Maple Street. Elm. Oak. Moormont. Westmoor. Eastmoor. Different names for the same place. A tree-line little carnival of front porches, backyards, sweeping lawns, laughing children and polite little houses. The cost to get here? Perhaps we haven't quite done the accounting yet. The next time you see a white plastic grocery sack floating down the street, you may consider that what you're looking at is a legacy humankind left to itself. Generations previous we climbed on a carousel, pushed the button, and began the ride. A ride we were hungry as pigs for. A ride which, left to its own devices, has no end. A ride that will keep spinning, no matter how many times we're sick over the side. No matter how full the world is of vomit. A ride we could stop, if only we'd all agree to push the button. Out there, out there in the tangled knots of suburb streets, in the dollhouse void that is the Levitt brother's new way of life, out there is an enemy known as the white plastic grocery sack. A byproduct of our greed. A byproduct of our hunger. A byproduct of our amusement. It sits there in the streets waiting, tangled on fences waiting, drifting through schoolyards waiting, waiting with the patience of plastic, forever waiting . . .
Full episode available at patreon.com/unregistered. The attorney Nicole Levitt joined me to tell the story of her refusal to declare that she was born racist, and to discuss how left-wing, "woke" identity politics is destroying from within the very best institutions that the left has created. BECOME A MEMBER OF THE UNREGISTERED ACADEMY Go to https://www.unregisteredacademy.com/ for courses you won't find in college: The JFK Assassination with Larry Hancock Reading Bronze Age Mindset Malcolm X Reading James Burnham's The Managerial Revolution with Curtis Yarvin Anarchism World War II: The Great Blowback History of the CIA The Religious Right with Neil Young and Gio Pennacchietti History of NATO with Scott Ritter and James Carden The Politics of COVID with Geoff Shullenberger and Jeffrey Tucker Reading The Unabomber Manifesto Reading Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism
Today's special episode is a conversation with two guests: special effects wizard David Biedny and virtual/augmented reality innovator David Levitt, who is also Gail's husband and a witness to many of the experiences she describes. David Biedny is a leading digital effects, graphics and multimedia expert. He has been a groundbreaking digital artist, author, animator and effects wizard since the early days of the Macintosh. Principal author of The Official Adobe Photoshop Handbook, he was tapped by Star Wars special effects house Industrial Light and Magic as it began its transition to digital media — contributing to innovative films like Terminator 2: Judgment Day, The Rocketeer, Hook, and Spawn. Biedny teaches digital media at Yale. Biedny has had several unexplained experiences and encounters with unidentified airborne objects that might properly described as paranormal. And though he co-founded the ground-breaking podcast The Paracast, he might be considered a skeptic — impatient with the attention-seeking and self-delusion that dominate so many paranormal claims. For details on some of Biedny's experiences outlined in this show, listen to the second hour of this Paracast episode: https://www.theparacast.com/podcasts/paracast_061015.mp3 ———— Dr David Levitt is CEO of Pantomime Corporation, creator of uncanny physically realistic augmented reality using the advanced LiDAR 3D sensing technology in Apple's Pro iPhones and iPads. He earned his bachelors degree at Yale and his doctorate in Artificial Intelligence at MIT, creating the first software to improvise music in jazz and classical styles. Levitt was on the founding team of the MIT Media Lab. At VPL Research, the team that invented virtual reality, he created the first VR worlds with realistic gravity, object collisions and 3D sound. Levitt has been a research scientist and product developer at Atari, VPL, Viacom and Interval Research, has taught at NYU and MIT, and co-founded three startups including Pantomime. He also created the ESP Trainer and Stargate ESP Trainer apps, for remote viewing researcher Russell Targ. Like Biedny, Levitt has made a career of creating digital magic and (sometimes involuntarily) becoming expert in how people fool themselves and others. ———— David Biedny at Yale Drama School https://www.drama.yale.edu/bios/david-biedny-2/ David Levitt, Pantomime Corporation CEO https://www.pantomime.co VISIT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.asmallmediumatlarge.co ASmallMediumAtLargePodcast@gmail.com Show Produced by Green Valley Production Studio Music by DJ Booda: http://www.djbooda.com
In this episode, Phillip Lanos and Jason Miller are joined by Michael D. Levitt, Founder and CEO of Breakfast Leadership Network. Michael D. Levitt is the founder & Chief Burnout Officer of The Breakfast Leadership Network, a San Diego and Toronto-based burnout consulting firm. He is a Keynote speaker, host of the Breakfast Leadership show, a Certified NLP and CBT Therapist, a Fortune 500 consultant, and author of his latest book BURNOUT PROOF. You will also uncover how to overcome a business struggle that may help save your business.Tune in to learn more!Connect:Strategic Advisor Board: www.linkedin.com/company/strategic-advisor-boardJason Miller: www.linkedin.com/in/jasontmiller-sabPhillip Lanos: www.linkedin.com/in/philliplanosMichael D. LevittLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bfastleadershipWebsite: www.breakfastleadership.com
Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by asking listeners if they avoid spending money at morally questionable corporations. Shirley Leung weighed in on debates surrounding Massachusetts Ballot Question 1, commonly referred to as the "millionaires tax" or "fair share amendment." She also discussed the squeeze on Halloween candy this year. Leung is a business columnist for the Boston Globe. Andrew Levitt, also known as Nina West, talked about LGBTQ+ activism amid homophobic attacks, his role playing Edna Turnblad in the 2022 tour of “Hairspray,” and his new children's book, “The You Kind of Kind.” Levitt is a drag queen, singer, actor and author. Corby Kummer discussed the struggle for New York City's street vendors to get more permits, and how inflation will impact Thanksgiving. Kummer is the executive director of the food and society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. Anand Giridharadas shared insights from his new book, “The Persuaders,” including how storytelling is a tool for persuasion, the ways that people can more actively advocate in the midterm elections, and how President Joe Biden could be more effective at persuading. Giridharadas is a journalist, author and former New York Times columnist. John King gave us his thoughts ahead of the midterm elections and analyzed several specific races and debates. King is CNN's chief national correspondent and anchor of "Inside Politics,” which airs weekdays and Sunday mornings at 8 a.m. We ended the show by asking listeners where they draw the line in protesting politicians.
