also feel like in a lot of circumstances, I mean obviously people use tables and whatnot, but like, [00:50:00] only thing I would say to you, like, you know, apex is, is so cool and I hope that other projects adopt it. Um, and, uh, potentially with the POC support as far as you’ve gotten with it, maybe, you know, projects that support some of POC stuff could, could, you know, uh, jump into it. But I will say it does feel like. Once you go into like the Panoc universe, like that almost feels like a separate thing from the markdown Flavors like that almost feels like its own like ecosystem. You know what I mean? Brett: Well, yeah, and I haven’t tried to adopt everything Panoc does because you can als, you can also use panoc. You can pipe from Apex into Panoc or vice versa. So I’m not gonna try to like one for one replicate panoc, Christina: No, no. Totally Brett: do all of panoc export options because Panoc can take HTML in and then output PDFs and Doc X and everything. So you can just pipe output from Apex into Panoc to create your PDF or whatever Christina: And like, and, and like to, [00:51:00] and like to me, like that seems ideal, right? But I feel like maybe like adopting some of the other things, especially like, like their grid, you know, table, things like that. Like that would be cool. But like, that feels like that’s a, potentially has the, has the potential, maybe slow down rendering and do other stuff which you don’t want. And then b it’s like, okay, now are we complicated to the point that like, this is, this is now not becoming like one markdown processor to rule them all, but you Brett: Yeah, the whole point, the whole point is to be able to just run Apex and not worry about what cex you’re using. Um, but grid tables are the kind of thing that are so intentional that you’re not gonna accidentally use them. Like the, the, the, the impetus for Apex was all these support requests I get from people that are like the tilde syntax for underline or delete doesn’t work in Mark. And it, it does if you choose the right processor. But then you have to know, yeah, you have to [00:52:00] know what processor supports what syntax and that takes research and time and bringing stuff in from, say, obsidian into mart. You would just kind of expect things to work. And that’s, that’s why I built Apex and Christina: right? Brett: you are correct that grid tables are the kind of thing, no one’s going to use grid tables if they haven’t specifically researched what Christina: I right. Brett: they’re gonna work with. Christina: And they’re going to have a way that has their file marked so that it is designated as poc and then whatever, you know, flags for whatever POC features it supports, um, does. Now I know that the whole point of APEX is you don’t have to worry about this, but, but I am assuming, based on kind of what you said, like if I pass like arguments like in like a, you know, in a config file or something like where I was like, these documents or, or, or this URL or these things are, you know, in this process or in this in another, then it can, it can just automatically apply those rules without having to infer based on the, on the syntax, right. Brett: right. It has [00:53:00] modes for cram down and common mark and GFM and discount, and you can like tell it what mode you’re writing in and it will limit the feature set to just what that processor would handle. Um, and then all of the flags, all of the features have neg negotiable flags on them. So if you wanted to say. Skip, uh, relax table rendering. You could turn that off on the command line or in a config file. Um, so yeah, everything, everything, you can make it behave like any particular processor. Uh, but I focus mostly on the unified mode, which again, like you don’t have to think about which processor you are using. Christina: Are you seeing, I guess like in, in circumstances like, ’cause I, in, in my, like, my experience, like, I would never think to, like, I would probably like, like to, I would probably do like what you do, which is like, I’m [00:54:00] going to use one syntax or, or one, you know, processor for one type of files and maybe another and another. Um, but I, I don’t think that like, I would ever have a, and maybe I’m misunderstanding this, but I don’t think I would ever have an instance where I would be like mixing the two together in the same file. Brett: See, that’s my, so that’s, that’s what’s changing for me is I’m switching my blog over to use Apex instead of Cramdown, which means I can now incorporate syntax that wasn’t available before. So moving forward, I am mixing, um, things from common mark, things from cram down, things from multi markdown. Um, and, and like, so once you know you have the option Christina: right. Then you might do that Brett: you have all the syntax available, you start doing it. And historically you won’t have, but like once you get used to it, then you can. Christina: Okay. So here’s the next existential question for you. At what point then does it go from being, you know, like [00:55:00] a, a, a rendering engine, kind of like an omni rendering engine to being a syntax and a flavor in and of itself? Brett: That is that, yeah, no, that’s a, that’s a very valid question and one that I have to keep asking myself, um, because I never, okay, so what to, to encapsulate what you’re saying, if you got used to writing for Apex and you were mixing your syntax, all of a sudden you have a document that can’t render in anything except Apex, which does eventually make it its own. Yeah, no, it is, it’s always, it’s a concern the whole time. Christina: well, and I, I wouldn’t even necessarily, I mean, like, and I think it could be two things, right? I mean, like, you could have it live in two worlds where, like on the one hand it could be like the rendering engine to end all rendering engines and it can render, you know, files and any of them, and you can specify like whatever, like in, in, in like a tunnel or something. Like, you know, these files are, [00:56:00] are this format, these are these, and you know, maybe have some sort of, you know, um, something, even like a header files or whatever to be like, this is what this rendering engine is. Um, you know, with, with your projects to have it, uh, do that. Um. Or have it infer, you know, based on, on, on, um, the, the logic that you’re importing. But it could also be one of those things where you’re like, okay, I just have created like, you know, the omni syntax. And that’s a thing that maybe, maybe you get people to try to encourage or try, try to adopt, right? Like, it’s like, okay, you can always just use common mark. You can always just use GFM, you can always just use multi markdown, but we support these other things too, from these other, um, systems and you can intermix and match them. Um, because, because I, I do feel like at a certain point, like at least the way you’re running it yourself, you have your own syntax. Like, like, you know. Brett: yeah. No, you have perfectly encapsulated the, the major [00:57:00] design concern. And I think you’re correct. It can exist, it can be both things at once. Um, but I have like, nobody needs another markdown syntax. Like there are so many flavors right now. Okay. There may be a dozen. It’s not like an infinite number, but, but there’s enough that the confusion is real. Um, and we don’t need yet another markdown flavor, but we do need a universal processor that. Makes the differentiations less, but yeah, no, it’s, I need, I need to nail down that philosophy, uh, and really like, put it into writing and say, this is the design goal of this project, uh, which I have like hinted at, but I’m a scattered thinker and like, part of, part of the design philosophy is if someone says, Hey, [00:58:00] could you make this work? I just wanted a project where I could say, yeah, I’m gonna make that work. I, I, I’m gonna add this somewhat esoteric syntax and it’s just gonna work and it’s not gonna affect anything else. And you don’t have to use it, but if you do, there it is. So it’s kind of, it was designed to bloat to a circuit certain extent. Um, but yeah, I need to, I need to actually write a page That’s just the philosophy and really, really, uh, put, put all my thoughts together on that. Christina: Yeah, no, ’cause I was just kind of thinking, I was like, ’cause it’s so cool. Um, but the way that I would’ve envisioned using it, like I, I still like, it’s cool that you can mix all those things in together. I still feel like I probably wouldn’t because I’m not you. And so then I would just have like this additional dependency that it’s like, okay, if something happens to Apex one day and that’s the only thing that can render my documents, then like, you know what I mean? And, and, and if it’s not getting updated [00:59:00] anymore or whatever, then I’m kind of like SOL, um, Brett: Maku. Do you remember Maku? Christina: vaguely. Brett: It’s, the project is kind of dead and a lot of its syntax has been incorporated into various other processors. But if you built your whole blog on Maku, you have to, you have to be able to run like a 7-year-old binary, um, and, and it’ll never be updated, and eventually you’re gonna run into trouble. The nice thing about Unix based stuff is it’s. Has a, you can stop developing it and it’ll work for a decade, um, until, like, there’s a major shift in processors, but like, just the shift to arm. Like if, if Maku was only ever compiled for, uh, for, uh, Intel and it wasn’t open source, you would, it would be gone. You wouldn’t be able to run it anymore. So yeah, these things can happen. Christina: [01:00:00] Well, and I just even think about like, you know, the fact that like, you know, like some of the early processors, like I remember like back, I mean this is a million years ago, but having to use like certain, like pearl, you know, based things, you know, but depending on like whatever your backend system was, then you moved to PHP, they maybe you move, moved to, you know, Ruby, if you’re using like Jekyll and maybe you move to something else. And I was like, okay, you know, what will the thing be in the future? Yeah. If, if I, if it’s open source and there’s a way that, you know, you can write a new, a new processor for that, but it does create like, dependencies on top of dependencies, which is why I, I kind of feel like I like having like the omni processor. I don’t know if, like, for me, I’m like, okay, I, I would probably be personally leery about intermingling all my different syntaxes together. Brett: to that end though, that is why I wanted it in C um, because C will probably never die. C can be compiled on just about any platform. And it can be used with, like, if you have, if you have a Jekyll blog and you wanna [01:01:00] incorporate a C program into a gem, it’s no problem. Uh, you can incorporate it into just about any. Langu

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every week with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently. Today, let's look at a really useful conversational phrase - “that reminds me.” We use that reminds me when something in the conversation makes us remember something else. It's a natural way to change the topic or add new information without sounding abrupt.Like, if your friend says, “I finally finished that book I was reading.” you can say,  “Oh! That reminds me, I still have a book I need to return to the library.”Or, your roommate says,  “I'm thinking of making pasta for dinner tonight” you can say,  “Oh, that reminds me, we're out of olive oil.”“That reminds me” is like saying, “Your comment just made me think of something related.” It's a very natural way to shift topics in English. Try using it in your English conversations this week.Lemme know in the comments how it goes, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next week's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Happy English Podcast – Speak English Naturally I'm Michael from Happy English, and I help people speak English more naturally, confidently, and clearly.

Hey there! It's Michael here — and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every week with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently. And if you want to watch this lesson, just look for Happy English Podcast on YouTube.Today, let's look at a really useful conversational phrase — “it turns out (that).”We use it turns out to mean actually or in fact, especially when the result is surprising or different from what we expected.Like, I left the house in a hurry, and it turns out I forgot my wallet.Or when talking about relationships: They dated for a while, but it turns out they weren't compatible.We also use this phrase when we discover new information: I did some research, and it turns out my grandfather was a taxi driver for a while.So remember, when something ends up being different than you expected, try using “it turns out…” It's a very natural way to tell that kind of story in English.Lemme know in the comments how it goes, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next week's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening — and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Watch video versions of the Happy English Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HappyEnglishNY/podcastsBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every Saturday with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently. And if you want to watch this lesson, just look for Happy English Podcast on YouTube.Today, let's look at a very useful conversational phrase - “when it comes to…”We use when it comes to followed by a sentence, to mean regarding or about. When it comes tois a great way to introduce a topic or give your opinion.Like, “When it comes to cooking, my sister is amazing.”Or “When it comes to playing sports, well, it's not my cup of tea.”And you know what, when it comes to learning English, I'm glad you found me here!It's simple, natural, and you'll hear it all the time - at work, in casual conversations, evenin TV shows and movies. So remember, the next time you want to give your opinion about a topic, try using “when it comes to…” It's one of the most natural ways to start that sentence.Lemme know in the comments how it goes, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next Saturday's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Watch video versions of the Happy English Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HappyEnglishNY/podcastsBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every Saturday with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently. And if you want to watch this lesson, just look for Happy English Podcast on YouTube.Today, let's look at a really natural expression you'll hear a lot at the beginning of the year - “start off on the right foot.” We use the idiom, start off on the right foot to mean begin something in a good, positive, or successful way.Like, when it's the first day back at work this year, your coworker might say: “I want to start the year off on the right foot.”Or when you decide to remodel the kitchen, you can say: “Let's start off on the right foot and keep everything organized from the beginning.”We also use this phrase to talk about relationships: Like, Jack started off on the right foot with his new neighbors.It's positive, it's friendly, and it's perfect for January when everyone is thinking about goals, routines, and fresh starts. Start off on the right foot is a natural way to say you want to begin something well - whether it's a new year, a new job, or even a new habit.Lemme know in the comments how you're planning to start your year off on the right foot, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next Saturday's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.To help you stick to your English learning goals in the new year, I created a brand-new 8-week phrasal verb course to help you speak more naturally. It starts on January 8th (this Thursday):https://www.myhappyenglish.com/snpvWatch video versions of the Happy English Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HappyEnglishNY/podcastsBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