Ben and Woods start the 9am hour by chatting with our man Sam Levitt, pre and post-game host for the Padres Radio Network and getting his thoughts on the NLCS as we continue to get ready for Game 3 later tonight! Then at the bottom of the hour, we get to The Reindl Report and Paul's top stories of the morning before we wrap things up with our Flubs of the Week! Listen here!
My guest this week on the podcast is Phillip Levine, the Katharine Coman and A. Barton Hepburn Professor of Economics at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. I've only personally met Phil once — at a conference on the family many years ago and just briefly. But I have been a huge admirer of him for many reasons for a long time, ever since graduate school, and I wanted to interview him for a lot of reasons. First, he attended Princeton in the 1980s at that heady time when Orley, Card, Krueger, Angrist and so many others were there. The birth place of the credibility revolution is arguably the Princeton's Industrial Relations Section where a shift in empirical labor took place that eventually ran through the entire profession and placed it on a new equilibrium. Phil was there, colleagues and students with those people, and himself part of that “first generation” of labor economists who thought that way and did work that way and I wanted to hear about his life and how it passed through, like a river bending and turning, the Firestone library and beyond. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.But I also have a special interest in Phil. I actually first learned difference-in-differences from a book that Phil wrote on abortion policy entitled Sex and Consequences (Princeton University Press). I graduated from the University of Georgia in 2007, but the job market had started in 2006, and around the spring when I had accepted my job at Baylor, I was finishing my dissertation. I had one chapter left and it was going to be an extension of Donohue and Levitt's abortion-crime hypothesis to the study of gonorrhea. My reasoning was that if abortion legalization had so dramatically changed a cohort by selecting on individuals who would have grown up to commit crimes, then it should show up in other areas too. My argument was relatively straightforward and I'll just quote it here from the article I later published with Chris Cornwell in the 2012 American Law and Economics Review.“The characteristics of the marginal (unborn) child could explain risky sexual behavior that leads to disease transmission. For example, Gruber et al. (1999) show that the child who would have been born had abortion remained outlawed was 60% more likely to live in a single-parent household. Being raised by a single parent is a strong predictor of earlier sexual activity and unprotected sex, evidenced by the higher rates of teenage pregnancy among the poor.”It's funny the order in which things go. I think I somewhat understood what I was doing because I already had planned to do my study before reading Phil's book. I was going to use the early repeal of abortion in 1969/1970 in five states (California and New York being two of them) followed by the 1973 Roe v. Wade as this staggered natural experiment to see whether abortion legalization led to a drop in gonorrhea a generation later. I had adapted a graph I'd seen by Bill Evans to illustrate how the staggering of the roll out would lead a visual “wave” of declines in gonorrhea in the repeal stages among an emerging cohort that would last briefly until the Roe cohort entered. Visually, I believed you should see a drop in gonorrhea for 15yo starting in 1986 that would get deeper until 1988, flatten, and then disappear completely by 1992. The design for this idea came from a paper I just linked to above — by Phil Levine. It was entitled “Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who is the “Marginal Child”?” coauthored with Doug Staiger and Jon Gruber, published in the 1999 QJE. It came out two years before Donohue and Levitt's 2001 QJE on abortion and crime and arguably really set the stage for that paper. The two papers are very different — Phil, Staiger and Gruber are looking at who was aborted using instrumental variables with the five “repeal states” as the instrument. The abstract is worth reading:“Cohorts born after legalized abortion experienced a significant reduction in a number of adverse outcomes. We find that the marginal child would have been 40–60 percent more likely to live in a single-parent family, to live in poverty, to receive welfare, and to die as an infant.” They used, in other words, instrumental variables whereas Donohue and Levitt used a lagged abortion ratio measure, if I recall correctly. Phil's paper really struck me as the more credible design at that time because the staggering of legalization gave such precise predictions — something about the timing, something about the location. It just really haunted me for a long time.Well, while I was preparing for that project, reading the literature on the economics of abortion, continuing my ongoing interest in the economics of sexual behavior, Phil has a chapter where he sets up for the reader a table explaining something called “difference-in-differences”. While econometrics was my field, I couldn't recall hearing what that was, because it wasn't really best I could tell an estimator. Rather it was what we now call a research design. I don't have the book here at the house, but the table made a huge impression on me because if you just walk through the before and after differencing, even without potential outcomes, you can see with your own eyes exactly why difference-in-differences identifies a causal effect. I have a version of the table in my book, which I'll produce below.Once I saw that, it was easy to understand triple differences — a design that many people find very confusing if they only think of it in terms of regression equations. Almost immediately after I understood Phil's DiD table, I adapted it to my repeal versus Roe context and imagined “Well, what if there were other things happening in these repeal states later? Is there an untreated group I could imagine was affected by those unseen things but which wasn't treated?” And I thought “Let me use a slightly older group of individuals in the same states as the within-state controls”. That approach — the triple difference — can be seen below in a table I mocked up for a lecture in which I teach triple difference using Guber's 1994 paper that introduced the design for the first time. And so I wrote the chapter, and of all my chapters, it was the only one I ever published. Thank you for reading Scott's Substack. This post is public so feel free to share it.Where am I going with this? I guess what I'm saying is that as luck would have it, I made a monumental jump in my understanding of this “way of thinking” about doing empirical work from a single table in a short little book on abortion policy by Phil Levine. That one table so completely captivated my mind that ever since I have only wanted to learn more about causal inference in fact. As odd as it may sound, something about difference-in-differences really unlocked for me what the whole empirical enterprise was about. As Imbens said, there is something about potential outcomes that just makes crystal clear what we mean by causality, and many of the research designs that have over time been fully mapped onto potential outcomes — difference-in-differences being one — extend that clarity for a lot of us. Phil's work has consistently been part of the broader education of labor economists about what the Princeton tradition left us — make clear where the variation in the data is coming from, make clear who is and is not functioning as the counterfactual, “clean identification”, carefully collected data, on questions that matter.Phil has had a very interesting life; I caught only a peek of it from this interview. He opened up and shared about being a young man growing up middle class where family experiences during difficult economic times appeared to cause inside him an interest in labor. He gravitated towards law but a chance research class in college placed him on a new trajectory. His professors encouraged him to go to Princeton because, to put it bluntly, that was in their opinion where the best labor economics was at the moment. So he did. He alluded to graduate school being very hard — something many of us can identify with — but he survived, graduated, and took a job at Wellesley College where he's been ever since. We discussed his interest in topics in labor economics, his emerging interest in abortion policy, his coauthorships with several people he calls close friends, and his favorite project of all time — a 2019 AEJ: Applied study with Melissa Kearney, a longtime collaborator, on the effect of Sesame Street on educational outcomes, finding strong effects for boys. We also discussed the nonprofit he founded called MyInTuition which is an online calculator that shows the projected cost of college once financial aid is factored in. This topic around the opaque pricing of higher education is something Phil cares deeply about and has a new book on the topic too. All in all, Phil is an exemplary labor economist and someone I admire greatly. Not just for his careful empirical style and approach, but also because as you can see throughout his life a deep care for people. I have a deep admiration for the labor economists. Most of us are after all workers. We buy the things we need to survive using money we earned from work. Throughout human history, we have lived at the break even condition of survival, many of us not having enough calories to even make it through the day. The researchers who study work, be it economists or not, are studying poverty, one of the most dangerous plagues that has ever been around, far more dangerous than Covid or the plague. In Phil I see someone whose entire life has been about trying to better understand the causes of the wealth of nations, to quote Adam Smith, be it his early work on unemployment insurance, or his later work on children's television shows. It was a pleasure to talk to him and I hope you enjoy this interview as much as me. Forgive me for this rambling essay. If you enjoy the podcasts and the substack more generally, please consider supporting it by becoming a subscriber! Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe
Gabriel Levitt, President of PharmacyChecker.com, joins the podcast to discusses recently proposed legislation and how it could impact prescription drug importation from other countries and medication prices. You can find the article Mr. Levitt wrote for The Hill here: https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3607840-murrays-drug-bill-includes-a-poison-pill-for-prescription-imports/ The bill referenced here: https://www.murray.senate.gov/senator-murray-lands-historic-bipartisan-agreement-to-allow-drug-importation-from-canada/ Pharmacy Checker: https://www.pharmacychecker.com/ Gabriel Levitt: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gabriellevitt/ Prescription Justice: https://prescriptionjustice.org/
Glenn and Stu discuss whether a red wave will occur in the upcoming midterms and predict what the next two years will look like if it does. President Biden is allegedly trying to force Saudi Arabia to postpone decreasing its oil output at the threat of removing military support. Why does that sound familiar? Bill O'Reilly joins for his weekly news recap, discussing the January 6 committee subpoenaing former President Trump and the Parkland killer avoiding the death penalty. Author Michael Malice joins to give his take on the Alex Jones lawsuit and verdict. Attorney Nicole Levitt joins to discuss how she was asked to sign a contract agreeing that white people are racist at work and why she's speaking out — and suing her employer. Glenn reviews his latest podcast with Tara Reade, who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Amanda Levitt is an activist and scholar working to dismantle fatphobia and highlight the ways fat stigma shows up in society. Central to her work is exposing how racism and capitalism generate conditions that shame fat people about their bodies. Amanda tells Claire how the rise of social media has made body shame inescapable in society, how finding a supportive community helped her combat the body shaming she's experienced throughout her life, and what we can do to challenge the societal norms that lead to body shaming in the first place. Resources from the show Listen to Fat Theory Book Club, a podcast hosted by scholar and activist Amanda Levitt. Read Fearing the Black Body: The Racial Origins of Fat Phobia by Sabrina Strings Read Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body by Susan Bordo Read This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship Between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture by Whitney Phillips Do you have something you want Claire's help with? Send her a question to be featured on an upcoming episode by emailing us at email@example.com or submitting one at www.bit.ly/newdayask. Want to connect? Join the New Day Facebook Group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/newdaypod Click this link for a list of current sponsors and discount codes for this show and all Lemonada shows go to lemonadamedia.com/sponsors. To follow along with a transcript and/or take notes for friends and family, go to lemonadamedia.com/show/newday/ shortly after the air date. Follow Claire on IG and FB @clairebidwellsmith or Twitter @clairebidwell and visit her website: www.clairebidwellsmith.com. Stay up to date with us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram at @LemonadaMedia. Joining Lemonada Premium is a great way to support our show and get bonus content. Subscribe today at bit.ly/lemonadapremium.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Glenn and Stu discuss whether a red wave will occur in the upcoming midterms and predict what the next two years will look like if it does. Author Michael Malice joins to give his take on the Alex Jones lawsuit and verdict. Attorney Nicole Levitt joins to discuss how she was asked to sign a contract agreeing that white people are racist at work and why she's speaking out — and suing her employer. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ben & Woods start the 8am hour continuing LIVE from AleSmith Brewing Company, and the guys debate whether or not the Padres need to change the lineup at all as we head into Game 2 later tonight. Then Peter Zien, owner of AleSmith, joins the show and tells the INCREDIBLE story of how the infamous .394 Pale Ale got started, and it had everyone nearly shedding a tear. And at the bottom of the hour, Padres Pre/Postgame host Sam Levitt joins the show to give us his thoughts on Game 1 and how the team is feeling heading into Game 2! Listen here!
Seth Levitt joins Tobin and Leroy discusses QB expectations and gives an honest review of Skylar Thompson. Spoiler Alert, Seth sides with Leroy. We attempt to figure out what's up with Mike Gesicki. We ask Seth how the injuries weigh on a rookie head coach. We put on our referee cap to attempt to determine what roughing the passer is, before we determine Seth has no clue either.