Quaranteam - Dave In Dallas: Part 7 What the hell was that? Based on a post by RonanJWilkerson, in 12 parts. Listen to the Podcast at Explicit Novels. The ladies all mingled quietly as they awaited the appearance of the teens. Lupie of course, made extras of the appetizers, plus a few extra finger foods, so the rest of the family wasn't held up for a meal, but Lupie and Mel didn't have to make 'prom dinner' for everyone. At last, they heard footsteps descending the stairs. When the sounds reached the point the stairs peeked beyond the partial wall in the back of the living room, the first thing they spotted was shimmering metallic medium blue cloth that nearly reached the step the foot rested on. Becca's nerd-pale feet and ankles clad in low-heeled strappy sandals was enough to identify her, if they hadn't already known the order the girls were arriving. A bit more intriguing was the amount of her right leg, on the opposite side of her body from the adults, was visible. As she descended, more leg was in view. Each step down exposed more leggy flesh. By the time Rebecca's torso could be seen, it was obvious the skirt of her dress had been slit all the way to her hip. She turned at the last landing before the final three steps. Her short height meant she was fully visible to all as she paused. The dress was very flattering. Spaghetti straps over her shoulders held up the top, and a plunging neckline left no opportunity for a bra. Yet, some miracle of undergarment managed to give her small tits just a hint of cleavage; enough to enhance the femininity of her look on this special night. Small diamond stud earrings completed her ensemble. Becca had been letting her hair grow longer, after learning Dave leaned toward long hair. Her naturally blonde hair reached a few inches past her shoulders when straight. It was a bit shorter than that at the moment as bands of joined hair strands fell in loose curls from her head. As Dave suspected on Becca's descent, the skirt gathered just above Becca's right hip, leaving her entire right leg exposed. "I think someone got the memo that Dave is a leg man." Liv muttered. There was light laughter following the comment, but Dave only had eyes and ears for his date. The first of his dates to arrive. He walked steadily, and slightly spellbound, to meet Becca at the base of the stairs and gave her a gentle kiss on the cheek. Becca was beaming before and after the kiss, though the slight apprehension seemed to disappear during. Dave led her over to the others, clustered around the small bar area Janice had setup. Lupie slipped away to the kitchen after giving Becca a hug and beaming like a proud mother. Well, older sister. Mel handed them each a 'mocktail' before Dave conducted Becca to her seat on one side of his, at the head of the table. He gave her another kiss once she was seated. Then he caught Mel putting away her phone as she cleared her throat. With a quick pat on Becca's hand, Dave slipped away to observe Reena's entrance. Kareena's feet first appeared, clad in white, open-toed wedge heels bearing a black line design on the upper. As she descended, a flowing, forest green skirt came into view, bearing a design done in gold thread. Her midriff was exposed. Her top was made in matching green to her skirt, also bearing tracery in gold thread along its bottom edge and the hem of the quarter sleeves. A green drape, again with designs in gold thread, lay across her shoulders. Medium-sized gold hoop earrings hung from her ears, but her head piece nailed the appearance she was after. One golden chain, bearing alternating clear and red crystals ran down her middle part, with two unadorned gold chains lying to each side. A pendant the size of a silver dollar, made of pearls and red gems fixed in gold dangled from the central chain, resting on her forehead, centered between her eyes and between her hairline and brow line. Her face was supremely confident and demure in equal measure. Dave met her at the base of the stairs, taking her hand gently and kissing her cheek. Then he led her to the cluster of ladies observing the festivities. "That dress is lovely, Reena, dear." Vanessa said. "It's traditional is it not?" "It is. The entire outfit and the skirt are called a lehenga, while the top is a choli, and the drape is a dupatta." The ladies cooed over the garment a bit before Dave escorted Reena to her seat on the other side of the head. After a quick conversation with each lady, he made two small plates with a few appetizers each and placed them in front of his dates. He made a quick plate of his own and took his place at the head, Becca on his right and Reena on his left. Reena's dark hair gathered in a thick braid down her back contrasted with Becca's blonde curls cascading onto her shoulders. Both girls were bubbling over with excitement. The others took turns circulating past and joining the trio's conversation while holding a small paper plate with an appetizer or two, emulating a real prom. When Lupie called Mel in to help plate up the dinner, the rest of the family filed out, after delivering a few hugs. The two cooks brought in the warm plates, each bearing a small steak, mashed potatoes, and a vegetable medley. Lupie gave Becca a quick hug from behind, whispering something in her ear. Whatever it was, it made Becca smile and blush. Mel did the same for Reena, though without the blushing aspect. Dave ate one-handed, though not the same hand the whole time. The girls switched off holding his hand. They generously gave him time to slice up his steak into strips every few minutes. The talk was light, catching up on unshared activities of the past week, mulling desired amenities to be discussed with Vanessa and the rest of the family, 80's and 90's songs the girls had picked up from MTV's renewed format, and so on. Of course, Dave took a few opportunities to complement each of his dates on their hairstyle, the outfits they'd picked out and how it accented some feature or other. The girls were glowing. Keeping his compliments specific was apparently the way to go. Eventually, the three arose, having finished eating several minutes prior. Dave escorted them both, simultaneously, one on each arm, to a couch against one wall of the living room. Initially, they continued their conversation. Janice and Olivia slipped in to clean up the dishes. Mel started up the next playlist, labeled 'Mood Setting'. The songs were chosen to get the celebrants relaxed and enjoying each other's company. The last few songs ramped up the beat. Recognizing a song she'd chosen, Reena leapt to her feet, turned to grab Dave's hand, and drug him out on the 'dance floor'. For the next three songs she danced and hopped, her hands spending most of their time above her shoulders, unless they were draped over Dave's shoulders while she rocked her hips and stared into his eyes. Her braid flipped about as she cavorted. The next song was a slow one. Reena let out a sigh, hugging Dave, her head against his chest. "This is Becca's song. Can you walk me back, and ask her on to the floor? She's getting more confident being here, but you'll need to ask her to dance." Dave kissed her full on the lips, more than a quick peck, but less than a steamy passionate lip-lock. Then he walked her back to the couch where her best friend, his young blonde lover waited. Becca's eyes shone with anticipation as she watched her friend and her man approach, walking casually, loosely, with Reena occasionally leaning in to bounce her shoulder off Dave's arm. He pulled her in for one more kiss, before releasing her to take her seat. Then he took Becca's hand, asking her, "May I have this dance?" Becca giggled. "Of course!" She leapt to her feet, squealing happily when Dave pulled her in for a kiss before leading her out to the open space. Becca's chosen songs were slower, which allowed her to cling to Dave, and gave Dave the kind of dance he was fully prepared for; shuffling his feet and swaying. His lack of skill at rug cutting didn't faze his lovely blonde nerd girl in the least. Holding him close and shuffling fit her needs just fine. He could feel her contentment in the way she held him. In this moment, her world was peaceful and perfect. Becca looked up to stare into Dave's eyes. "Thank you, David. For so much. Everything you've done." Her eyes watered. "I never would have gotten through those first weeks without your help." She swallowed. "Then again through the long months, the three of us together, in two houses. And after; " her voice became too thick to talk. Dave kissed her. She calmed as he held her. "You gave me a new life David. You gave me love. I would never have gone to prom before, but with you, I want all of this." A few songs later, an energetic tune began. Becca looked up to Dave. "Her turn." She gave him a kiss just as Reena tapped Dave on the shoulder. "May I have this dance?" "Certainly." Dave stepped back from Becca and offered her hand he held to Reena. Both teens laughed heartily at the joke. Then Reena stepped in and started dancing with Becca. The young blonde looked a bit surprised, but game to play along on this happy night. The girls danced half the song together, before turning to Dave, who had stepped a short distance away, and pulled him in. The three person dance worked for the remainder of the song but just barely. As that song ended, Dave walked Becca back to the couch before returning to his dark haired lover on the dance floor. Her moves over the next several songs got more daring. A few moves in which her ass was rubbing on his thigh; including the one time she twerked; Dave noticed an odd firmness between Reena's cheeks. For her last song, she'd picked a slow dance. She confirmed to him that this was her last song, not Becca's first. Reena clung to him tightly, partly from exertion, partly for the feel of him against her. "David, I need to be honest with you," Reena said sometime after her breathing steadied. "This dress, the lehenga, it's a special dress. It's not for every party, just special ones, like prom; or a wedding." Dave looked into her eyes as she continued. "Most Indian brides wear red, but my family is from Decca. We wear green for our wedding lehenga. This is the one my mother had made for me. I made sure to bring it when I came here. I'm; I'm not saying you have to marry me, but; this is my declaration. This is where I want to be, for the rest of my life, David. Here, in your arms, sharing life with you." Dave's head spun with the revelation. I mean, damn, this young woman had just pledged herself to him for a lifetime. Granted, the serum made that a reality already, but; damn. "Reena, I; I don't know what to say. I know we've only known each other for a few weeks, but you are deeply embedded in my heart already. I; worry about you and Becca, and Mel and Olivia; bound to me for the rest of your lives; or at least the rest of mine, and then what happens to you? I am glad you are in my life. You bring your own special light to this house, this family. I can't say that I'm in love with you, but I am taken with you; you , not just your body; and I feel that I am moving towards love." Kareena's eyes watered softly as he spoke. When Dave finished, she moved in, offering her lips to him. Dave kissed her slowly and passionately. It took a moment for them to realize the music had stopped. Mel had paused the playlist because Reena's last song had finished, but the two lovers were not yet done. Dave walked Reena back to the couch one last time, and brought Becca out to dance again. Hers were slow dances, but the pace seemed to pick up as they progressed through the set. The last song was of the high energy type that Reena leaned towards. Becca writhed all over him like a stripper on a pole. She was blushing and biting her lip the entire time. She was also smiling; a smile that grew wider when she brushed her ass across Dave's crotch and felt his fully engorged cock straining to get out. She got bolder with that affirmation. Fortunately, the song ended before she escalated to dry humping. "You are wild, and crazy, and wonderful, Rebecca Sampson." Dave kissed her full on the lips, long and slow. There was a definite hunger in her eyes when they broke the kiss. With Becca on one arm, Dave approached Reena. He offered her his other hand and she rose. A beautiful lady on either side, Dave waved to the rest of the family and went upstairs. A few catcalls followed them. Liv even called out "Don't do anything I wouldn't do!" Reena snapped back, laughing "Short list!" All the women laughed at that, with Liv clapping as she joined in. Dave and his young lovers ascended the stairs, turning down the hallway to the 'hotel room'. He opened the door, standing back to let the ladies enter first. He was relieved at what he saw. Or rather, what he didn't see. He'd been a bit worried that Liv would do up the room like a cheesy bachelorette party, with sex themed decorations, and um 'accoutrements'. No such thing was in sight. A foot and a half (half a meter) to the left as he entered was the foot of a full size bed, with its upper left corner nestled in the corner of the room. A small rectangular table just slightly taller than the bed sat against the same wall as the head of the bed, with a second full size bed beyond that, fitting neatly into the corner of the room diagonal from the door. The room was clean and spare, and slightly cozy. Just like a hotel room. Both girls turned to him, hungry and excited. Becca pressed herself against Dave as she pulled his head down for a long, slow kiss that promised a lot more to come. Her hands wandered over his chest, back, and butt, encouraging him to do the same. Dave started with his hands on her shoulders, rubbing down her arms and back up. Then he progressed to her shoulder blades, and her back, tracing his fingertips lightly up and down her spine. Settling his hands at her waist, he slowly brought them around to her front, his thumbs making circles as they lead the way onto her tummy. Becca was neither athletic, nor out of shape. Her tummy was soft and yielding. It was also sensitive, as were her sides. With a twinkle in his eye, Dave let a few strokes land just the way he knew would stimulate her tickle reflex. Becca leapt backwards, letting out a shriek and a giggle. "Must be my turn now." Reena purred. Dave was already erect with the inducements he'd received thus far. The young woman's sultry tones made his cock ache. She pulled herself to him, planting her soft lips on his, darting her tongue briefly into his mouth as an invitation before holding her own lips lightly parted for him. Her full tits pressed firmly into Dave' lower chest as she undulated her hips against him. Then she broke the kiss, sighing. "Hmm, I'd love to keep going, but I did agree to the plan." "Plan?" "Umm-hmm. I got to dance first, she gets to get naked first." Dave turned back to Becca, who was advancing on him again. She rose up to kiss him hungrily, while sliding her hands under his dark brown suitcoat and shoving it off his arms. Not hearing it fall to the ground, or feel it against his legs, Dave surmised Reena had caught it and was putting it somewhere out of the way. Taking his cue, Dave slipped his hands around behind Becca's back, seeking out the zipper on the back of her dress. He found the line of it, and located the pull just as Becca finished unfastening the black buttons of his satiny purple shirt and began pulling the tails out of his pants. He pulled her tight, slowing her actions, as he lowered her zipper unhurriedly. The flash of color on her face told Dave she knew he was stretching this out on purpose. Her look only got more determined as she pulled his shirt down his arms. Dave helped her cause, lowering his arms and folding his thumbs in so the cuffs fell free. He'd already gotten the zipper to its base anyway. Becca stared at him, bit her lip, and shrugged the straps of her shoulders. The dress fell smoothly and quickly to the floor. On her chest, at the sides of her tits, leaving her medium brown areolas and firm nipples exposed, were two foam pads, that adhered to her curves and pushed her modest tits together, forming the bit of cleavage Dave had been admiring all night. "Well ain't technology wonderful?" Dave drawled. Becca giggled. "Wanna take them off?" she said before nibbling her lower lip. "Slowly, please." Dave stepped close, picked her up, and kissed her as he placed her across the bed, on her back. He kissed his way to her jaw as the fingers of his right hand found the top corner of the foam. As he nibbled on the corner of her jaw, he pulled gently, persistently on the pad. It came free with only two flinches on Becca's face. Each one faded as Dave moved the assault of his lips to sensitive parts of Becca's neck. He kept up the distraction of his lips as he removed the foam piece on the left. That one came of easier. Dave moved down to kiss her tits. His kisses and licks brought only moans, so the pad removal seemed to have no ill effects. Dave continued down Becca's body, kissing and suckling as he made his way to her panties. There; wasn't much there. Smaller than a G-string, and the string forming the waist of the panties sat high, obviously, to stay out of view of the slit. The tiny piece of cloth running between her legs just barely managed to cover her privates. If Becca'd left any hair on her pubis, none of it would be under the cloth. Her clit must have been ducking all night just to stay covered. Dave looked up her body to see Becca bushing furiously; and grinning wildly. With his eyes locked on hers, he brought his lips to her gusset and kissed firmly. He felt light moisture as he made contact. Her back arched as he tongued her through the cloth. The panties became sopping wet in short order. Dave slipped his fingers into the string and pulled them down her legs. Becca now lay on the bed crosswise, her hips hanging just off the edge, her toes touching the floor. She lifted her head, and with a lift of her eyebrow and jerk of her head urged Dave to switch his notice to her friend. He kissed the inside of her knee before moving on. Dave took a beaming Reena in his arms. The two lovers fell into a passionate kiss. Dave allowed his hands to roam for a little while, then brought them to her back. He found the ends of the string and pulled slowly on them, untying the knot securing her top. With the tension released from the string in the back, her weighty tits lowered slightly. Reena looked up at Dave adoringly as he lifted her top and freed her tits. She raised her arms as he continued the motion upward. A moment later, she was bare from her navel up. She wrapped her arms behind his neck and kissed him, pressing her lush chest against his firm torso. Dave held her steady as she kicked off her shoes, then did the same himself. When her hands reached for his belt buckle, his sought out the zipper he expected to find at the back of her skirt. It wasn't there. Reena giggled and wiggled her hips. Picking up her cue, Dave sent one hand to each hip, finding a zipper on her right one. The placement made sense as it aided in the taper of the skirt fitting snuggly to her lower torso. He felt his zipper lower and his pants dropped. Her skirt followed shortly thereafter. Her hands went straight to his boxers, pulling them off his hips and shoving them downward. He slipped a finger into each side string of her panties and slowly lowered them. He paused as his arms reached their lowest extent, her panties dangling from his fingers. Reena stood essentially nude before him, though they were too close for him to fully appreciate the sight. Two weeks since her arrival, he had seen it all, but he hoped it never got old, with any of them. Them. Dear God, he had multiple women willing sleeping with him, in full knowledge of the others. And these two. Two teen girls, in some ways so very different, but both just starting down the path of life. And both emphatically dedicated to him. Dave felt the weight of his responsibility to them as thoroughly as he felt elation at their enthusiastic company. And tonight was for celebration, and enthusiasm. He dropped Reena's panties and knelt in front of her. As he leaned in, drawing a breath to fill his nose with her scent, she tapped him on the head. When he looked up, she pointed to Becca, lying on the bed. Right. The plan. He stood and led Reena to the bed, guiding her to lay down beside her friend. Like Becca, Reena lay crosswise, her hips just past the edge of the bed, her feet brushing the floor. Dave knelt before Becca. He placed her legs over his shoulder, grinning at her sharp intake of breath. He kissed her inner thighs, alternating legs and slowly advancing towards her already soaked and flowered open; pussy. Dave took her lower lips in his, suckling on her sex, drawing her juices into his mouth and reveling in her excited squirming. The low, drawn out groan issuing from her throat played soundtrack as he gave her his devotion. When her pleasure plateaued, he switched his attention, driving his tongue into her passage, lapping at her fluids and massaging her walls. His hands held her hips firmly as she bucked, her back bowing, her hands grasping the comforter. Then he moved up, taking her nub between his lips, flicking the end with his tongue and suckling firmly. Becca exploded in ecstasy. Dave noticed signs of arousal from Reena throughout the oral session. Reasonable, given the visual display and the certainty she would soon receive the same attention. He was not prepared for the raven haired Indian teen to curl into a ball and wail her pleasure in unison with the nerdy blonde he was lashing with his tongue. He came up grinning wildly. "Wow, two orgasms with one tongue, that's new." Reena looked at him, startled, confused, a wild look of hunger and pleasure in her eyes. Dave knew how to deal with that. He gently lay Becca's legs onto the bed, leaving her curled in a loose fetal position. Then he slipped over in front of Reena. Settling between her legs, the small black protruding knob peeking out between her butt cheeks confirmed what he'd felt while dancing. As he kissed the inside of her knee, she moaned. "No, no David, no more foreplay. Please get inside me." Dave looked up to see her earnest face and rapacious eyes. He stood, still holding her legs. He held her legs lightly parted, ankles resting on his shoulders. As her approving eyes watched, he stepped in closer, then leaned forward. Dave lined his organ up with Reena's excited sex and pressed forward steadily, his length and girth filling her at a measured pace. "Ho, God, David, Yes! Yes, baby, fuck me, fuck me so good!" Dave stroked in and out of her, slowly at first, then building to the faster, demanding pace he'd come to understand she enjoyed. As his energy built, he moved his hands to the back of her knees. He pushed them forward, pinning them to the bed just below her armpits. The sensation of additional pressure from the plug in her ass was odd, but her pleasure rose rapidly as he nailed her to the mattress, just like she liked it. She sang her approval in howling cries that accompanied the riotous actions of her passage a few minutes later. Becca crested with her. That; Dave could not explain. Granted, his specialty was in the physical sciences, not biological, but this little conundrum was way outside anything he understood about biology. Then again, so was the serum. Could they be linked? After a few minutes of panting recovery, Reena placed a hand on Dave's chest. "David, I know you've noticed; what I've prepared. It's time now. I did some research. I've had two orgasms now, you still haven't climaxed yet. It's perfect timing." "Reena ;” Dave started, hesitantly. Tearfully, she said, "Please David, this is something I want to do. I'm a little surprised at myself, but I want this. I want to feel you back there. I want to give you what I would otherwise be afraid of someone insisting on. I want to be fully and unreservedly yours." "I have no experience with anal. I've looked it up a few times in the past month or so. It's something I'd like to try, eventually. I figured at some point in the future, I'd bring it up with one of you. But it's a new thing for me." Reena's face suddenly glowed. "The future is now, David. We can explore it together." She planted a big kiss on him as she undulated her body against him. Dave slipped one hand down to grope her firm ass, kneading the yielding flesh possessively. Reena's breathing picked up again. "There's a bottle of special lube for anal in the drawer of the nightstand. I asked Janice to put some there, after swearing her to secrecy. She helped me learn what I needed to know for this. Seems librarians know how to find any information you could want." "Especially the naughty ones," Dave quipped. Reena giggled in response. Dave checked the drawer of the table, finding a small lube bottle with labeling declaring it was made thicker than normal to facilitate anal sex. Dave slathered a bit on his cock as he moved back to Reena. With smooth, patient pressure, Dave pulled the plug out of her ass. He applied a bit more lube to the slowly shrinking ring of her gaping anus before setting the capped bottle aside. Dave pressed the head of his cock against her open hole pressing forward. He gradually increased the applied pressure until his head slipped inside. The resulting thrust buried another inch of his cock up her backside before he met resistance. "Huh." Reena voice was guttural. Dave waited for her to adapt. To call for him to back off or continue. "Nice and steady Dave." Dave moved as she asked, adding maybe two inches up her ass every minute as he made small thrusts that were slightly more ins than outs. "Oh, David. It's weird and good. It's a little scary and a little bit of hurt. Please keep going. Steady, just like you're doing." "Should I get more lube?" "No, no, not more lube. Just; slow and steady. It's so different, but I want it. Keep going." Dave continued working himself into her rear entrance until his pelvis compressed her ass cheeks. He held himself there, making small motions, tiny thrusts, small circles, anything he could think of. Reena breathed steadily, giving him short encouragements. Becca turned over to watch. Taking his cues from Reena's reactions, Dave pulled back out slowly, but continuously. When only his head remained within her, he moved forward again. Slow and steady, Dave sawed his cock in and out of Kareena's lovely, tight teen ass. After a few minutes, She called for more lube. Dave added it to both her ring and his cock while he was mostly out of her. A few measured thrusts distributed the lube everywhere it needed to be. "Oh my God. Oh wow, that; that feels good. Fuck, David, I just wanted to give you something special. This, this feels good. Uh. Pick up the pace, lover." Dave began a moderately paced drilling of Reena's forbidden hole. Not enough to make her grunt, but each impact of his hips on her cheeks elicited an exhale from the girl. Initially overwhelmed with concern for her, Dave was getting into it now. His cock was in her ass. It was so tight, so warm, so taboo. Holy shit, this girl was giving him her ass! Unbidden, he picked up his pace. The guttural groan from his lover signaled her approval. Dave slipped one hand from her hip, around her waist, seeking out her sensitive nub. The moment he made contact, a shudder washed through Reena's body, not quite an orgasm, but her accompanying moan was gratifying. Two more small shudders later, and her whole body spasmed, her arms collapsing and her ass clamping down on Dave's half-inserted cock so hard it arrested him mid thrust. Dave held still, waiting for her to ride it out. He rested both hands on her butt, just waiting. And watching. Not just Reena. Becca had again curled herself tighter, shaking and moaning. Reena's fluids dripped from his sack, having squirted on her climax. Becca's wide eyes and the wet spot behind her curled hips indicated she had as well. This was; weird. Maybe he should talk to someone about this? Who though? How would that call go? "Yeah, Vaccine Expert Guy? Look, I'm having sex with one girl and get her to climax, but her friend beside her, that neither of us is touching, also gets one. Any clues how that happened? What's that? You're sending someone to pick me up? Okay, just make sure they bring that lovely white jacket with all the pretty little straps and buckles." In his musing, Dave completely missed Reena's recovery. He snapped back to reality when she grabbed his hand. He caught her eyes, alive with joy, pleasure, and excitement. "Hey stud, let's finish this." "You just came with a cock in your ass. I think we hit peak ass-fucking, girl." Reena and Becca laughed. "No, we haven't, I'm taking a load of your cum right up my back door. Fuck me David, fuck me hard. I am so completely yours." The emotions rippling across her face freed Dave of his renewing worries for her. Dave took hold of Reena's hips, pulling her close as he drove himself to the hilt inside her warm, tight anus. She groaned her approval. He started slow. "Harder, David. Faster. Fuck me like an animal." David picked up the pace, energized by her words and Becca's heavy breathing. The little blonde's nipples were erect, the areolas bumpy with arousal. Taking Reena at her word, Dave got an idea. He reached his right hand up her body, grasping her braid between its center and the base of her skull. Using it like a rein, he pulled her up and into him as he accelerated his thrusting, hammering her ass with savage thrusts. "Hah, Yes," was the last intelligible speech she let out before devolving into grunts, forced exhales, and subvocals of pleasure and arousal. Becca watched, wide-eyed and rubbing herself. Dave felt his peak arriving with the subtlety of a freight train doing 60. He shoved himself deep inside, compressing her ass cheeks just as he erupted. He howled in primal triumph. He was too distracted by his own climax to see Becca shuddering through one as well. Reena he could feel clamping down on his cock again as he fired rope after rope of hot cream deep in her asshole. Reena went limp after her orgasm subsided. Dave lowered her gently to the bed before collapsing to her side. "That was intense." Becca said softly from the other side of Reena. Without the energy to lift his head, Dave looked in the direction of Becca's voice, seeing only Reena's back as he replied. "Yup." Dryly, Becca added "You're gonna have to wash that before touching me with it." Dave and Reena busted out laughing. They all lay there, panting and recovering until Dave levered himself up, heading for the door. "Where are you going?" Reena asked. "Wash my cock. Becca hasn't gotten any yet." "There's wipes in the drawer where the lube was." Dave looked askance. "Is that enough though?" Both girls nodded. After cleaning Reena and himself with the wipes, Dave slumped to the bed between his lovers. The girls had moved to lie 'properly' on the bed. Now all three lay awake, cuddled together, basking in each other's proximity. Presently, Becca rolled closer to Dave, kissing him softly with a hand on his chest. When he only responded with his lips, she took his hand and placed it on her tit. He grinned into the kiss as he fondled her softness. Shortly thereafter, his other hand began stroking her side. He also felt soft kisses on his neck from behind. Signaling Reena to scoot over a bit, Becca rolled Dave onto his back and slipped herself on top of him. Grinning broadly, she rocked her body on top of his as she hovered above him, her small tits dragging along his chest. At the top of each stroke she planted a quick kiss on his lips. The desired effect; his erection; was not long in coming. Becca felt it bump against her backside on her down strokes. She raised herself up, reaching back to grasp his organ and lining him up. Becca sighed contentedly as she impale her sopping wet and very relaxed sex on Dave's stiff meat pole. Then she started riding him. Slowly, eyes fixed on his, shining. This one wasn't a wild fuck. This was making love. Slow, luxurious, wondrous. Reena's kisses moved down Dave's shoulder to his bicep, then across to his pecs. Becca reached a hand to ruffle Reena's hair playfully. Reena moved her kissing target slowly down Dave's side. Then she reached Becca's thigh. Dave watched with anticipation as Becca stiffened slightly when Reena kissed the top of her thigh. The kisses crept up Becca's leg, some on top, some on the inside, as the young blonde's breathing grew rapid. As Reena reached Becca's torso, the nerdy girl leaned back, accommodating the attention she was receiving. She let out a soft moan, telling Dave Reena had reached Becca's navel. She loved getting kissed and tongued on her belly button. Then the Indian teen's head changed angles. Becca's eye flew wide in recognition. She also leaned back further as she kept rocking on Dave's cock. "Oh David, Oh David! She's, she's oh she's going to; Oh! She's On My Clit!" moments later, Becca's inner muscles ran riot on Dave's cock. Reena reached an arm up to keep her blonde friend from toppling backwards. Reena pulled her head out of the way and Becca collapsed on Dave. The dusky skinned girl curled in tight beside Dave and the three passed out. Chapter 9; The Full Dave. October 24, 2020. Dave and his prom dates slept in Saturday morning. As light crawled across their bodies from between the window curtains, the ray of warmth eventually caught Dave's attention, dragging him from Hypnos' arms and back to the waking world. Becca and Reena were both curled tightly against him, one under each arm, their heads resting on his shoulders. All three were nude. Dave felt Becca's modest rises on one side and the lushness of Reena's full tits on the other. In superficial ways, these girls had a lot of differences. Yet both had made a mature decision when faced with little time and an alarming change in the way of the world. Dave really needed to get over his anxieties and honor the commitment the young women had made. That they had reiterated last night. The whole family had pulled together to make last night as special as possible. It was; amazing. As a socially awkward nerd through high school and college, Dave never really expected to attend a dance. And even though he was the only guy present, and it was in; their living room, the whole evening was, well, magical. The attestations of his two youngest partners certainly made the evening special. And then there was the after. What the hell was that? Though, without the weird orgasm wave that happened to his lovers, the sex last night was a-mazing. Anal with Reena. And then Reena went down on Becca; while Becca was riding him! Dave was beginning to think he should be writing some of this down. "Dear Playboy, you'll never believe what happened last night ;” Becca stirred next to him. Not for long. Having been awake for a few minutes now, certain morning needs were making themselves known. Becca snuggling tighter against him signaled he was not going to easily extricate himself anytime soon. He had the choice of easy, and later, or now, but not easy. His bladder was making a decisive argument for now. It took some careful wiggling, but Dave managed to slip out, though both girls were on the verge of waking from his disturbances. Becca was half awake already. Dave found a pair of shorts in his bag, staged there by Jan and Liv, maintaining the appearance the three had checked into a hotel room. He pulled on the shorts and t-shirt and made his way to the bathroom quietly. He was just stepping inside when he heard a voice behind him. "Hey, magic man." Dave turned to see Olivia and Melanie standing in the hallway. Olivia smirking, Mel looking; uncertain. "There's a song about that. One of your mother's favorites, actually. A bit before our time really, but she loved to sing it while staring straight at your dad." "Gross. And don't try to change the subject." "Which is?" "How did you manage to induce orgasms in a woman that wasn't even in the same room with you." Dave stared at her blankly, then blinked. "Uh, once more with clarity?" Mel blushed, fidgeting. "I, uh; I was downstairs in the gym last night. After the dance was over. I was working off; excess energy. All of a sudden, I'm losing my grip on the rowing handle, and my legs feel like water. Now, I like a good workout, but I've never cum from one." Dave just stared for several heartbeats. "You felt that?!" He drew a breath. "Shit, it was weird enough watching both of them climax when I was only touching one." He stepped backwards, swinging the door shut. "I'm willing to finish this conversation, after I attend to business." When he came back out, Mel and Livy were no longer in the hallway. He slipped back into the room to find Becca waiting, mostly awake, and Reena stirring. Dave gave each young lady soft kisses to ease their introduction to the day. Smiles and stretches greeted his efforts. Reena wrapped her arms around his neck and pulled him in for a longer kiss. Then she relaxed her grip, opening the distance between them to gaze into his eyes. "I love you, David." Dave was shocked. Becca, similarly shocked, recovered faster. "Oh shit," she said. "You beat me to it." Dave looked at his young blonde lover. "It's not a competition, Rebecca. You are dear to me, and I know you feel the same." He turned his attention back to the young lady currently pressing her sizable tits against his stomach. He stared into her liquid brown eyes, shining with emotion and certainty. "Kareena; I've rushed into saying those words before. I; " "I'm not asking you to say those words back to me, David. I can see it in your eyes, and feel it in your arms around me. That's what I need. You give me what I need, and that's why I feel safe saying those words." No words came to Dave that were equal to the moment, so he held her close, resting his cheek on top of her head as she nuzzled into his chest. Until her stomach growled; and then his replied in kind. The teens dressed, Dave watching and appreciating the show. Reena noticed first and threw a little extra something in her movements. Becca caught on quickly, wiggling her ass as she pulled a pair of green cotton shorts over her pale blue thong. Dressed, they left the room and headed downstairs to meet the rest of the family gathering around the dining room table, laying out breakfast. This being a Saturday, everyone was home. Reena and Becca split up, each working their way around the room, giving each woman a tight, meaningful hug that lasted more than just a quick grasp. There were a few quiet statements of "You're welcome, dear." Jan, beaming brought a plate from the stove over to Dave. "Over medium, just like you like them." There was a slight nervousness in her smile. "Thank you, Jan." Dave received the plate with a grateful smile and motioned her closer. He gave her a firm, lingering kiss. Jan blushed, then turned to get her own plate. Dave piled a big helping of hashbrowns on his plate beside the eggs before adding bacon. He dug in with gusto, listening to the light-hearted conversations passing amongst his partners. Smiles and happy tones wafted about the table. As the meal wound down, Dave spoke up. "Esme, please take Roscoe out back and play with him for a while. He needs a bit of exercise." "Are you calling my dog fat?" Liv asked mockingly. "He's going to get antsy cooped up in the house all day and as social as he is, he ought to have company." "It's fine, Aunt Livy," Esme said. "I like playing with Roscoe. He's fun." "Thank you, Esme," Dave said. As she passed by his chair, he pulled her close and kissed her forehead. After Esme headed upstairs to find the large canine and his leash, Dave addressed the rest of the family. "Let's all gather in the living room, please." "Okay," Lupie said cautiously, "can we get the kitchen and dining room cleaned up first or is it urgent?" "Depends," Dave rejoined cheekily, "on if I get to participate in the cleanup." Lupie narrowed her eyes and stared at him. Dave relented first. "Okay, okay, no point in letting food harden on the dishes, it's not that urgent." Dave chuckled as he acquiesced. Jan and Lupie, having made breakfast, were exempted from cleaning and joined Dave in the living room immediately. Shawna and Nessa waved the younger four off and took care of the morning cleanup. Six women made their way to seats in the living room, along with Dave. They shared perfunctory conversations about their plans for the day. Aside from the Belsus Grand Prix, of course. That was due to start shortly after lunch. "Okay, Dave, what's up?" Shawna asked as she and Nessa joined the others. Suddenly, Dave looked uncomfortable again. "Well, first, I just want to convey my gratitude to each of you for last night. Ya'll did an amazing job. I enjoyed the evening, and I'm sure Becca and Reena did as well." "Hmm," Shawna began with a wicked grin, "I'm sure the young ladies' enjoyment had more to do with events we were not a party to." The others snickering elevated to a few guffaws when Reena and Becca blushed. Then Becca spoke up. "No, seriously, last night was wonderful and I want to thank all of you for putting it on. You are each so special to me, and for you to do all of that; I can't thank you enough." Reena hugged her bestie and nodded. "I haven't been here as long as the others, but for myself, it was a treat to be able to give you that special night." Vanessa said. The nods of the others added their agreement. "Well, the thing is; uh, wow, I swore I wasn't going to discuss details about each of you with each other, but this is kind of a unique circumstance. And well, I probably should be the one to describe it, since I was the only one; external to the situation." "I was there, you were not external." Reena's rejoinder garnered another round of giggling. Dave blushed, then closed his eyes, shaking his head. "Look, here's the thing, while we were; intimate, uh, I mean, I would be; giving attention to Becca, and as she; climaxed, so did Reena; and I wasn't touching Reena." "Let your fingers do the walkin' did ya?" Nessa teased. "Actually, no, I was enjoying just watching," Reena said quietly. That got the other's attention. "And it kept happening all night. Every time I brought one to climax, both of them peaked." "Yep, even when Dave was in my butt, Becca hit the high notes with me when I got there; which I didn't even expect to happen." "Well, they said whenever the guy cums, we would too, no matter where he was," Nessa offered. "No, I mean; sure yeah, that happened too; but I wasn't expecting to actually enjoy it. I just wanted to give Dave something special. I didn't think it would feel so good." "Neither did I," Becca added. All of the ladies looked pensive for a bit. Shawna was the first to speak. "You're saying that the girls climaxed together, no matter who you were touching?" Dave just nodded. "Lemme tell ya, it was one heck of a bonding experience," Reena added. "I'll bet." Quiet reigned again. "You gave him your ass?" Olivia grumped. Reena nodded, hesitantly. "Damn it, they beat us to it," Liv said, looking at Mel. "Guess that just leaves threesome as the only remaining first." When Becca looked at Reena side-eyed and Reena looked at the ceiling with a suppressed grin and a slight reddening of her cheeks, Liv's eyes flared. "Oh hell no, you little sluts did that too?" "I'll gladly be Dave's little slut," Becca replied. Reena inhaled, puffing out her chest. "The smell of your jealousy is delicious." Liv threw a pillow. Vanessa and Shawna laughed. "Now hold on, the two of them in the same room taking turns with him ain't the same as a threesome." "Oh, we know." Reena replied. Even with her darker skin, the blush in her cheeks was notable. Dave sat there with a wry grin on his face, not saying a word. "Are we embarrassing you Dave?" "Nope. I was there when it happened and this conversation still makes me feel like I fell into the Twilight Zone," Dave chuckled. "My brain keeps trying to make sense of everything that's happened, while my cock keeps saying 'Dude, shut up! Hot women are happily fucking us!'" That earned several chuckles. Then, the women shared looks, a certain gleam in their eyes. Almost as one, the women rose from their seats and approached Dave. It could have engendered a sense of foreboding, but he knew these women too well to think they had any ill intent. They encircled Dave, taking turns slowly kissing him. Lips on his, more lips on his ears, yet more on his shirt covered chest. Hands stroked his body, avoiding his cock; barely. Fingers played in his hair. Soft moans from Dave and each of the ladies of his house lightly covered over the heavy breathing. A loud bark from Roscoe, just outside the door, threw a bucket of cold water on the proceedings. Chagrined, the women drifted back to their seats. Dave took a shuddering breath and adjusted himself. "We need to keep the Esme rule in mind," Dave said levelly. "No one mounted you, and you were in a recliner, not on the couch," Mel replied. "The letter of the rule might not have been violated, but the spirit got shot so full of holes it'd whistle in a good wind. In four-part harmony, with reverb." "I was as much a part of instigating that as anyone," Lupie interjected. "But yes, we need to be careful. There's so much sexual innuendo everywhere these days, we don't need to give her a live demo." "With her own mother in a starring role." Lupie blanched at Dave's reply. "Getting back to the topic at hand; it was strange enough that Reena and Becca were climaxing sympathetically. At least they could see what was happening, they were in the same room together. This morning; Mel, why don't you take this part?" "Yeah, uh, as I was telling Dave this morning that, um, last night, I was working out in the gym room. On the rower. Well, all of the sudden I; had an orgasm. Mid-stroke. I had no idea what was going on, but I nearly fell off the rower. It was weird enough that I called it quits for the night and cleaned up the gym, heading to bed. On my way up the stairs, another one hit. I caught myself with my hands, so I didn't stumble too hard, but that was; really weird. Since the gym is almost directly below the room they were in, and the stairs run up right beside it, and given what happened in the room, they have to be linked." Silence settled on the room again. "Wow, so, some kind of shared orgasm, with a broadcast range?" Nessa asked. "Looks like it. I have no idea how, but that's what appears to have happened." "We didn't feel anything like that in the master bedroom. This is something we should report David." Shawna was in full on science mode. "They may already know about it, and can tell us why, or maybe they don't and the researchers need to find out what caused this. Either way, it has to be the serum doing it." "Agreed. It didn't happen to us before, so let's work through possible variables before we call." "Okay," Shawna said, staring into space and beginning to count off on her fingers, "One; your first partner arrived roughly seven weeks ago. Two; you've just reached eight partners. Three; it was a special night, so maybe something about the hormones of being that happy?" "All those sound reasonable. It was also the first threesome." Dave replied. "Anybody else?" "You two are the scientists," Lupie commented. "And both of us specialize in the physical sciences, not squishy stuff," Dave replied. "Don't sell yourself short baby," Shawna rebounded, "you're quite good with our squishy stuff." The women all laughed as Dave blushed again, his eyes wide and his mouth scrunched tight. With a grin. "Okay, so I'll call the Vax Center to tell them what happened. Assuming they don't haul me away in a padded van, we'll do the Mario Kart tournament this afternoon." "And movies afterward!" Reena exclaimed. "Sounds good to me," Shawna replied. "What are we watchin'?" The person at the Vax Center sounded like Dave's report was the first time they'd heard of this happening. They also sounded like they were no longer surprised by weird effects of the vaccine. So no padded van. Dave made it to the semifinal rounds but got knocked out by Olivia. She shot him with a spread of green shells right before the finish line and crossed ahead of him to seal her spot in the finals. In a playful whine he cried out "I thought you loved me!" His pouty lip drew laughter from the rest of the house, but only a tongue sticking out from his college age paramour. "All's fair in love and Mario Kart!" Livy proudly proclaimed. Dave managed to notice the extra, conciliatory bounce she gave to her tits as she laughed. Watching those big pec pillows jostling under her shirt did have an ameliorating effect. Doubly so since he had gotten intimately familiar with said fun bags. Dave took a moment to savor the mental image of Livy's lush, full tits, free of her bra, jostling back and forth, her medium brown areolas and thick nipples hopping like the bouncing ball in a sing along video while he pounded into her rapidly as they neared a mutual climax. Well, double for her, as Dave generally worked to get the lady there for real at least once before he allowed himself to let loose. And that was for quickies. If they had more time he never let himself release before she'd gotten three. Granted, that was getting a bit more difficult when he was juggling the needs of eight women. Dave shook himself back to reality. A couple of the ladies were smirking. Others were studiously looking away. Reena offered a high-five to Olivia. "Daydream score!" Reena cried out as the college girl accepted the congratulations of the recent high school grad. Both busty ladies laughed. A bit of shuffling ensued as everyone made space for Liv, Mel, Esme, and Shawna to take prime playing spots for the final game round. Spacing had gotten easier over the past few rounds as Lupie and Jan were eliminated and headed to the kitchen to start a movie night friendly meal. They hadn't told anyone what they were making, but no one had asked either. The smells were getting yummy though. Nessa decided to slip away to see if she could offer any help. Esme once again played Liv and Mel against each other. For one lap. Then all three noticed Shawna was well ahead of all of them. Then an all-out slaughter ensued as the three jostled each other, trying to surge ahead and battle with Shawna. Each one prayed for a blue shell, but none manifested. Esme finally got a lightning bolt, but miniaturized Princess Peach sailed across the finish line with room to spare. "How did you do that?" Reena cried incredulously. "I mean, you're this put together professional woman. How'd you get so good at Mario Kart?" "Professional scientist," Shawna replied. "How's that not set off your nerd alert? I was playing Mario Kart when it was 16 bit," she ended with a smirk. "Okay, hipster." Reena giggled back. Dave stepped close to Shawna, singing "This is how we do it ;” Together they started dancing, though Shawna clearly knew how, and Dave; not so much. He danced more like a caricature of a middle aged man breaking out old 90's moves in a dance club. The dance quickly morphed into a kiss that bounded between chaste and passionate. "Aw, it's so cute watching nerds in love." The two lovers laughed, breaking the kiss, and rested their foreheads together. "The table is all set," Lupie announced. "Make your plates and find a spot for the movie." There was a slight waver in her voice on the last part. Lupie was still adjusting to folks eating in the living room. Something she never allowed in her house, though when she went over to a family member's house for a big gathering, they all did it. She was making baby steps. They had plenty of evening and night left, and probably two movies before it was reasonable to send Esme to bed. First up was Inside Out, which Esme hadn't yet watched, and loved. Dave put away the disc after the movie ended. Reena took the lull to speak up. "How about we watch something streaming next? Maybe, The Babysitter?" "Are you nuts girl?" Shawna asked. "How 'bout we watch something that won't keep Esme from sleeping for a month?" Lupie, unfamiliar with the movie, took on a worried look. "That bad?" "Bad enough I'm not even going to describe it with her around. And She would never look at Becca the same again." Reena snorted. "To be fair, Becca is in a sort of cult now, with a much different sacrificial totem!" "Ha. Ha, ha. ha." Dave replied. Jan, seated beside Dave because it was her turn, chuckled while clutching his bicep and nestling her head on his shoulder. "Oh! How about The Mummy? The Brendan Fraser one, not Tom Cruise," Becca said from her seat on the floor between Dave's legs. Not doing anything frisky, that was understood, but often Becca or Reena; and occasionally Livy; sat there for family movie time. "Hmm, good movie, not sure if we should with Esme out here. Lupie?" "She's probably old enough now." Esme loved the movie. Almost as much as she loved Becca imitating the "I; am a librarian!" line, complete with a flop into Jan's lap. Everyone got a good laugh out of it; including Jan, who rolled her eyes as she did. October 25, 2020. Dave joined Lupie in the library for the Bible study she hosted for Becca and Reena. Originally, it was just Lupie by herself, but Becca had once shared a church with Lupie, and quickly asked to sit in with her. Recalling that Reena had mentioned church attendance in the past, Becca invited her to come as well. With his appearance this week, Dave made four. Lupie started with a prayer of invocation. When she finished, she gave Dave a shy smile. "We usually sing a few songs next." She bit her lip. "Just, please don't judge." Dave scowled, "Of course not." Then he softened his look. "That would be doubly inappropriate. People who give others grief for singing badly in church forgot the point of singing in church. And then there's the whole 'building your partner up' being violated like crazy if I gave you grief about your singing. I seem to recall there are a few verses in the Bible that have something to say against that." That earned another shy grin from Lupie, who then nodded to Becca. She and Reena launched into a song, obviously, they had planned ahead. As the first lyrics ushered forth, Dave recognized it and joined in. He closed his eyes and felt the meaning of the song, adding his own voice to the harmony. I will not forget you, you are my God, my King and with a thankful heart I bring my offering and my sacrifice is, not what you can give but what I alone can give to you! Dave finally re-opened his eyes, primarily to catch the cue for when the girls would start the second verse. He noted the eyes on him. Not exactly impressed, but surprised. Maybe they had expected him to just add a mumbling bass, but Dave had never been that guy. After two more songs, Lupie delivered her prepared lesson. They closed with another prayer. As each picked up their Bible to leave, Lupie tapped Dave on the shoulder. "The girls and I have talked about rotating who would give the lesson. They both agreed in principle, but didn't feel quite ready to actually do it. I think they feel uncomfortable taking the position of a moral authority. Do you think you could take the next lesson?" Dave caught his breath. It was one hell of an 'Oh by the way request'. It was also entirely reasonable. And honestly, it was his duty to either take on the role, or at least share it. "Sure. Maybe I can come up with something that will ease them in the right direction; or nudge them. I'm not quite sure which is more appropriate at the moment." To be continued in part 8, Based on a post by RonanJWilkerson, in 12 parts, for Literotica.