Jonathan Levitt hosts the For The Long Run Podcast, which explores how elite runners keep running long, strong, and motivated. Levitt lives in Boulder, CO and works for InsideTracker. A graduate of UMass Amherst's Isenberg School of Business with a double major in Sport Management and Marketing, Levitt is also the founder of an intramural collegiate baseball league. Enjoy a fun and educational conversation with Jonathan, Travis, and Mace about running, mindset, consistency, curiosity, podcasting, training, marathon, racing, Leadville, community, death, grief, and more.In This Episode: Jonathan Levitt Instagram For the Long Run Instagram | Website | Podcast Inside TrackerTravis Macy Instagram | WebsiteMark Macy on InstagramInjinji Discount SiteThe Feed Instagram | Website- - - - - - - - - - -If you like this podcast, please consider our book, A Mile at A Time: A Father and Son's Inspiring Alzheimer's Journey of Love, Adventure, and Hope*30% off with discount code MACESubscribe: Apple Podcast | SpotifyCheck us out: Instagram | Twitter | Website | YouTubewww.AMileAtATimeBook.comThe show is Produced and Edited by Palm Tree Pod
Ben and Woods start the 9am hour by chatting with Padres pre/postgame host Sam Levitt and getting his thoughts on tonight's Game 1 in the NL Wild Card between the Padres and Mets! Then we get to The Reindl Report and Paul's top stories of the morning, including last night's awful Thursday Night Football game. And at the bottom of the hour, the guys chat with Padres super-fan Ryan Cohen and wrap things up from AleSmith Brewery with our Flubs of the Week! Listen here!
After a night of celebrating high school graduation, Suzie Streeter and Stacy McCall return to Suzie's house for the night. When they don't show up for the next day's celebration, friends discover that not only are the two girls missing, but so is Suzie's mom, Sherrill. How do three women go missing in the middle of the night when they were supposed to be safe and sound at home?To access earlier episodes of Corpus Delicti and to help support the show, please visit patreon.com/corpusdelictiOur merch store can be found at teepublic.com/stores/corpus-delicti-podcastMusic by:Kai Engel"Daemones"Blooper music by:Art of Escapism"Coal Miners"This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.Sources:Three Missing Women | Springfield, MO - Official Website (springfieldmo.gov)Three Missing Women: Ten Years Later - Part 1 of 5 | Springfield News-Leader | news-leader.com (archive.org)30 years later family still seeking answers in the disappearance of three Springfield, Missouri women (nbcnews.com)Decades-Old Evidence May be Future of Missing Women Case - Story (archive.org)The Charley Project: Suzanne E. Streeter (archive.org)The Charley Project: Stacy Kathleen McCall (archive.org)The Southeast Missourian - Google News Archive SearchPokin Around: 3 missing women; here, then suddenly nowhere (news-leader.com)The Springfield Three: What we know about the cold case 29 years later (ky3.com)Mother talks about 25 years with no answers in Stacy McCall's disappearance (ky3.com)19 Jun 1992, Page 4 - The Springfield News-Leader at Newspapers.com - Leads Focus Last Sightings by Chris Bentley17 Jun 1992, Page 1 - The Springfield News-Leader at Newspapers.com - Sketch was a familiar face by Robert Keyes07 Jul 1992, Page 1 - The Springfield News-Leader at Newspapers.com - Police respond to broadcast, call stories “bogus” by Chris Bentley06 Dec 1992, Page 6 - The Springfield News-Leader at Newspapers.com - ‘We'll face whatever we have to' by Robert Keyes
Baseball and BBQ Episode #153 Features Intentional Balk Authors, Daniel Levitt and Mark Armour, and Queen of the Grill, Paula Stachyra, Author of Wing Crush Daniel R. Levitt joins us to discuss Mark's and his newest book, Intentional Balk: Baseball's Thin Line Between Innovation and Cheating. Dan is the author of several award-winning books, including Paths to Glory: How Great Baseball Teams Got That Way (2003 with Mark Armour); Ed Barrow: The Bulldog Who Built the Yankees' First Dynasty; The Battle That Forged Modern Baseball: The Federal League Challenge and Its Legacy; and In Pursuit of Pennants: Baseball Operations from Deadball to Moneyball (2015, with Armour). In 2015, he was selected as the recipient of the Bob Davids Award, the Society for American Baseball Research's (SABR) highest honor. Dan currently serves as treasurer of SABR and is the co-chair of SABR's Business of Baseball committee. Go to https://sabr.org/authors/daniel-r-levitt/ and http://daniel-levitt.com/ for more information. Mark Armour joins us to discuss Daniel's and his newest book, Intentional Balk: Baseball's Thin Line Between Innovation and Cheating. Mark was elected as the President of the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) Board of Directors in 2019. He is the founder and longtime (2002-2016) director of SABR's Baseball Biography Project. He was the recipient of SABR's highest honor, the Bob Davids Award, in 2008 and the Henry Chadwick Award, honoring baseball's greatest researchers, in 2014. His book Joe Cronin: A Life in Baseball was a finalist for the prestigious Seymour Medal in 2011, as was In Pursuit of Pennants, which he co-wrote with Dan Levitt in 2015. Mark has written or co-written several other books and many articles. Go to https://sabr.org/authors/mark-armour/ and http://www.mark-armour.net/ for more information. Paula Stachyra is a barbecue enthusiast, recipe developer, and creator of the popular Instagram account, Queen of the Grill, which is beloved for its weekly #WingCrushWednesday posts. She also co-hosts the very entertaining podcast, All Up In My Grills, with her friend, Lauren Nagel. Paula's latest project is the cookbook, Wing Crush: 100 Epic Recipes For Your Grill or Smoker. Her wing recipes are like fingerprints; no two are alike and that gives any lover of wings 100 unique ways to enjoy them. Paula is extremely humbled by the rave reviews her book has received. Bagel favorites? Yes, we discussed that too. Go to https://www.instagram.com/queenofthegrill/?hl=en for more information. Jeff and Leonard talk a little about their road trip to the newly opened, Ray's Roadside Kitchen, which will be featured in an upcoming episode. We recommend you go to BBQ Buddha, https://bbqbuddha.com/ for rubs and award-winning sauces, Baseball BBQ, https://baseballbbq.com for special grilling tools and accessories, the Pandemic Baseball Book Club, https://www.pbbclub.com to find many of the wonderful books we have featured as well as some additional swag, Magnechef, https://magnechef.com/ for excellent and unique barbecue gloves, and Cutting Edge Firewood https://www.cuttingedgefirewood.com/ for high-quality firewood and cooking wood. We conclude the show with the song, "Baseball Always Brings You Home" by the musician, Dave Dresser, and the poet, Shel Krakofsky. We truly appreciate our listeners and hope that all of you are staying safe. If you would like to contact the show, we would love to hear from you. Call the show: (516) 855-8214 Email: firstname.lastname@example.orgTwitter: @baseballandbbqInstagram: baseballandbarbecueYouTube: baseball and bbqWebsite: https//baseballandbbq.weebly.com Facebook: baseball and bbq
In this episode of the Crack House Chronicles we discuss The Springfield Three. On June 7, 1992 three women, Sherill Levitt, her daughter Suzanne Streeter, and friend Stacy McCall disappeared from Levitt's home in Springfield, Missouri, between 02:15am – 07:30am. Suzanne and Stacy had returned to Levitt's home to spend the night after attending graduation parties the night of June 6, 1992. The three women have not been heard from or seen since. https://crackhousechronicles.com/ Check out our MERCH! https://www.teepublic.com/user/crackhousechronicles Sponsors: https://betterhelp.com/chc If you use this link or Promo Code CHC, BetterHELP will give you 10% off your first month7 bill. Sources: https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2022/06/03/springfield-3-missing-women-cold-case-theories-stacy-mccall-suzie-streeter-sherrill-levitt/9926916002/ https://unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com/wiki/The_Springfield_Three
The guest this week are co-founders of New York-based Priori Legal. Basha Rubin, the company's Chief Executive Officer, and Mirra Levitt, the Chief Product Officer, met as classmates at Yale Law School and found Priori. Earlier this year, they announced a funding round of $15 million. Priori works with in-house legal teams to connect legal departments with the right outside counsel for projects globally, saving them time and money. We discuss Legal Tech trends, their origin story, raising funds a Women Founders, and the secret sauce for successful legal teams.