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every Saturday with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently. And if you want to watch this lesson, just look for Happy English Podcast on YouTube.Today, let's look at a really natural phrase you'll hear in everyday English - “to this day.” We use to this day to mean until now, usually when something began in the past and is still true today. To this day often shows strong feelings - surprise, wonder, and even admiration.Like, I first saw Casablanca when I was in my twenties, and to this day, it's still my favorite movie.”Our relationship ended over 25 years ago, but to this day, I don't know why she broke up with me.You'll hear the phrase to this day a lot in stories, interviews, and even documentaries, because it connects the past and present in a simple, powerful way. So try using to this day in your English conversations this week. Lemme know in the comments how it goes, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next Saturday's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Watch video versions of the Happy English Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HappyEnglishNY/podcastsBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every Saturday with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently. And if you want to watch this lesson, just look for Happy English Podcast on YouTube.Today, let's look at a really useful expression for telling stories - “the next thing I knew.” We use the next thing I knew when something happens quickly or unexpectedly, especially in a story. It's another way to say “and then suddenly…” or “after that…”Like, “I sat down on the sofa to rest, and the next thing I knew, I fell asleep.”Or: “I was looking at instagram on my phone, and the next thing I knew, it was after midnight.”We use this expression to show a jump in time - like your story skips ahead to the next big moment.So remember, if you want to make your storytelling more natural and dramatic, try using “the next thing I knew.” It brings your story to life.Lemme know in the comments how it goes, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next Saturday's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool. Watch video versions of the Happy English Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HappyEnglishNY/podcastsBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