I am super excited today to talk with you about a Maester who has really helped me level up to the next level of my life and that is Tamara Levitt. She is one of the Maesters that has helped me the most with my Project Weight Loss. And while there are many people who are fantastic when it comes to weight loss. the key part here is that Project Weight Loss is yes, about losing weight, but more importantly it's about gaining your sanity in the process, and that Maester for me is Tamara Levitt.Reading Tamara's bio, was very inspiring for me, because it reminded me that as humans we are so beautifully imperfect and that's the way it should be.Tamara Levitt is the head of mindfulness for the Calm App, a meditation app that I listen to for my mediation and that has partnerships with health care providers to provide a meditation mechanismShe has recorded thousands of meditations, and has a masterclass on Gratitude in the Calm App, that I highly recommend you listen to. I have learned so much from her meditations. I have learned new words from different languages. I have learned how to change my reactivity to my situations, my world and I have learned so much about gratitude. Have a beautiful week. Let's go, let's get it done.Get more information at: http://projectweightloss.org
The latest episode of my podcast is out on SoundCloud. I spoke with Nicolle Levitt about the woke meltdown at the women's abuse organization. How woke ideology is corrupting organizations and leaving us defenceless from illiberalism. Follow me: @obaidomer Follow Nicole: @LevittNicole7 You can read about what happened at the WAA: https://freebeacon.com/culture/inside-the-woke-meltdown-at-one-domestic-violence-organization/ Read this article that Nicole co-wrote:https://quillette.com/2021/09/17/how-social-justice-extremists-spawned-a-generation-of-progressive-antisemites/
Join Elizabeth Cribbs, Senior Strategist on the Family Advisory and Philanthropy Services team, in conversation with two members of the Levitt Foundation, Liz Levitt Hirsch, Board President, and Sharon Yazowski, Founding Executive Director. The Levitt Foundation is a remarkable example of a mid-sized, private family foundation that is making a big impact in communities. Through its commitment to creative placemaking, its grantmaking and research, the Levitt Foundation partners with nonprofits across the country to activate underused public spaces to create joyous, inclusive community destinations. Liz and Sharon share practical advice on how to successfully transition the management of a family foundation between generations, how to impactfully engage the communities the foundation serves and how to strategically approach sunsetting a private foundation.
Join Elizabeth Cribbs, Senior Strategist on the Family Advisory and Philanthropy Services team, in conversation with two members of the Levitt Foundation, Liz Levitt Hirsch, Board President, and Sharon Yazowski, Founding Executive Director. The Levitt Foundation is a remarkable example of a mid-sized, private family foundation that is making a big impact in communities. Through its commitment to creative placemaking, its grantmaking and research, the Levitt Foundation partners with nonprofits across the country to activate underused public spaces to create joyous, inclusive community destinations. Liz and Sharon share practical advice on how to successfully transition the management of a family foundation between generations, how to impactfully engage the communities the foundation serves and how to strategically approach sunsetting a private foundation.