This week Julia and Nick bring you a holiday horrors episode full of festive chaos! They unpack their own holiday traditions and react to cursed listener stories including a dad who got too kooky, a dramatic dog on a mission, and a girl who received heartbreaking news about her dentist. Digressions include the tooth fairy's terrible work life balance, the beautiful lives of leaf cutter ants, and Oil. This is a teaser for a Patreon-exclusive episode. To listen to the full episode and access over 50 bonus episodes, mediasodes, and our monthly news broadcast What the Hell Sure NEWS, visit patreon.com/binchtopia and become a patron today.

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every Saturday with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently. And by the way, if you want to watch this lesson, just look for Happy English Podcast on YouTube.Today, let's look at a really natural conversational expression - “sure enough.” Sure enough means, “as expected.” We use sure enough to talk about something that happened exactly the way we thought it would.Like,  “I was wondering if Jack would come late to the meeting - and sure enough, he did.”And yesterday, on the way to the bakery, I was wondering if they would still have sesame bagels left, and when I got there, sure enough, they were sold out. Here's one more. The weather looked iffy all morning and sure enough, it started pouring during lunch.Again, sure enough is not negative or positive. It just means, “Yep… that's exactly what I thought would happen.”Try using this phrase in one of your English conversations this week. And hey - sure enough, I think you're gonna sound even more natural when you do. Lemme know in the comments how it goes, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next Saturday's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.  Watch video versions of the Happy English Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HappyEnglishNY/podcastsBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

In this episode, I'm sharing my Favorite Things of 2025 — the wellness products, travel must-haves, business tools, and everyday essentials I'm obsessed with. If you're a woman entrepreneur, travel lover, or busy creator looking for systems that simplify your life and boost your energy, this roundup is packed with game-changers. Inside this episode, you'll hear about: The best wellness tools for entrepreneurs (massage gun, vibration plate, red light therapy)My favorite business + content creation tools (E-camm, Descript, Flodesk, SmarterQueue)Travel must-haves I swear by (Away suitcase, LMNT, Lemme vitamins)Simple habits that support stress relief and sleep (EFT tapping, lavender essential oil)Healthy treats + drinks I love for energy and focus (Recess, Smart Sweets, Joffrey's coffee) Whether you want to uplevel your business systems, improve your health routines, or make travel easier, this episode is full of tried-and-true favorites that make life so much more magical. ✨ Listen now and discover your next favorite thing! Head to the blog for the full list: https://lindsaydollinger.com/blog/my-favorite-things-2025/

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every Saturday with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently. And by the way, if you want to watch this lesson, just look for Happy English Podcast on YouTube.Today, let's look at a really casual, really conversational pattern you'll hear in everyday American English - all + adjective. We use all before an adjective to mean very or totally, and it adds emotion to what we're saying.  You'll hear this especially when people are talking about feelings, reactions, or moodsLike, Maybe last night, you came home after a long day. You can say: “I was all hungry and tired when I got home last night.” all hungry and tired means very hungry, and  very tired.Or maybe your boss saw last month's sales numbers and wasn't happy. You could say: “The boss was all grumpy when he saw last month's sales data.” Here's another example. “Jen was all excited about her vacation.” It's casual, it's expressive, and it sounds very natural in everyday American English.  Just remember - this is spoken English, not something you'd use in formal writing.Try using this pattern the next time you want to describe a strong feeling - like “I was all surprised!”  It really brings your English to life. Lemme know in the comments how it goes, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next Saturday's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Watch video versions of the Happy English Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HappyEnglishNY/podcastsBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every Saturday with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently. And by the way, if you want to watch this lesson, just look for Happy English Podcast on YouTube.Today, let's look at a really useful conversational phrase - “What's up with…?”We use what's up with…? to ask about something we don't understand. It's another way to say“What's the situation with…?”  And you can use it for people, for events, or even for weird situations.Like,  Maybe your coworker is acting strange. You can say:  “What's up with John today?”Or if you're confused about a rule at work, you might say:  “What's up with casual Fridays? Can we wear jeans or not?”We also use it to talk about trends or new behaviors we don't get.  Like:  “I don't know what's up with kids these days and that 6-7 thing.”One thing to keep in mind is tone. With a neutral tone, it sounds curious.  With a strong tone, it can sound annoyed or frustrated:  “Oh man, what's up with all this traffic today?”What's up with waiting? Go try this phrase in your next conversation! Lemme know in the comments how it goes, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next Saturday's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening. And until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Watch video versions of the Happy English Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HappyEnglishNY/podcastsBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

I'm feeling a tiny bit too gassed to look it up, but I think this is maybe the fourth-consecutive episode of the podcast to drop on Thanksgiving.Thursdays aren't fantastic for metrics it seems, but what's more likely is that this thing just isn't really marketable in terms of audience growth.And that's okay. There was never a pipe dream to have it all blow up. It's always been about connecting with people and sharing stories. And I'm pretty proud to be closing in on 200 episodes/four years of sittin' down with folks to talk about life and music.Point being, nobody's really paying attention to anything on Thanksgiving; they're all movin' around and preparing and whatnot. Most folks, anyway. And I want to give a special shoutout to those that aren't: To those that have spent or do spend this particular holiday without friends or without loved ones -- shouts out to you. You are loved, even if sediments of solitude occupy a portion of your day. Or your life.I don't know how the way current times feel compares to The Depression or Civil Rights or the late '70s when there were gas lines or any of the rest of it. I just know that it makes me a little sad everyday that people are being ugly to each other.It almost feels criminal to discover yourself enjoying something like a little time away from the grind when there are people out there that would give anything to have the grind be a part of their lives.So, I'd like to just...share a human moment, and say that I appreciate all of you that are currently inhabiting the planet. I mean, if you're fuckin' with other people and doin' creepy shit that ain't kosher -- well -- knock that off.People in traffic annoy me often. Same with comments-section campers. And don't get me started on the homeslices and the girlfriends that think that what's happening in the United States right now is fine. Lemme tell ya': Fine would be fantastic. Shit's "pretty fuckin' far from okay."So hopefully today some of you can wiggle yourself into that once-familiar feeling of things being okay, and you can enjoy your sweet potatoes, and compliment the pie crust, and -- of course -- offer to do the dishes.Anyway...Matthew Naquin is this week's guest. He was kind enough to share some of a Tuesday evening with me a couple of weeks ago, and together we hammered out Episode No. 192.We talked about his illustrations (Check him out on Instagram at @thesanmateo.), his music (thesanmateo.com plus Bandcamp, Spotify, and Apple Music), life, family, comedy, and a bunch more, including a few of his favorite records, which were these:U2's The Joshua Tree (1987)Gentlemen (1993), The Afghan WigsPortishead's Dummy (1994)F# A# Infinity (1997), Godspeed You! Black EmperorRadiohead's Amnesiac (2001)Check out our chat, and check out all things Matthew Naquin/San Mateo. Cheers and thank you.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976: Allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. That being said, I do not own the rights to the audio clips contained within this episode. They are snippets from a DJ Shadow tune called, "What Does Your Soul Look Like, Pt. 1 (Blue Sky Revisit)," and you can find this cut on his 1996 release, Endtroducing, c/o Mowax Recordings, A&M Records, Ltd.