“There was no way I was going to sign a statement saying that I was racist or that all white people were racist or that all of any race was anything. So I refused to sign it.” Nicole Levitt, an attorney who represents domestic violence survivors, recently filed a discrimination complaint against her employer, Women Against Abuse, for, among other things, asking white staffers to sign declarations that all white people are racist, including themselves, she says. She shares her story with us, and why she believes woke ideology has corrupted the mission of her employer, one of the largest domestic violence nonprofits in America. “There were a lot of discussions about defunding the police … [but] our clients need the police to stop the abuse. … What is the social worker going to do in one of these violent situations? Domestic violence situations are some of the most deadly calls for police officers,” Levitt says. Follow EpochTV on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/EpochTVus Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/EpochTV Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@EpochTV Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/epochtv Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EpochTVus Gab: https://gab.com/EpochTV Telegram: https://t.me/EpochTV
Attorney Rachel M. Levitt fills in for her father this week singing Elvis songs and chatting with Craig Russell, The Muscle, The Hustle. Fun episode as Todd is off experiencing his own version of the show Alone. Rachel does an amazing job for the first time sitting in The Mother-Ship. Enjoy the show and please share
Austin Vernon is an engineer working on a new method for carbon capture, and he has one of the most interesting blogs on the internet, where he writes about engineering, software, economics, and investing.We discuss how energy superabundance will change the world, how Starship can be turned into a kinetic weapon, why nuclear is overrated, blockchains, batteries, flying cars, finding alpha, & much more!Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Subscribe to find out about future episodes!Follow Austin on Twitter. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Please share if you enjoyed this episode! Helps out a ton!Timestamps(0:00:00) - Intro(0:01:53) - Starship as a Weapon(0:19:24) - Software Productivity(0:41:40) - Car Manufacturing(0:57:39) - Carbon Capture(1:16:53) - Energy Superabundance(1:25:09) - Storage for Cheap Energy(1:31:25) - Travel in Future(1:33:27) - Future Cities(1:39:58) - Flying Cars(1:43:26) - Carbon Shortage(1:48:03) - Nuclear(2:12:44) - Solar(2:14:44) - Alpha & Efficient Markets(2:22:51) - ConclusionTranscriptIntroDwarkesh Patel (00:00:00):Okay! Today, I have the pleasure of interviewing Austin Vernon who writes about engineering, software, economics, and investing on the internet, though not that much else is known about him. So Austin, do you want to give us a bit of info about your background? I know that the only thing the internet knows about you is this one little JPEG that you had to upload with your recent paper. But what about an identity reveal or I guess a little bit of a background reveal? Just to the extent that you're comfortable sharing.Austin Vernon (00:00:29):My degree is in chemical engineering and I've had a lifelong love for engineering as well as things like the Toyota Production System. I've also worked as a chemical engineer in a large processing facility where I've done a lot of petroleum engineering. I taught myself how to write software and now I'm working on more research and the early commercialization of CO2 electrolysis.Dwarkesh Patel (00:00:59):Okay yeah. I'm really interested in talking about all those things. The first question I have is from Alex Berger, who's the co-CEO of Open Philanthropy. When I asked on Twitter what I should ask you, he suggested that I should ask “Why so shady?” Famously you have kind of an anonymous personality, pseudonymous thing going on the internet. What's up with that?Austin Vernon (00:01:25):Yeah. I think he posted a tweet that said “I don't know who this guy is or if he's credible at all, but his stuff sure is interesting”. That really made me laugh. I thought that was hilarious. Fame just doesn't seem necessary, I think I'm fine with my ideas being well known and communicating, but I have less desire to be personally famous.Starship as a WeaponDwarkesh Patel (00:01:52):Gotcha, gotcha. I wanted to start off with a sexy topic, let's talk about using Starship as a kinetic weapon. I thought that was one of the more amusing posts you wrote. Do you want to talk more about how this would be possible?Austin Vernon (00:02:08):Well, I think the main thing with Starship is that you're taking a technology and you're making it about 100 times cheaper for cargo and 1000 times cheaper for people. When things like that happen that drastically, you're just looking at huge changes and it's really hard to anticipate what some of those can be when the change is that drastic. I think there's a lot of moon-based, Mars-based stuff that doesn't really catch the general public's eye. They also have trouble imagining some of the point-to-point travel that could be possible. But when you start talking about it as a weapon, then I think it lets people know they should be paying attention to this technology. And we certainly do not want to be second or third getting it. We should make sure that we're going to be first.Dwarkesh Patel (00:03:05):Yeah. I think you mentioned this in the post, but as recently as the '90s, the cost of sending one kilogram to space was around $20,000. More recently, SpaceX has brought it to $2,000. Lots of interesting questions pop up when you ask, “What will be possible once we get it down to $200 per kilogram to send into orbit?” One of them could be about how we might manufacture these weapons that are not conventional ballistics. Do you want to talk about why this might be an advancement over conventional ballistic weapons?Austin Vernon (00:03:37):Well, regular conventional ballistic weapons are extremely expensive. This is more like a bomb truck. But usually we think of B52 as the bomb truck and this could be even cheaper than the B52, delivering just mass on target. When you think about how expensive it is to fly a B52 from Barksdale in Louisiana all the way across the world.. you can do it from south Texas or Florida with the Starship and get more emissions per day and the fuel ends up being. When you go orbital, it takes a lot to get to orbit. But then once you're in orbit, your fuel consumption's pretty good. So over long distances, it has a lot of advantage. That's why the point-to-point works for longer distances.Austin Vernon (00:04:27):There's really a sweet spot with these weapons where you want it to be pretty accurate, but you also want it to be cheap. You're seeing that problem with Russia right now as they have some fancy parade style weapons that are really expensive, like multi-billion dollar cruise missiles, but they're missing that $5,000 guided artillery shell or that $20,000 JDM that you can just pit massive. Or the multiple launch rocket system, guided rockets. They're really short on all those because I think they had just had a limited amount of chips they could get from the US into Russia to make these advanced weapons.Austin Vernon (00:05:07):But yeah, so the Starship gives you just a platform to deliver. You could put JDMs in a shroud, or you could just have the iron unguided kinetic projectiles, and it just becomes impossible for a ship to launch missiles to intercept yours if your cost is so low, you can just overwhelm them.Dwarkesh Patel (00:05:29):Okay. There are a few terms there that neither I nor the audience might know. So what is JDM? What is shroud? And why are chips a bottleneck here? Why can't it just be any micro-controller?Austin Vernon (00:05:42):So JDM is Joint Direct Attack Munition. So what we did is we took all our Vietnam surplus bonds and we put this little fin-kit on it and it costs like $20,000, which is cheap for a weapon because the actual bond costs, I don't know, $3,000. And then it turns it into a guided weapon that, before you were probably lucky to get within 500 meters of a target, now you can get it in with two meters. So the number of missions you have to do with your planes and all that goes down by orders of magnitude. So it's an absolutely huge advantage in logistics and in just how much firepower you can put on a target. And we didn't even have to make new bombs, we just put these kits on all our old bombs.Austin Vernon (00:06:33):Let's see.. Yeah the chips are a problem. There's this organization called RUSI. I think they're in the UK, but they've been tearing down all these Russian weapons they found in Ukraine and they all have American chips in them. So technically, they're not supposed to be able to get these chips. And yet, Russia can't make a lot of its own chips. And especially not the specialized kinds you might want for guided weapons. So they've been somehow smuggling in chips from Americans to make their advanced weaponsDwarkesh Patel (00:07:03):What is special about these? As far as I'm aware, the trade with China is still going on and we get a lot of our chips manufactured from Taiwan or China. So why can't they do the same?Austin Vernon (00:07:14):It's the whole integration. It's not just the specific chip, but the board. They're more like PLCs where you almost have wired-in programming and they come with this ability to do the guidance and all that stuff. It all kind of has to work together. I think that's the way I understand it. I don't know. Maybe I don't have a really good answer for that one, but they're hard to replicate is what matters.Dwarkesh Patel (00:07:43):Okay that's interesting. Yeah, I guess that has a lot of interesting downstream effects, because for example, India buys a lot of its weapons from Russia. So if Russia doesn't have access to these, then other countries that buy from Russia won't have access to these either.Dwarkesh Patel (00:07:58):You had an interesting speculation in the post where you suggested that you could just keep these kinetic weapons in orbit, in a sort of Damocles state really, almost literally. That sounds like an incredibly scary and risky scenario where you could have orbital decay and you could have these kinetic weapons falling from the sky and destroying cities. Do you think this is what it will look like or could look like in 10 to 20 years?Austin Vernon (00:08:26):Well, yeah, so the advantage of having weapons on orbit is you can hit targets faster. So if you're launching the rocket from Florida, you're looking at maybe 30 minutes to get there and the target can move away in that time. Whereas if you're on orbit, you can have them spaced out to where you're hitting within a few minutes. So that's the advantage there.Austin Vernon (00:08:46):You really have to have a two stage system I think for most, because if you have a really aerodynamic rod that's going to give you really good performance in the low atmosphere, it'll end up going too fast and just burn up before it gets there. Tungsten's maybe the only thing that you could have that could go all the way through which is why I like the original concept of using these big tungsten rods the size of a telephone pole. But tungsten's pretty expensive. And the rod concept kind of limits what you can do.Austin Vernon (00:09:28):So a lot of these weapons will have, that's what I was talking about with the shroud, something that actually slows you down in the upper atmosphere. And then once you're at the velocity where you're not just going to melt, then you open it up and let it go. So if you actually had it fall from the sky, some may make it to the ground, but a lot would burn up. So a lot of the stuff that makes it to the ground is actually pretty light. It's stuff that can float and has a large surface area. Yeah, that's the whole thing with Starship. Or not Starship, but Starlink. All those satellites are meant to completely fall apart on de-orbit.Dwarkesh Patel (00:10:09):I see. One of the implications of that is that these may be less powerful than we might fear, because since kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared and there's an upper bound on the velocity (velocity being the component that grows the kinetic energy faster), then it suggests that you can upper bound the power these things will have. You know what I mean?Austin Vernon (00:10:32):Yeah, so even the tungsten rods. Sometimes people, they're not very good at physics, so they don't do the math. They think it's going to be a nuclear weapon, but it's really not. I think even the tungsten rod is like 10 tons of T&T or something. It's a big bomb, but it's not a super weapon.Austin Vernon (00:10:54):So I think I said in the post, it's about using advanced missiles where they're almost more defensive weapons so I can keep you from pitting your ship somewhere. Yeah I could try to bombard your cities, but I can't take ground with it. I can't even police sea lanes with it really. I'd still have to use regular ships if I had this air cover to go enforce the rules of the sea and stuff like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:11:23):Yeah. You speculated in the post, I think, that you could load this up with shrapnel and then it could explode next to an incoming missile or an incoming aircraft. Could these get that accurate? Because that was surprising speculation to me.Austin Vernon (00:11:43):I think for ships, it's pretty... I was watching videos of how fast a ship can turn and stuff. If you're going to do an initial target on a ship to try to kill their radars, you'd want to do it above the ceiling of their missiles. So it's like, how much are they going to move between your release where you stop steering and that? The answer's maybe 1000 feet. So that's pretty simple because you just shrapnel the area.Austin Vernon (00:12:12):Targeting aircraft, you would be steering all the way in. I'd say it's doable, but it'd be pretty hard. You'd actually maybe want to even go slower than you would with the ship attack. You'd need a specialized package to attack the aircraft, but if you have enough synthetic aperture radar and stuff like that, you could see these aircraft using satellites and then guide the bomb in the whole way. You could even load heat seeking missiles into a package that unfurls right next to them and launch conventional missiles too, probably. It'd be pretty hard to do some of this stuff, but they're just the things you might be able to do if you put some effort into it.Dwarkesh Patel (00:12:57):Yeah. The reason I find this kind of speculation really interesting is because when you look at the modern weaponry that's used in conflicts, it just seems directly descendant from something you would've seen in World War II or something. If you think about how much warfare changed between 1900 and 1940, it's like, yeah, they're not even the same class of weapons anymore. So it's interesting to think about possibilities like these where the entire category of weapons has changed.Austin Vernon (00:13:33):You're right and that's because our physical technology hasn't changed that much. So it really has just made more sense to put better electronics in the same tanks. We haven't learned enough about tanks to build a new physical tank that's way better, so we just keep upgrading our existing tanks with better electronics. They're much more powerful, they're more accurate. A lot of times, they have longer range weapons and better sensors. So the tank looks the same, but it maybe has several times more killing power. But the Ukraine war right now, they're using a lot of 40, 50 year old weapons so that especially looks like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:14:20):Yeah. Which kind of worries you if you think about the stockpiles our own military has. I'm not well educated on the topic, but I imagine that we don't have the newest of the new thing. We probably have maintained versions of decades old technology.Austin Vernon (00:14:35):We spend so much, we've got relatively... This kind of gets into debate about how ready our military is. For certain situations, it's more ready than others. I'd say in general, most people talking about it have the incentive to downplay our capabilities because they want more defense spending. There's lots of reasons. So I think we're probably more capable than what you might see from some editorial in The Hill or whatever. Us just sending a few weapons over to Ukraine and seeing how successful they've been at using them, I think, shows a