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every Saturday with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently. And by the way, if you want to watch this lesson, just look for Happy English Podcast on YouTube.Today, let's look at a really common phrase you'll hear in everyday English - “Do me a favor.”We use do me a favor when we want to ask someone to do something for us. It's usually for a small, everyday request, and it sounds more friendly than directly asking someone to do something. One common pattern is: Do me a favor and, plus a verb. You can say things like,  “Do me a favor and close the window.” OR  “Do me a favor and turn down the TV a little.”We also use Do me a favor followed by a sentence. Like, “Do me a favor. Hand me that dictionary over there.” OR  “Do me a favor, don't tell anyone what we just talked about.You can also use Do me a favor when you're annoyed with someone. Like, Do me a favor and talk more quietly. OR Do me a favor. Stop smoking in this restaurant. Using “do me a favor” is a common, indirect way to soften your request. Even when you're annoyed. So do me a favor and try using this phrase in one of your English conversations this week, ok?Lemme know in the comments how it goes, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next Saturday's English Tips in a Minute. Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Watch video versions of the Happy English Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HappyEnglishNY/podcastsBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

Today's phrasal verb is chip in. When you chip in, it means you contribute money, effort, or help toward something - especially when everyone gives a little to make something happen.For example, at the office, we all chipped in to buy a birthday gift for our manager.And last weekend, my friends chipped in to rent a cabin in the mountains.And at home, my neighbors and I chipped in to help our elderly neighbor clean up his yeard. It was a nice way to do something together.And gere's a pronunciation tip: Chip in sounds like chi-pin. The P at the end of chip links with in, so it sounds like chi-pin.So how about you? When was the last time you chipped in for something - maybe a gift, a party, or a project? Lemme know in the comments, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next week's Phrasal Verbs in a Minute.  Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Watch video versions of the Happy English Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HappyEnglishNY/podcastsBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

From Heffernan & Lemme: The Potential Farewell Tour https://www.comedydynamics.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What's up Bros? Lemme start out by saying, if you are one of the few peeps that are not enjoying our hate watch or think we are being overly negative... we have one more episode left then it's clear skies ahead. Just bear with us for a litttttle bit longer. For the rest of you? Buckle up because this episode made no sense. We are not diving deep into any of the topics being brought up. We dip a toe then move on to the next. The whole argument surrounds 'she said, she said'. Between Katie and Matt vs Gretchen and Slade, we are left to decide who we believe. Personally? Katie and Matt's story is at least consistent. Slade and Gretchen are proven liars. We don't know what happened, but we also don't believe Slade and Gretchen. Who is in the wrong? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to English Tips in a Minute from Happy English. I'm here every Saturday with a short, simple tip to help you speak English more naturally and confidently.And if you want to watch this lesson, just look for Happy English Michael on YouTube.Today, let's look at a really common phrase you'll hear in everyday English - “Does that make sense?”We use does that make sense? to check if the other person understands what we just explained. It's a more natural and friendly way to say “Do you understand?” - which can sometimes sound a little too direct.For example, if you're giving directions, you could say: “Go straight two blocks, turn right at the light, and the café's on the left. Does that make sense?”Or, if you're helping a coworker with a report, you might say: “So, we'll send this out by Friday, and then follow up next week. Does that make sense?”It's polite, warm, and shows you care that the other person understood you. So next time you're explaining something, try ending with a friendly “Does that make sense?” - just to make sure!And hey, does that make sense to join me again next time for another podcast English lesson? Lemme know in the comments, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next Saturday's English tips in a minute.  Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Watch the video version of this Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HappyEnglishNY/podcastsBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

Hey there! It's Michael here - and welcome back to Phrasal Verbs in a Minute from Happy English.I'm here every Friday with a quick one-point lesson to help you learn a new phrasal verb and sound more natural when you speak. And if you want to watch this lesson just look for Happy English Michael on YouTube.Today's phrasal verb is rattle off.  When you rattle something off, it means you say or list things quickly and easily - usually without stopping to think much. It's like when someone just fires off information from memory.Like, my friend Lisa is amazing with dates. You can ask her about any historical event, and she'll rattle off the exact year it happened.And my coworker Tom can rattle off ten phrasal verbs in thirty seconds - no problem at all.Here's a pronunciation tip: rattle off - ra-dl-off. The T sound of rattle  is a flap T sound, and the  L sound of links with off, so it sounds like ra-dloff.So how about you? Is there something you can rattle off - maybe song lyrics, movie quotes, or English phrasal verbs?Lemme know in the comments, and remember to follow or subscribe so you don't miss the next Happy English Podcast and next week's Phrasal Verb Friday.  Hey, thanks for listening - and until next time, keep learning and keep it cool.Watch the video version of this Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/happyenglishnyBuild Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

In everyday spoken American English, we often use reduction. Here, reduction means we shorten or soften sounds when we speak. It's when certain words or syllables lose their full sound to make speech smoother and faster. Today, let's look at three really common reductions: lemme, gimme, and gemme.Like, instead of saying let me, we reduce it to lemme. The T sound at the end of let, is dropped. Lemme. You can say things like, “Lemme see that.”  “Lemme know when you're ready.” or “Lemme know what time the meeting starts.” Lemme. And instead of saying give me, we reduce it to gimme comes from give me.The V sound at the end of give, is dropped. Gimme. You can say things like,  “Gimme a second.” “Gimme that pen.” Or “Can you gimme a hand moving this desk?. GimmeFinally for today, instead of saying get me, we reduce it to gemme. The T sound at the end of get is dropped. Gemme. You can say things like, “Gemme a coffee, please.”  “Can you gemme a towel?” Or, “You're going for donuts? Can you gemme one?”These reductions happen naturally in everyday casual conversation. And reductions aren't a lazy way of speaking. They're just how people really talk smoothly.  So next time you hear lemme, gimme, or gemme, you'll know the meaning. And when you use them yourself, your English will sound smoother and more natural.Build Vocabulary With My Free Vocabulary Workshop: https://learn.myhappyenglish.com/vocabulary-workshop-signup

Alexis and Holly taste test Kourtney Kardashian's Lemme Purr lollipops, DIRT ALERT: Report: Gayle King might leave "CBS Mornings," and WTF: Classic Movie Monster edition -- it's Jason and Alexis vs. Bradley and Paul McGuire GrimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

THURSDAY HR 5 The K.O.D. - His Highness hands out praise to Russ. Conern about his Highness roasting Shaun Wasson. Dr. Deisi Love Advice (she's not a real dr.) What is a proper drink to order on a first date? Monster Messages & Hot Takes See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

THURSDAY HR 5 The K.O.D. - His Highness hands out praise to Russ. Conern about his Highness roasting Shaun Wasson. Dr. Deisi Love Advice (she's not a real dr.) What is a proper drink to order on a first date? Monster Messages & Hot Takes

Kourtney Kardashian's Lemme brand launches lollipops for women's health. Supposedly Tom Cruise was ready to propose to Ana de Armas. His PR team is telling a very different story. The artist behind ‘Murder on the Dancefloor' Sophie Michelle Ellis-Bextor is playing SF tonight at August Hall. A major Gmail hack means it's time to change your password and set up 2-step verification. Your nightlight might be killing you! (probably not though). What should we wear to a mid day rock show? Plus, the truth about essential oils!

Diddy will be released May 8, 2028 - it's better than nothing! Fraiser is coming for Nick Cannon's legacy: Kelsey Grammer is on his 4th wife and 8th kid. Sarah's reminding us of the top trending Halloween costumes from the past several years. It would be good to know at the water cooler today that the World Series went 18 innings last night! Not all chocolate candy is created equal. There's trouble in Jamaica (again). Sarah and John almost broke up there on their honeymoon. Kourtney Kardashian's Lemme brand launches lollipops for women's health. Supposedly Tom Cruise was ready to propose to Ana de Armas. His PR team is telling a very different story. The artist behind ‘Murder on the Dancefloor' Sophie Michelle Ellis-Bextor is playing SF tonight at August Hall. A major Gmail hack means it's time to change your password and set up 2-step verification. Your nightlight might be killing you! (probably not though). What should we wear to a mid day rock show? Plus, the truth about essential oils! Jennifer Lawrence shares how she's handling aging post two kids. Sarah and Vinnie reflect on all the lovable things she's done over the years. Horror comedies are an underrated genre. Here are some of the best movies to revisit while Halloween season is hot. The ‘Wicked: For Good' reviews are IN. Taylor Swift's oldest fan started a fan club at his retirement home. Amazon announces 14K corporate layoffs before the holidays. Plus, a terrifying story that might stop you from dozing off. DWTS is having one of its biggest seasons, but it's not without controversy. Two former pros from the show took to their podcast to bash on Jan Ravnik, Taylor Swift's backup dancer who joined DWTS this season. The best places to trick-or-treat across the country. A flight attendant made a $60k mistake, and it reminds Sarah about her worst mistake as a DJ.

The suspect of a stolen vehicle pursuit is hit by a car. Lemme vitamins came out with lollipops for your vagina. Duji was banned from eBay. 

Rover is in love with Duji. Christmas decorations. A mouse ran out of the RV. What does Rover think is fun? JLR pronunciations. How did the conversation with Tomas go? Former UFC fighter, Bryce Mitchell, has changed his support for Donald Trump. Elon Musk is being paid a trillion dollars to be the CEO of TESLA. Charlie is hoping he can still go to Jamaica after the hurricane hits. Rover and B2 cannot agree on if they should help someone or not. The suspect of a stolen vehicle pursuit is hit by a car. Lemme vitamins came out with lollipops for your vagina. Duji was banned from eBay. A caller sells lollipops she puts in her butt. Rover paid to get his MRI images.

The suspect of a stolen vehicle pursuit is hit by a car. Lemme vitamins came out with lollipops for your vagina. Duji was banned from eBay. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rover is in love with Duji. Christmas decorations. A mouse ran out of the RV. What does Rover think is fun? JLR pronunciations. How did the conversation with Tomas go? Former UFC fighter, Bryce Mitchell, has changed his support for Donald Trump. Elon Musk is being paid a trillion dollars to be the CEO of TESLA. Charlie is hoping he can still go to Jamaica after the hurricane hits. Rover and B2 cannot agree on if they should help someone or not. The suspect of a stolen vehicle pursuit is hit by a car. Lemme vitamins came out with lollipops for your vagina. Duji was banned from eBay. A caller sells lollipops she puts in her butt. Rover paid to get his MRI images.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Weapon-inspired baby names are hot, but we're not ere for it, BOOB TUBE: Jason loves the documentaries "The Perfect Stranger" and "Stiller & Meara: Nothing Is Lost," and Kourtney Kardashian's Lemme Purr lollipopsSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this profound episode of the Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb delve deeply into the Parable of the Tares (Matthew 13:24-30), exploring its implications for Christian assurance. Building on their previous discussion, they examine how this parable speaks to the mixed nature of the visible church, the sovereignty of Christ over His kingdom, and most significantly, the doctrine of assurance. Through careful theological reflection, the hosts unpack how true believers can find solid ground for assurance not in their own works or fruit-checking, but in the promises of Christ and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. This episode offers both encouragement for those struggling with doubts and a sobering challenge to those resting in false assurance. Key Takeaways The Parable of the Tares teaches that the visible church will be mixed until the final judgment, containing both true believers (wheat) and false professors (tares) who may appear outwardly similar. True assurance is not based primarily on good works but on the promises of Christ, the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, and the evidences of grace in our lives. False assurance is a real danger, as many who think they belong to Christ will discover at the final judgment that they never truly knew Him. The Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 18) provides a helpful framework for understanding biblical assurance as the proper possession of every Christian. Christ's role as the divine Master of the house (the world) and Lord of the angels is subtly yet powerfully affirmed in this parable, grounding our assurance in His sovereignty. Good works are the fruit of assurance, not its cause—when we are secure in our salvation, we are freed to serve Christ joyfully rather than anxiously trying to earn assurance. The final judgment will bring perfect clarity, revealing what was hidden and separating the wheat from the tares with divine precision that humans cannot achieve now. The Doctrine of Assurance: Reformed Understanding The Reformed tradition has always emphasized that believers can and should have assurance of their salvation—a conviction recovered during the Reformation in contrast to Rome's teaching. As Tony noted when reading from the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 18), this assurance is "not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope, but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation." This assurance rests on three pillars: the promises of God in Scripture, the inward evidence of grace, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit witnessing with our spirit. What makes this understanding particularly comforting is that it shifts the foundation of assurance away from our performance to God's faithfulness. While self-examination has its place, the Reformed understanding recognizes that looking too intensely at our own hearts and works can lead either to despair or to false confidence. Instead, we're directed to look primarily to Christ and His finished work, finding in Him the anchor for our souls. The Problem of False Assurance One of the most sobering aspects of the Parable of the Tares is its implicit warning about false assurance. Just as the tares resemble wheat until maturity reveals their true nature, many professing Christians may outwardly appear to belong to Christ while inwardly remaining unregenerate. As Jesse observed, "The tares typically live under false assurance. They may attend church, confess belief, appear righteous, yet their hearts are unregenerate. Their faith is maybe historical, it's not saving, it could be intellectual, but it's not spiritual." This echoes Jesus' warning in Matthew 7 that many will say to Him, "Lord, Lord," but will hear the devastating response, "I never knew you." The parable teaches us that this self-deception is not always conscious hypocrisy but often the result of spiritual blindness. As Jesse noted, referencing Romans 1, Ephesians 4, and 1 Corinthians 2, the unregenerate are "not merely ignorant, they're blinded... to the spiritual truth by nature and by Satan." This understanding should prompt humble self-examination while simultaneously driving us to depend not on our own discernment but on Christ's perfect knowledge and saving work. Memorable Quotes "Assurance is the believer's arc where he sits Noah alike quiets and still in the midst of all distractions and destructions, commotions and confusions." - Thomas Brooks, quoted by Jesse Schwamb "When we are confessing, repenting, seeking like our status in Christ because of Christ, then we have confidence that we are in fact part of the children of God. When everything is stripped away from us and all we're crying out is only and completely and solely and unequivocally Jesus Christ, then I think we have great reason to understand that we should be confident in our assurance." - Jesse Schwamb "The sacrifice and the service that a husband performs for his wife, whom he loves and trusts and is committed to and knows that she's faithful and committed to him, that is not causing that faithfulness. It's not causing that trust and that love. It is the outcome and the outflow of it." - Tony Arsenal on how good works flow from assurance rather than cause it Resources Mentioned Scripture: Matthew 13:24-30, Matthew 7:21-23, Romans 1, Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 2, 2 Timothy 3:5 Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 18 "Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation" Thomas Brooks: "Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices" YouTube Channel: My Wild Backyard Khan Academy: Educational resource recommended during "Affirmations and Denials" segment Full Transcript Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 466 of the Reform the Brotherhood. I'm Jesse. Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother. Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother. We're going back to the farm again. Can't stop. Won't stop. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I'm stoked. [00:01:02] Discussion on the Parable of the Tears Tony Arsenal: The last week's discussion was interesting and I think, um, it's gonna be nice to sort of round it out and talk about some things you might not think about, uh, when you first read this parable. So I'm, I'm pretty excited. Jesse Schwamb: Oh, what a tease that is. So if you're wondering what Tony's talking about, we're hanging out. In Matthew 13, we are just really enjoying these teachings of Jesus. And they are shocking and they're challenging, and they're encouraging, and they're awesome, of course. And so we're gonna be finishing out the Parable of the Tears and you need to go back and listen to the previous conversation. This, this is all set up because we have some unfinished business. We didn't talk about the eschatological implications. We have this really big this, this matza ball hanging over us. So to speak, which was the, do the TAs in this parable even know that they are tarry, that they are the TAs? And so in this parable, the disciples learn that the kingdom itself, God's kingdom, the kingdom that Jesus is enumerating and explaining and bringing into being, they are learning that it's gonna be mixed in character. So that's correcting this expectation that the kingdom would be perfectly pure and would have, would evolve righteous rule over all of the unrighteous world. And so it's a little bit shocking that Jesus says, listen, they're gonna be. Tears within the wheats that is in the world, the seed that God himself, the sun has planted and that they're gonna exist side by side for a long time. And so we, they have to wait patiently and give ourselves to building up the wheats as the sons of the kingdom and be careful in their judgment, not to harm those who are believers. We covered a lot of that last week, but left so much unsaid we couldn't even fit it in. This is gonna be jam packed, so I'm gonna stop giving the tees instead start moving us into affirmations and denials. [00:02:45] Affirmations and Denials Jesse Schwamb: It's of course that time in our conversation where we either affirm with something really like or we think is undervalued or we deny against something that we don't really like or is a little overvalued. So as I usually say to you, Tony, what have you got for us? [00:03:00] YouTube Channel Recommendation: My Wild Backyard Tony Arsenal: I am affirming a YouTube channel. Um, I, I think the algorithm goes through these cycles where it wants me to learn about bugs and things because I get Okay, like videos about bugs. And so I'm, I'm interested. There's been this, uh, channel that's been coming up on my algorithm lately called My Wild Backyard, and it, it's a guy, he's like an entomologist. He seems like a, a like a legit academic, but what he does is he basically goes through and he talks about different bugs, creepy crawlies, looks at like snakes, all that kinds of stuff. It seems like his wheelhouse is the stuff that can kill you or hurt you pretty bad. Nice. But, um, it's interesting and it's. It's good educational content. It's, you know, it's not sensationalized, it's not, uh, it's not dramatized. Um, it's very real. There's occasionally an instance where he, he's not, sometimes he will intentionally get bit or stung by an, uh, by an animal to show you what it does. So he can experience and explain what he's experiencing. And sometimes he just accidentally gets bit or stung. And so those are some of the most interesting ones. So like, for example, just looking at his, his channel, his most recent, um, his most recent video is called The most venomous Desert Creatures in the US ranked the one previous was. The world's most terrifying arachni isn't a spider. And then previous to that was what happens if a giant centipede bites you? So it's interesting stuff. If you are one of those people that likes bugs and likes creepy crawlies and things, um, this is definitely the channel for you if you're not one of those people. I actually think this probably is the channel for you too. 'cause it kind of demystifies a lot of this stuff. Um. You know, for example, he, he will commonly point out that, um, spiders don't wanna bite you and they just wanna leave you alone. And, and as long as you leave them alone, even, even something like a black widow, which people are terrified of, and I think, right, rightfully so. I mean, they can be scary. Those can be scary bites. He'll, he'll handle those, no problem. And as long as he's not like putting downward pressure on them, uh, they have no interest in biting, they really just want to get away. So even seeing that kind of stuff, I think can help demystify and, and sort of, uh, make it a little bit easier. So my Wild Backyard, he can find it on YouTube. Um, he's safe for kids. He's not, he's not cussing even. I mean, I think occasionally when he gets bit on accident, you might, you know, you might have a beep here or there, but, um, he's not, he's not regularly swearing or things like that. And he does a pretty good job of adding that stuff out. Jesse Schwamb: What a great title for that, isn't it? This, yeah. Confluence of your backyard. That space that seems domesticated is also stealing its own. Right. Wild. And there's a be Yeah. Both those things coming together. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. It, it's interesting stuff and it's really good. I mean, it's really compelling videography. He does a good job of taking good photos. You'll see insects that you usually won't see, or spiders you usually won't see. Um, so yeah, it's cool. Check it out. [00:05:51] Discussion on Spiders and Creepy Crawlies Jesse Schwamb: What are you, uh, yeah, I myself would like to become more comfortable with the arachni variety. If only be, I mean, I don't know. It's, it's a weird creature, so my instinct is to be like, kill them all. And then if I can't find them and I know they're around, then we just burn everything that we own. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Jesse Schwamb: They just can't sink into the ground fast enough. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. There's something about the way they move, like their, their bodies don't move the way you would anticipate them to. Right. And it freaks, it just weirds out human sensibilities, so. Right. Jesse Schwamb: They're also like, I find them to be very surprising. Often. It's not kind of a, a very like, kind of measured welcome into your life. It's like you just go to get in the shower and there's a giant spider. Yeah. Oh yeah. Although I guess that spider, he's, he or she's probably like, whoa, where'd you come from? You know, like, yeah. He's like, I was just taking a Tony Arsenal: shower. You know what's interesting? Um, I saw another video was on a different channel, um, like common jumping spiders. Yeah. Which there are like hundreds of species of common jumping spiders. Jesse Schwamb: True. Tony Arsenal: Um, but spiders and jumping spiders specifically, actually you can form almost like a pet bond with, so like the, that jumping spider that like lives in your house and sees you every day. He, he probably knows who you are and is like, comfortable with you. And they've done studies that like you can actually domesticate jumping spiders, so they're not as foreign and alien as you might think. Although they certainly do look a little bit strange and weird. And the way their bodies move is almost designed to weird out people like it just the skinness, like the way their legs skitter and move it, it just is, it's, it triggers something very primal in us to That's wild. Be weirded out by it. Yeah. Jesse Schwamb: It's wild. I love it. That's a good, a affirmation. I'm definitely gonna check that out. I, any, anything? I really want to know what the, what like the terrifying arachni is. That's not a spider. Tony Arsenal: It's a, well, it's called a camel spider, but it's not really a spider. Oh, Jesse Schwamb: I know what you're talking about. That is kind of terrifying. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. They, they actually don't have any venom. Um, yeah. Check out the video. I mean, it, it was a good video. Um, but yeah, they're freaky looking and, um, but even that, like he was handling it No problem. Yeah. Like it wasn't, it wasn't aggressive with him once Wow. Once it figured out it wasn't, he wasn't trying to hurt him and, and that it couldn't eat him. Um, it, it just sort of like hung out until he let it go. So Jesse Schwamb: yeah, just be careful if you watch it one before bed or while in bed. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Probably not right before bed. Yeah. You'll, you'll get the creepy crawlies all night. Jesse Schwamb: I love it. But there's something somewhat. Like invigorating about that isn't there? Like it's, it's kind of a natural, just like kind of holy respect for the world that God has created, that they're these features that are so different, so wild, so interesting and a little bit frightening, but in the sense that we just draw off from them because they're so different than what we are. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Jesse Schwamb: And you know, again, there's places you would be happy to see them, but maybe your bathtub or like shooting out, like, you know, like where you live, the jumping spiders are legit and they will just pop out on you, you know? Yeah. You're just doing your own thing and then all of a sudden they're popping out. I think part of that is just that what, what gets me is like them just, you know, like I remember in my basement here, once one popped out from a rafter and then I was holding, happened to be holding up broom. My instinct just naturally was to hit it. I hit it with the broom and it went across the room and fell on an empty box and sounded like a silver dollar had hit the box. Like it was just a massive, I mean, again, like, it's like fish stories, like it's a massive spider. It was a big spider. Yeah. But you just don't expect to, to see that kind of thing. Or maybe, maybe I should, but anything that moves in that way, and again, like centipedes, man, forget it. We have those too, like in our basement. Like the long ones. Oh yeah. Yeah. That thing will come like squiggling down the wall at you, like eye level and you just wanna run up the stairs screaming like a little girl. Tony Arsenal: Yeah, you do run up the stairs screaming like a little girl. It's not that you want to, it's that usually you do. I don't mean like you specifically, although probably you specifically. Yeah. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. There's, yeah, you just react. Well, j Jesse enough freaking out. I mean, we're getting close to Halloween, so I suppose it's appropriate, but, uh, enough of that. What are you affirming or denying today? Jesse Schwamb: Once again, without like any coordination, mine is not unlike yours. I know you and I, we talk about the world in which we live, which God has created, and this lovely command, this ammunition to take dominion over that. And one of the things I appreciate about our conversations is I think you and I often have maybe not like a novel. Kinda perspective on that, but one that I don't hear talked about often and that is this idea of taking dominion over what it is possible to know and to appropriate, and then to apply onto wisdom. [00:10:27] Affirmation: Khan Academy Jesse Schwamb: And so my information is in that realm. It's another form of taking ownership of what's in the wild of knowledge that you can possess. And again, equal parts. What an amazing time to be alive. So I'm affirming with the website, Khan Academy, which I'm sure many are familiar with. And this website offers like. Thousands of hours. Uh, and materials of free instructional videos, practice exercises, quizzes, all these like really bespoke, personalized learning modules you can create for topics like math, science, computing, economics, history, art. I think it goes like even starting at like. Elementary age all the way up into like early college can help you study for things like the SAT, the LSAT AP courses, and I was revisiting it. I have an open account with them that I keep in love and I go back to it from time to time. And I was working on some stuff where I wanted to rehearse some knowledge in like the calculus space, do some things by hand, which I haven't done. And I was just like, I'm blown away at how good this stuff is. And it's all for free. I mean, you should donate if you. You get something from this because it's a nonprofit, but the fact that there are these amazing instructional videos out there that can help us get a better understanding of either things we already know and we can rehearse the knowledge or to learn something brand new essentially for free. But somebody's done all the hard work to curate a pedagogy for you. Honestly, this is incredible. So if you haven't looked at that website in a long time or maybe ever, and you might be thinking, what, what do I really wanna learn? Lemme tell you. There's a lot of interesting stuff there and it's so approachable and it's such a good website for teaching. And if you have children in particular, even if you're looking for help, either helping them with their own coursework or maybe to have like kind of a tutor on the side, this is so good. So I can't say enough good things recently about Khan Academy 'cause it's been so helpful to me and super fun to like just sit and have your own paced study and in the private and comfort of your own home or your desk at work or wherever it is that you need to learn it. To be able to have somebody teach you some things, to do a little practice exercises, and then to go on to the world and to apply the things you've learned. Ah, it's so good. Tony Arsenal: Nice. Yeah, I've, I've never done anything with Khan Academy. I'll have to check it out. There's, um, there's some skills of needing to brush up on, uh, at work that I am probably not gonna be able to find in my normal channels, so I'll have to see if there is anything going on there. Um, but yeah, that's, that's good stuff. And it's free. Love freestyle. It's, and of course, like Jesse Schwamb: things like this are legion. So whatever it is, whatever your discipline or your field of study or work is, there's probably something out there and, uh, might, I humbly maybe encourage you to, if you use something like that and it's funded by donations, it's worth giving, I think, because again, it's just an amazing opportunity to take dominion over the knowledge that God has placed into the world and then to use it for something. I mean, I suppose even if all it is is you just wanna learn more about, like for me, I, I find like the subjects of, of math and science, like just endlessly fascinating and like the computing section I was looking at, I, I don't know much about like programming per se, but there is such a beauty. Like these underlying principles, like the, the organization of the world and the first level principles of like physics for instance, are just like baffling in the most glorious kind of way. How they all come together. So having somebody like teach you at a very like simplistic level, but allow you to grasp those concepts makes you just appreciate it leads me to doxology a lot when I see these things. So in a weird way, it ends up becoming maybe not a weird way and the right way. It becomes worship as often as I'm sitting at my desk and working through like a practice problem on like, you know, partial differential equation or, or derivatives is what I was working on today. And ah, it's just so good. I don't know, maybe I'm the only one. I, it's not be super nerdy, but you, are you ever like at your desk studying something? And it might not be like theological per se, but you just have a moment where you're overcome with some kind of worship. Do you know what I'm talking about? Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I, um, this we're the nerdiest people on the planet, but let's Jesse Schwamb: do it. Um, Tony Arsenal: when I find a really fun, interesting. Uh, Excel formula and I can get it to work right. Uh, and it, and then it just like everything unlocks. Like, I feel like I've unlocked all the knowledge in the universe. Um, but yeah, I hear you like the, the Excel thing is, is interesting to me because, like, math is just the description. Like it's just the fabric of reality is just the way we describe reality. But the fact that we can do basically just take math and do all these amazing things with it, uh, in a spreadsheet is really, uh, drives me to praise. Like I said, that's super nerdy, but it is. Oh, you're speaking my language. Jesse Schwamb: I, we have never understood each other better than just this moment right now. We, we had some real talk and, uh, a real moment. Tony Arsenal: Yes. Welcome to the Reformed math cast. Jesse Schwamb: We're so glad that you're here. Tony Arsenal: Yes. We're not gonna do any one plus one plus one equals one kinds of heretical math in, up in here. Jesse Schwamb: No. Tony Arsenal: Well, Jesse, I have a feeling that, excuse me. Wow. Jesse Schwamb: We don't edit anything out. Listen, I'm choked up too. It's it, listen, love ones just so emotional. The moment Tony and I are having it. We're gonna try our best right now to pivot to go into this text, but it's, it's tough because we were just really having something, something special. You got, you got to see there. But thank you for trying to Tony Arsenal: cover for me for that big cough. Jesse Schwamb: This is like presuppositional editing. You know, we don't actually do anything in post. It's not ex anti editing. It's, it's literally presuppositional. [00:15:52] Theological Discussion on Assurance Jesse Schwamb: But to that end, we are in Matthew 13. This is the main course. This is the reason why we're here. There's lots of reasons to worship, and one of them is to come before and admire and love our God who has given us his specific revelation and this incredible teaching of his son. And that's why we're hanging out in Matthew 13. So let me read, because we have just a couple of really sentences here, this really short parable and that way it'll catch us up and then we can just launch right back into we're, we're basically like, we're already in the rocket. Like we're in the stratosphere. We're, we're taking it all the way now. So this is Matthew chapter 13. Come hang out here. It's in the 24th verse. And this is what we find written for us. This is the word of the Lord. He put another parable before them saying. The Kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the weeds and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also, and the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds? He said to them, an enemy has done this. So the servant said to him, then, do you want us to go and gather them? But he said, no less than gathering the weeds, you root up the weed along with them. Let both grow until the harvest. And at harvest time, I will tell the reapers, gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but to gather the wheat into my barn. Tony Arsenal: That's good stuff. That's good stuff. Um, you know, we, we covered most of. I don't know, what do you wanna call it? The first order reading of the parable last week. Jesse Schwamb: Right. Tony Arsenal: On one level, the parable, uh, as Christ explains it, uh, a little bit down further in the chapter is extremely straightforward. It's almost out, it's almost an allegory. Each, each element of the parable has a, a, a figure that it's representing. And the main purpose of the story is that the world and specifically the church, um, is going to be a mixed body until the last days, until the end of time. And so there's, there's the Sons of God or the Sons of the Kingdom, uh, and then there's the sons of the evil one. And we talked a lot about how. These two figures in the parable, the, the, the weeds or the tears? Um, tears is a better word because it's a specific kind of, uh, specific kind of weed that looks very much like wheat at its immature stages. Right. And you can't actually discern the difference readily, uh, until the weed and the wheat has grown up next to each other. Um, and so, so part of the parable is that. The, the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the enemy, or the sons of the evil one, they don't look all that different in their early stages. And it's not until the sort of end culmination of their lives and the end culmination of things that they're able to be discerned and then therefore, um, the, the sons of the devil are, are reaped and they go off to their eternal judgment and the sons of the kingdom are, uh, are harvested and they go off to their eternal reward. What we wanted to talk about, and part of the reason that we split this into two episodes. Is that we sort of found ourselves spiraling or spiraling around a question about, uh, sort of about assurance, right? And false assurance, true assurance. And there is an eschatological element to this parable that I, I think we probably should at least touch on as we we go through it. Um, but I wanted to just read, um, it's been a little while since we've read the Westminster Confession on the show. So I wanted to read a little bit from the Westminster Confession. Um, this is from chapter 18, which is called of assurance of grace and salvation. This is sort of the answer to Jesse's question. Do the, do the tears know their tears or, or could they possibly think that their wheat? So this is, uh, section one of chapter eight. It says, although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presuppositions or presumptions of being in favor with God in the state of salvation. Which hope of their shall perish yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed. And so we, in the reform tradition at least, which is where we find ourselves in the reform tradition, um, we would affirm that people can. Deceive themselves into believing that they're in proper relation with God. Jesse Schwamb: Right? Tony Arsenal: And so it's not the case that, uh, that the weeds always know they're weeds or think they're weeds. It's not even the case. And this was part of the parable. It's not even the case that the weeds can be easily distinguished even by themselves from, uh, from the weeds. So there is this call, uh, and this is a biblical call. There's a call to seek out assurance and to lay claim to it. That I think is, is worth talking about. But it's not as straightforward as simple proposition as like, yeah, I'm confident. Like it's not just like, right, it's not just mustering up confidence. There's more to it than that. So that's what I wanted to start with, with this parable is just maybe talking through that assurance. 'cause I, I would hate for us to go through this parable. And sort of leave people with maybe you're a weed and you don't know it. 'cause that's not right. That's not the biblical picture of assurance. Um, that's the, that's the Roman Catholic picture of assurance that like, yeah, there's no such thing as assurance and people might not realize, but assurance of salvation is actually one of the, one of the primary things that was recovered particularly by the Reformed in the Reformation. Um, and so I think we, we often sort of overlook it as maybe a secondary thing. Um, but it really is a significant doctrine, a significant feature of reformed theology. Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. I'm glad you said that because it is a, is a clear reminder. It's a clearing call as the performers put forth that it is. Under like the purview of the Christian to be able to claim the assurance by the blood of Christ in the application of the Holy Spirit in a way that's like fully orbed and fully stopped. So you can contrast that with, and really what was coming outta Catholicism or Rome at the time. And I was just speaking with a dear brother this past week who. Grew up in the Catholic church and he was recounting how his entire religious experience, even his entire relationship, if we can call it that in a kind of colloquial sense with God, was built around this sense of deep-seated guilt and lack of true performance, such that like assurance always seemed like this really vague concept that was never really fully manifested in anything that he did. Even while the church was saying, if you do these things, if you perform this way, if you ensure that you're taking care of your immortal sins and that you're seeking confession for all the venial stuff as well, that somehow you'll be made right, or sufficiently right. But if not, don't worry about it. There's always purgatory, but there'd be some earning that you'd have to accomplish there. Everywhere along the way. He just felt beaten down. So contrasting that with what we have here. I don't believe, as you're saying, Tony, that's Jesus' intention here to somehow beat up the sheep. I, I think it is, to correct something of what's being said about the world in which we live, but it's at the same time to say that there are some that are the TAs is to say there are some that are the children of God, right? That there are some that are fully crisply, clearly identified and securely resting in that identity without any kind of nervous or anxious energy that it might fall out of that state with God that, that in fact their identity is secure. And as I've been thinking about this this week, I, I'm totally with you because I think part of this just falls, the warning here is there's a little bit of the adventures in Romans one here that's waiting for us, that I like what you said about this idea of, of self deception and maybe like a. Subpart to this question would be, are the, are the terrors always nefarious in their lack of understanding? So we might say there's some that are purposely disruptive, that the enemy himself is, is promulgating or trying to bring forward his destruction, his chaos by way of these tears. But are, are there even a subgroup or another group, uh, co-terminus group or, you know, one in the same hierarchy where there's just a lot of self deception? I, I think that's probably where I fall in terms of just trying to explain that. Yes, I think it was present here is a real quantity, a real identity where they're self-deceived. Imagining themselves to be part of God's people, yet lacking that true saving faith. And this just, I'm gonna go in a couple places where I think everybody would expect in the scriptures, if we go to like Ephesians four, they're darkened and they're understanding alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them. And one Corinthians, when Paul writes, the natural person does not accept the things of the spirit of God, and he's not able to understand them because they're spiritually discerned. And then the book that follows the God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers. And of course then like everything in Romans one, so I bring all that up because E, even at the end, we're gonna get there, the Es, this eschatological reality when you know God is separating out the sheep and the goats. Still, we find this kind of same trope happening there. But the unregenerate, what I'm reading from this. Importantly is that the unregenerate, they're not merely ignorant, they're blinded, as we all were on point to the spiritual truth. Yeah. By nature and by Satan. That that is also his jam. He loves to blind, to lie, to kill, steal, and destroy. So thus, even if they're outwardly belonging to the church, they're outwardly belonging to the world. They're outwardly belonging to some kind of profession. They cannot perceive the reality of their lost condition apart from divine illumination. Who can, that might be stating the obvious, but I think that's like what we're getting after here. I I, I don't know if there's like any kind of like conspiracy here. It's simply that that is the natural state of affairs. So why wouldn't we expect that to be reflected again in the world and that side by side, we're gonna find that shoulder to shoulder. We are, there are the children of God, and there are those that remain blind and ignorant to the truth. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And, and you know, it, again, I, I, um, I don't know why I'm surprised. Uh, I certainly shouldn't be surprised. Um. But Matthew is like a masterful storyteller Yeah. Here, right. He's a masterful, um, editor and narrator. Um, and he's, he's put together here, of course, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Um, and, and there's some good reason to think in the text we're not gonna get too, in the nitty gritty here, there's some good reason to think in the text that Christ actually delivered these parables as a set as well. So it's not just, it's not just Matthew coating these, although it could be. Um, but it, it seems like these were all delivered probably as like a common set of parables. And the reason I say that is because when we start to look at this parable and the one we previously went through, the parable of the soils, um, or the parable of the sower. Um, what we see is the answer to your question of why do some people, you know, why are some people deceived? Well, yes, there is secondary causation. The devil deceives them. They blind themselves. They, you know, suppress the, the, the truth and right unrighteousness. But on a, on a primary causation level, um, God is the one who is identi, is, is identifying who will be the sons of the, you know, devil and the sons of the kingdom. Mm-hmm. This is another, and yet another example of election is that the, the good sower sowed good seed, and the good seed was the elect and the enemy. Although in God's sovereignty, God is the one who determines this. The enemy is the one who sows the reprobate. Right? So all, all men. Star, and this is, I, I guess I didn't really intend to go here, but this is good evidence in my mind for, um, infra laps, Arianism versus super laps. Arianism, right infra laps, arianism or sub lapse. Arianism would say that God decrees, uh, to permit the fall and then he decrees to redeem some out of the fall, right? Logically speaking, not temporally speaking. Super laps. Arianism, which is the minority. It's the smaller portion of, of the historic tradition, although modern times, I think it's a little bit louder and a little bit more vocal, but super relapses. Arianism would argue that God, um, decrees. Sort of the, the decree of election and reprobation is logically prior to the decree of the fall. And so in, in that former or in the super laps area model, the fall becomes a means by which the reprobate are justly condemned. Not, um, not the cause of their condemnation, but a way to sort of justify the fact that they will be separated from God, right? Because of their reprobate. [00:28:36] Exploring the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares Tony Arsenal: I know that there's, there's probably some super lab streams that would nuance that differently and some that are probably just screaming straw man, uh, in a coffee shop somewhere and, and people are thinking you're crazy. Um, but by and large, that's actually a rel, a relatively accepted, um, explanation of it. There are certainly potential problems with, uh, sub, sub lapse agonism as well. But in this, in this parable, what we see is the people who are, um, who are elect, are sowed into the field and the people who are reprobate are also sowed into the field. And so God saves the people who are sewed into the field that are, they elect, he saves them out of this now mixed world by waiting and allowing them to grow up next to the reprobate, um, in sort of this mixed world setting. And then he redeems them out of that. Um, and, and, and so we have to sort of remember. Although it is a pretty strict, sort of allegorical type of parable, it's still a parable. So we shouldn't, we shouldn't always draw like direct one-to-one comparisons here. It's making a theological point, but, um, but it's important for us to re remember that, that it is ultimately, it is God who determines who is the elected and who is not. But it's, it's our sin. It's the devil deceiving us. It's the secondary causes that are responsible for the sons of the devil, right? It, the, the men come to the, to the sower and say, who is done this? He says it was an enemy. Jesse Schwamb: Right? Right. Tony Arsenal: He doesn't say like, well, actually I put the seed there and so, you know, I'm, I, it's not an equal distribution. He's not sowing good seed and bad seed. He sows the good seed and the devil sows the bad seed. [00:30:24] Theological Implications and Assurance Tony Arsenal: Um, and, and that's a, I think that's an important theological point to make. And as far as assurance goes. We, we can't depend on our ability to perceive or sort of like discern election in a raw sense, right? We have to observe certain kinds of realities around us. Um, and, and primarily we have to depend on the mercy and, and saving faith that God gives us. That's right. Um, you know, our, our assurance of faith does not primarily come from fruit checking. Um, we have to do that. It's important, we're commanded to do it, and it serves as an important secondary evidence. But a, a, a person who wants to find assurance. Of salvation should first and foremost look to the promises of Christ and then depend on them. Um, and, and so that's, I think all of that's kind of wrapped up into this parable. It's, it's, it's amazing to me that we're only like two parables in, and we're already, you know, we're already talking about super lapse arianism and sub lapse arianism, and it's, it's amazing. I, I love this. I'm loving this series so far, and we're barely scratching the surface. Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, it's all there. I think you're right to call that out. It strikes me, like, as you were speaking, it really just hit me higher that I think you're right. Really the foundation on this, like the hidden foundation is assurance and it's that assurance which splits the groups, or at least divides them, or it gives us, again, like the distinct, kind, discrete compartments or components of each of them. So. Again, I think it's help saying, 'cause we wanna be encouraging. That's, that's our whole point here is when the Apostle Peter says, be all the more diligent to make certain about his calling and choosing of you. That herein we have the scripture saying to us, time and time again, be sure of what God has done in your life. Be confident in that very thing. And so if assurance is, as we're saying, that's the argument hypothesis we're making. That's the critical thing here. [00:32:11] False Assurance and True Faith Jesse Schwamb: Then the division between the children of God and the children of the devil is false versus true assurance. So the tears, I think what we're saying here, basically they typically live under false asserts. They may attend church, confess, belief, appear righteous, yet their hearts are unregenerate. Their faith is maybe historical. It's not saving, it could be intellectual, but it's not spiritual. And of course, like just a few chapters before this, we hope those famous verses where Jesus himself drops the bomb and says, listen, many of you, he's talking to the people, the, the disciples around him, the crowds that we're gathering and thronging all about. He says, many of you're gonna say to me, Lord, Lord, do we not prophesy your name? Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Jesse Schwamb: And then I will declare to them, I never knew you depart from me. These are not people who knew they were false, they thought they belonged to Christ. Their shock on judgment day is gonna reveal this profound self-deception. And that self-deception is wrapped up in a false type of assurance, a false righteousness. So I think one of the things that we can really come to terms with and grab a hold of is the fact that when we are. Confessing, repenting seeking like our status in Christ because of Christ. Then we have confidence that we are in fact part of the children of God. When everything is stripped away from us and all we're crying out is only and completely and solely and unequivocally, Jesus Christ, then I think we have great reason to understand that we should be confident in our assurance. [00:33:38] Historical Perspectives on Assurance Jesse Schwamb: You know, I was reading this week from Thomas Brooks and did incidentally come across this, a quote, an assurance and reminded me of this passage, and here's what he writes. You know, of course he's writing in like 16 hundreds, like mid 16 hundreds. It's wild, of course, but we shouldn't be surprised that what you're about to hear sounds like it could have been written today for us. In this conversation, but, uh, he writes, assurance is the believer's arc where he sits Noah alike quiets and still in the midst of all distractions and destructions, commotions and confusions. However, most Christians live between fears and hopes and hang, as it were, between heaven and hell. Sometimes they hope that their state is good. At other times they fear that their state is bad. Now they hope that all is well and that it shall go well. Well with them forever. Then they fear that they shall perish by the hand of such corruption or by the prevalency of such and such temptation. They're like a ship and a storm tossed here and there, and. I think that he's right about that. And I think the challenge there is to get away from that. I love where it starts, where he says, what wonderful turn of phrase assurance is the believer's arc or Noah, like, you know, we're sitting and the commotion, the destructions, the commotion, the confusions of all the world. That's why to get this right, to be encouraged by this passage, to be challenged by it is so critical because we're all looking for that arc. We all want to know that God has in fact arrested us so completely that no matter what befalls us, that everything, as we talked about before, all of our, all of the world, in fact is subservient to our salvation. But that's a real thing that cannot be snatched away from us because God has ordained it and intended it, built it, created it, and brought it to pass. And so I think that's all like in this passage, it's all the thing that's being called us to. So. I, I don't want us to get like too hung up. It's a good question, I think to ask and answer like we were trying to talk about here, but you're right. If we focus too much just on the like, let's gaff for these tears. Who are they? Like let's people's, like Readers Digest in People's magazine these tears. Like who are they? Do we have a list of them? Who do we think they are? How could it be me? Is it really me? Am I, am I anxious about that? Really what we should be saying is following what Peter calls us to do that is to be all the more diligent to make certain about his calling and his choosing. So even there like our emphasis and focus, isn't it like you're saying Tony about like, let me do some fruit inventory. I got like a lot of good bananas. I got a lot of ripe pears. Like, look at the tree. This, this is good. Even there, the emphasis is to turn our eyes on Jesus, as it were, and to make certain about his work, his calling and his choosing of us. And I think when we do that, we're falling down in worship and in yielding and submission to him, rightfully acknowledging that the righteousness of Christ is the one that is always in every way alien to us and imputed. And that is what makes us sons and daughters of God, that good seed sown by Jesus himself. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I just wanna read, I wanna um, round out a few more paragraphs here out of the Westminster confession because I do think, you know, when we even talk about assurance, we're not even always all saying the exact same thing. And I think that's important because when we talk about assurance of faith, we need to be understanding that this is the rightful, not only the rightful possession of all Christians, but it's the rightful responsibility of all Christians to seek it. So here's, here's section two of that same chapter. It says, this certainty referring to assurance. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a, a fallible hope, but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the spirit of adoption, witnessing with our hearts that we are the children of God, which spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption. So. One of the, the things that I think is, is important here is people read this and say the inward evidences of those graces unto which these promises are made. They read that and they think that it's referring to like good work and like spiritual renewal, but it's, it's not, it's the inward evidence of those graces unto which of the promises are made. So it's this inner, inner renewal. It's the spirit testifying to our spirit. And then, um, chapter, uh, section three here, it says. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it, yet being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given of God. He may without extraordinary revelation there, right there is response to Roman Catholicism in the right use of ordinary means at attain there unto. And therefore, it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence, to make his calling and election. Sure. And thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and in joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience. The proper fruits of this assurance so far is it from inclining men to looseness? Right. [00:38:53] The Role of Good Works in Assurance Tony Arsenal: So we often hear and and I, I think there are good, um, there are good reformed Christians that put. The emphasis of assurance on, or they, they put an overemphasis, in my opinion, on how good works function within our assurance. Right. They, they often will ask us to look to our good fruit as sort of, not the grounding, but as a strong evidence. But at least in terms of the confession here, the cheerfulness in the duties of obedience is the fruit of assurance. Jesse Schwamb: That's right. Not Tony Arsenal: the cause or grounding of assurance. So rather than, this is what this last line says. It says so far, is it from inclining? Mental looseness assurance should drive us to obedience and fruitfulness in Christ. And so yes, it is in a certain sense an evidence because if that fruitfulness and obedience is absent from our lives, there's a good reason for us to question whether this infallible assurance is present in our lives. But the assurance is what drives us to this obedience. Um. You know, like, I think you could use the analogy of like a married couple. A married couple who is very secure in their relationship and in their, uh, love for one another and their faithfulness to each other is more likely to cheerfully serve and submit to each other and to respect each other and to sacrifice for each other than a couple that's maybe not so sure that the other person has their best interest in mind. That's or maybe isn't so sure that this thing is gonna work out. I think that's the same thing, like the sacrifice and the service that a husband, uh, performs for his wife, whom he loves and trusts and is committed to and knows that she's faithful and committed to him. That is not causing that faithfulness. It's not causing that trust and that love. It is the outcome and the outflow of it. It's good evidence that that love exists, but it's not caused by it. And assurance here is the same kind of dynamic assurance is not. We can't assure ourselves of our salvation by doing good works. No matter how many good works you do, there are lots and lots of people who are not saved and who will not be saved, who do perfectly good works in appearance. Right. They have the, the outward appearance of godliness, but lack its power. Right, right. Out of right outta Paul, writing to Timothy there. Yes. So that's, that's important for us as we continue to parse all this out, is yes, the fruit is present. Yes. The wheat is to, is discernible from the tears by its final, fruitful status. Right? It grows up to be grain, which is fruitful rather than weeds and tears, which are only good to be burned, but it is not the fruit that causes it to be wheat. It's wheat that causes the fruit to grow. If, if it wasn't wheat, it wouldn't grow fruit, not because the fruit makes it grain, but because it is in fact wheat to start with. Jesse Schwamb: Right. Yeah, that's right on. So I think like by summation we're kind of saying. At least the answer to this question. You know, do the tears know that they're tears? Yes and no. Some do, some don't. I think, yes, there are some that are gonna be consciously hypocritical, willfully rejecting Christ while pretending for worldly gain. I think that's, that's certainly plain to see. And at the same time, do the tears know the tears? Sometimes? No. There's self deceived under spiritual blindness and they have some kind of false assurance. And this idea of, again, coming in repentance before God and seeking humbly to submit to him is I think one of those signs of that kind of true assurance, not a false assurance. And you already stole where I was thinking of Tony by going to Second Timothy again. Thomas Brooks in precious remedies against Saint's device is one of like the best. Books ever. I know that he's really outspoken. He loves to harp on the fact that one of Satan's most effective snares is to make men and women content with a form of godliness without its power. Yeah. And that's often what we're talking about here, I think, is that Satan loves to fish in the shallow waters a profession. And really that can happen in any kind of church or religious culture, that there is this shallowness where that loves religious appearance, prayer, knowledge fellowship, but not the Christ behind them. And so whether we're looking to somebody like Brooks or Jonathan Edwards and we're trying to parse out what are our true affections, not in a way again, that somehow leans well, I feel enough, then somehow that justifies, not inwardly, but again, definitely trying to understand our conviction for conversion tears. For repentance that. Really what we're after is not like just the blessings of Christ, but Christ himself, which I think really leads us to this eschatological perspective then to round all everything out because you know, we talked about before, there's an old phrase, it's like everywhere. A lot of people talk in heaven. Not everybody's going there. And so this idea of like, people will talk about be so great to be there and it's sometimes this, the heaven that they speak of is like absent Christ, you know, as if like, if Christ wasn't there, at least in their perspective, it still wouldn't be half bad. And so I think that does lead us to understand what is this in gathering? What is this? You know, bringing everything into the barn and burning everything else up. And like you just said, if at the beginning you cannot tell the injurious weed aside from that beautiful kernel of wheat that's coming up, but if in the end you can see what's happening in the end, then that brings us all to consummation. What does it mean in this parable? Tony Arsenal: Yeah. [00:44:19] Eschatological Judgment and Assurance Tony Arsenal: And, and I think this actually sort of forces us to grapple a little bit with, with another sort of persnickety feature of this parable that, that I think, I think personally sometimes gets overlooked is we are very quick to talk about this parable to be about the church. And it is. Right. And, and there's reasons to talk like that. But when Christ explains the parable, he doesn't say the field is the church. He says the field is the world. Right. And so we have to, we have to, we have to do a little bit of, um. We have to do a little bit of hermeneutics to understand that this is also speaking of the church, right? It's not as though the church is some hermetically sealed off body that the dynamics of the world and the, the weed and the tears like that, that doesn't happen in the church. But when we talk about the end of the age here, he says the son of man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom. All causes of sin in all lawbreakers. Right? So, so the, the final eschatological judgment, it's all encompassing. And I dunno, maybe I'm, maybe I'm becoming a little bit post mill with this, um, the, the world is already the Kingdom of Christ. Right? Right. That's right. It, it's not, it's not just the church on earth that is the kingdom of Christ. And so when we talk about this eschatological reaping, um, what we see is, is very straightforward. There are those who are, uh, who belong to Christ, who were sown by him into the world, who were, uh, were tended by him, who were protected by him, who he intended to harvest from the very beginning, right? The good sower sows good seed into the field, and that good seed is and necessarily will be wheat. It's not as though, um, it's not as though, and again, this is one of those ways where like the parables sometimes, uh, are telling a little bit of a different story. Even though they're sharing some themes in the first parable, in the parable of the sower, he sows the same seed into the world. But the seed in that first parable is not the, is not the person receiving the seed. The seed is the one is the word of God. Yes. And so the word of God is sewn promiscuously, even to those who will be hard soil and who will be rocky soil and have thorns. The word of God is, is sewn to all of those people. Across the whole world in this parable. The seed that is the good seed that is sown is and always was going to be weed that was, or wheat, which was going to grow into fruitfulness and be gathered into the barn. Right? That was a foregone conclusion. The, the, when the sower decided to sow seed, all of that said he is the one who did that. He's the one that chose that. He's the one that will bring us to completion, right? And then also the ones that are not of his kingdom, the sons of the devil, they will also be reaped at the end. Actually we'll be reaped before the, you know, they'll be reaped and gathered and, and tossed into the furnace before the sons of the kingdom are gathered together. Jesse Schwamb: Right. Tony Arsenal: So it, again, this is a parable and even though this is Christ's explanation of the parable, I don't think that Christ was intending to give us like a strict timeline. Right. I don't think he was encouraging us to draw a chart and try to map out where this all happens in order. Um, I do think it's relevant that, that, at least in the explanation of this parable, I mentioned it last week, that, that the rap, the rapture is actually the wicked being raptured. They're the ones that are gathered and taken out of the world and cast into the fiery furnace before the, before the righteous are gathered together and, and brought into Christ Barn. Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, there's a great unmasking that's happening here in this final stage. I mean, that's critically the point. I think there's a lot of stuff we could talk about open handedly and kind of hypothesize or theorize what it means. But what is plain, I think, is that there's this unmasking, this unveiling of the reality of the light of Christ's perfect judgment. But that judgment is for both parties Here it is coming and what was hidden beneath outward religion or more, a facade is gonna be revealed with eternal clarity. That's just the reality. It is coming. So in some ways it pairs. I think at least well in this, well purposely of course in this teaching because Jesus is saying, hold on, like we talked about last time. Do this is not for you to judge. You are ill-equipped. You are not skilled enough to discern this. And therefore though, you wanna go in hot and get spicy and try to throw out all the weeds. Wait for the right time. Wait for the one like you're saying, Tony has from all of eternity past intended for it to be this way. Super intending his will over all things in the casting of the seed. And as we say, Philippians, of course, finishing that good work, which was started, he will finish. It is God's two finish again. And so he says, listen, that day is coming. There's gonna be a great unmasking. Uh, get ready for it. And the scriptures bear witness to that in so many other ways. So. There's such a journey in these like handful of verses, isn't there? I mean, it's really wild. The things that not like we come up with or we read into the text, but as we sit in it a little bit, as we just spend even a cursory amount of time letting it pour over us, that we find there's like a conviction in a weight in these things that are beyond just the story and beyond just even like the illustrations themselves. What we find is, again, it's as if Jesus himself in his brilliance, of course, through the power of the Holy Spirit, is illuminating the mind in the spirit to open up our conception, understanding of the kingdom of God by bringing it to us through his perspective in our own terms, of course, which is both our language and like the context of the world in which we live, and that simple example of farming and seed. And again, even just that there are these interest weeds that look like wheat. I went on this like rabbit hole this week and did a lot of research on like tears and Yeah, like especially people in like the Midwest United States who like know a lot more about agriculture than I do have a lot to say about this. It's not just like we shouldn't be surprised like. Isn't it incredible that like there are actually weeds out there that look like, yeah, it's a brilliance of just knowing that this teaching is so finely tuned. Like we can even just talk about that. Like the world is finely tuned. This teaching is so finely tuned to these grant theological principles that we can at one point be children and appropriate them enough and assume them into our own intellectual capacity so that we can trust in them. And yet even as like adults with like, let's say like the greatest gift of intellectual capacity, still find that we cannot get to the bottom of them because they're so deep. They draw us into these really, really grand vistas or really like extremely deep cold theological waters. And I just find. That I am in awe then of what Jesus is saying here because there's a truth for us in assurance that we ought to clinging to. And there's also like stuff that we should come back to. We shouldn't just stop it here and put it out of our minds until the next time we, we want to just be stimulated by something that's interesting or that we want to just grab somebody and shake them cage style, cage two style and say like, look at this great thing that I just learned about this, this particular parable. But instead, there's so much here for us to meditate on. And in that, I think rather than the Christian finding fear in this parable, what they should find is great comfort. We should be Noah alike sitting in the ark saying, it is well with my soul. And our reason for that is because we know God has cast a seed through his son Jesus Christ. And to be a child, a child of God is the greatest thing in all the universe. Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And I, I think that, um, transitions nicely to, uh, I'll make this point quick because we're coming up on time here. Um. [00:52:04] Christ's Divinity and Sovereignty Tony Arsenal: The other little subtle thing that Christ does here in this parable is he, he absolutely asserts his divinity and sovereignty overall creation. Jesse Schwamb: That's right. Yep. Tony Arsenal: Right. It, it's almost like a throw. There's a couple little like lines that are almost throwaway lines, right in the, the first, the beginning of the parable here. Um, the parable itself, uh, he says, um, the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed into a field. And then he says, um, the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, right? And then when he interprets the parable, he says, well, the, the servants are, the field is the world, right? So he's the master of the world, and the servants are the angels. So he's the master of the angels. And then if, if there was any doubt left in your mind. Says in verse 41, the son of man will send his angels. That's right. And they will gather out of his kingdom, which is the world, all the causes of sin and all lawbreakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. Right? So we have this, this robust picture that there is election. The the good sower sows good seed into the world, and the good seed will necessarily grow into wheat and will be preserved and protected and ultimately harvest Well, why can we have assurance that that will be the case? Well, because the master of the house is the son of man who is the Lord of the universe and the creator of all things. And his angels do his will. That's right. So, so the whole thing is all wrapped up. Why can we have assurance? Because God is a good God and Christ is a good savior, and the savior of the world is the creator of the universe, right? If any of those facts were not true. Then we couldn't have assurance. If God wasn't good, then maybe he's lying. If Christ wasn't the savior of the world or the God of the universe, the creator of the universe, then he wasn't worthy to be the one who saves. All of this is wrapped up in the parables, and this is what's so exciting about the parables. In most of the instances that we look up, especially of the sort of longer parables, these kinds of dynamics are there where it's not just a simple story making a simple point, it is making one primary point. Usually there's one primary point that a, that a parable is making. But in order to make that primary point, there's all these supporting points and supporting things that have to be the case. If the, if the good sower was not the master of the house and a, a competent, uh, a competent landowner who knew the difference between wheat and weeds, even at the early stage, right? His, his servants go and go, what happened? What's with all of these weeds? They can tell the difference somehow, Jesse Schwamb: right? Tony Arsenal: He's immediately able to go, well, this was an enemy. Jesse Schwamb: That's right. Tony Arsenal: And while they're bumbling around going, should we go rip it all up and start over? He is like, no, no, no, no. Just wait until, wait until it all grows up together. And when that happens, the Reapers will come and they'll take care of it and they'll do it in my direction, right? Because he's competent, he's the savior, he's the creator, he's the good master, he is the good sower. Um, we can be confi

Every once in a while, something extraordinary happens in rock'n'roll…I hate the use of the cliché of “a perfect storm,” but that's precisely what I'm talking about…a bunch of things involving culture, politics, demographics, economics and technology all collide and mix in just the right way for something totally new and unexpected to be created… Lemme give you some examples…Elvis came along in the 1950s just as millions of post-war kids—these new constructs that were now called “teenagers”—began gravitating to new radio stations that played music derived from a mix of the blues, country and R&B… This music greatly annoyed their parents, something that made it dangerous and forbidden… In 1964, the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan show with a fresh, new sound that helped drag America out of the funk that followed the assassination of JFK…as far as rock is concerned, the 60s really began that February night in 1964… Let's try something more current…you might remember the appearance of the music video in the early 80s transformed the industry…. or the time you heard “smells like teen spirit” for the first time and immediately you somehow knew that whatever came next in the 90s would be very, very different… And hip hop? don't get me started…there are people—academics! —who will argue that the appearance of hip hop in popular culture was an even bigger deal that the Beatles… There's one other event that we need to include on this list: the rise of punk rock in the mid-70s…as it was happening, it was no big deal…it was an aberration, a niche thing that indulged weirdos and misfits… “It's just noise,” said the rock purists. “Ignore it and it'll go away.” But it didn't…in fact, we're still talking about punk…and punk became more than just a form of music… it became a way of thinking and acting and creating and presenting…it's music, film, visual art, literature, dance, politics… it altered much of western thought…the punk aesthetic—that “screw you, I'm gonna do it anyway” ethos—can be found virtually everywhere in society today… But what led to this? What were the factors that led to the rise of this music? And how did it appear worldwide at virtually the same time in an era long, long before the internet? Great questions…. let's see if we can find the answer to the question: “Why did punk happen at all?” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi friends, happy Tuesday! Today we're talking about a scandalous story that went down in the late 1800s in Memphis, Tennessee. That's where a same-sex, Gilded Age girl-crush came to an abrupt, bloody end. Lemme tell you... this story's got passion, it's got jealousy, some big secrets and there's even a bit of stalking going on. This is the story of Alice Mitchell - a woman who was maybe driven literally crazy by love. Also, let me know who you want me to talk about next time. Hope you have a great rest of your week, make good choices and I'll be seeing you very soon xo Bailey Sarian I sometimes talk about my Good Reads in show. So here's the link if you want to check it out. IDK. lol: https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/139701263-bailey ________ FOLLOW ME AROUND Tik Tok: https://bit.ly/3e3jL9v Instagram: http://bit.ly/2nbO4PR Facebook: http://bit.ly/2mdZtK6 Twitter: http://bit.ly/2yT4BLV Pinterest: http://bit.ly/2mVpXnY Youtube: http://bit.ly/1HGw3Og Snapchat: https://bit.ly/3cC0V9d Discord: https://discord.gg/BaileySarian RECOMMEND A STORY HERE: cases4bailey@gmail.com Business Related Emails: bailey@underscoretalent.com Business Related Mail: Bailey Sarian 4400 W. Riverside Dr., Ste 110-300 Burbank, CA 91505 _________ Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for YOU, for LESS, and save more than fifty percent at https://www.selectquote.com/makeup. Save more than fifty percent on term life insurance at https://www.selectquote.com/makeup TODAY to get started.  And, if you're ready to try it, OLIPOP is giving you a free can! All you have to do is buy any 2 cans of OLIPOP in-store, and they'll pay you back for one. You can grab it online at https://www.drinkolipop.com or Amazon, or find it at over 50,000 retailers nationwide like Costco, Walmart, Target, Whole Foods, you name it. Head over to https://www.drinkolipop.com/MAKEUP to snag your free can.