little bit of that.Austin Vernon (00:15:18):There's so much uncertainty when it comes to fighting, especially when you're talking about a naval engagement, where we don't just don't have that many ships in general… you can have some bad luck. So I think you always want to be a little bit wary. You don't want to get overconfident.Dwarkesh Patel (00:15:37):Yeah. And if the offensive tech we sent to Ukraine is potentially better than the defensive tech, it's very possible that even a ballistic missile that China or Russia could launch would sink a battleship and then kill the 2,000 or 1,000 whatever soldiers that are on board. Or I guess, I don't know, you think this opens up avenues for defensive tech as well?Austin Vernon (00:16:03):Yeah––generally the consensus is that defensive technology has improved much more recently than offensive technology. This whole strategy China has is something they call anti-access/area denial, A2/AD. That's basically just how missiles have gotten better because the sensors on missiles have gotten better. So they can keep our ships from getting close to them but they can't really challenge us in Hawaii or something. And it really goes both ways, I think people forget that. So yeah, it's hard for us to get close to China, but Taiwan has a lot of missiles with these new sensors as well. So I think it's probably tougher for China to do it close to Taiwan than most people would say.Dwarkesh Patel (00:16:55):Oh, interesting. Yeah, can you talk more about that? Because every time I read about this, people are saying that if China wanted to, they could knock out Taiwan's defenses in a short amount of time and take it over. Yeah, so can you talk about why that's not possible?Austin Vernon (00:17:10):Well, it might be, but I think it's a guess of the uncertainty [inaudible 00:17:14]. Taiwan has actually one of the largest defense budgets in the world and they've recently been upping it. I think they spend, I don't know, $25 billion a year and they added an extra $5 billion. And they've been buying a lot of anti-ship missiles, a lot of air defense missiles.. Stuff that Ukraine could only dream of. I think Ukraine's military budget was $2 billion and they have a professional army. And then the other thing is Taiwan's an island, whereas Russia could just roll over the land border into Ukraine.Austin Vernon (00:17:44):There's just been very few successful amphibious landings in history. The most recent ones were all the Americans in World War II and Korea. So the challenge there is just... It's kind of on China to execute perfectly and do that. So if they had perfect execution, then possibly it would be feasible. But if their air defenses on their ships aren't quite as good as we think they could possibly be, then they could also end up with half their fleet underwater within 10 hours.Dwarkesh Patel (00:18:20):Interesting. And how has your view of Taiwan's defensive capabilities changed... How has the Ukraine conflict updated your opinion on what might happen?Austin Vernon (00:18:29):I didn't really know how much about it. And then I started looking at Wikipedia and stuff and all this stuff they're doing. Taiwan just has a lot of modern platforms like F16s with our anti-ship missiles. They actually have a lot of their own. They have indigenous fighter bombers, indigenous anti-ship missiles because they're worried we might not always sell them to them.Austin Vernon (00:18:54):They've even recently gotten these long range cruise missiles that could possibly target leadership in Beijing. So I think that makes it uncomfortable for the Chinese leadership. If you attack them, you're going to have to go live in a bunker. But again, I'm not a full-time military analyst or something, so there's a lot of uncertainty around what I'm saying. It's not a given that China's just going to roll over them.Software ProductivityDwarkesh Patel (00:19:22):Okay. That's comforting to hear. Let's talk about an area where I have a little bit of a point of contact. I thought your blog post about software and the inability of it to increase productivity numbers, I thought that was super fascinating. So before I ask you questions about it, do you want to lay out the thesis there?Austin Vernon (00:19:43):Yeah. So if there's one post I kind of felt like I caught lightning in a bottle on, it's that one. Everything I wanted to put in, it just fit together perfectly, which is usually not the case.Austin Vernon (00:19:55):I think the idea is that the world's so complex and we really underestimate that complexity. If you're going to digitize processes and automate them and stuff, you have to capture all that complexity basically at the bit level, and that's extremely difficult. And then you also have diminishing returns where the easily automatable stuff goes first and then it's increasing corner cases to get to the end, so you just have to go through more and more code basically. We don't see runaway productivity growth from software because we're fighting all this increasing complexity.Dwarkesh Patel (00:20:39):Yeah. Have you heard of the waterbed theory of complexity by the way?Austin Vernon (00:20:42):I don't think so.Dwarkesh Patel (00:20:44):Okay. It's something that comes up in compiler design: the idea is that there's a fixed amount of complexity in a system. If you try to reduce it, what you'll end up doing is just you'll end up migrating the complexity elsewhere. I think an example that's used of this is when they try to program languages that are not type safe, something like Python. You can say, “oh, it's a less complex language”, but really, you've added complexity when, I don't know, two different types of numbers are interacting like a float and an int. As your program grows, that complexity exponentially grows along with all the things that could go wrong when you're making two things interact in a way that you were expecting not to. So yeah, the idea is you can just choose where to have your complexity, but you can't get rid of that complexity.Austin Vernon (00:21:38):I think that's kind of an interesting thing when you start pairing it with management theory... when you add up all the factors, the most complex thing you're doing is high volume car manufacturing. And so we got a lot of innovations and organization from car manufacturers like the assembly line. Then you had Sloan at GM basically creating the way the modern corporation is run, then you have the Toyota Production System.Austin Vernon (00:22:11):But arguably now, creating software is actually the most complex thing we do. So there's all these kinds of squishy concepts that underlie things like the Toyota Production System that softwares had to learn and reimagine and adopt and you see that with Agile where, “oh, we can't have long release times. We need to be releasing every day,” which means we're limiting inventory there.Austin Vernon (00:22:42):There's a whole thing especially that's showing up in software that existed in carbon manufacturing where you're talking about reducing communication. So Jeff Bezos kind of now famously said, "I want to reduce communication," which is counterintuitive to a lot of people. This is age-old in car manufacturing where Toyota has these cards that go between workstations and they tell you what to do. So people normally think of them as limiting inventory, but it also tells the worker exactly what they're supposed to be doing at what pace, at what time. The assembly line is like that too. You just know what to do because you're standing there and there's a part here and it needs to go on there, and it comes by at the pace you're supposed to work at.Austin Vernon (00:23:29):It's so extreme that there's this famous paper, by List, Syverson and Levitt. They went to a car factory and studied how defects propagated in cars and stuff. Once a car factory gets up and running, it doesn't matter what workers you put in there, if workers are sick or you get new workers, the defect rate is the same. So all the knowledge is built into the manufacturing line.Austin Vernon (00:23:59):There's these concepts around idiot-proofing and everything that are very similar to what you'll see. You had Uncle Bob on here. So Uncle Bob says only put one input into a function and stuff like that because you'll mix them up otherwise. The Japanese call it poka-yoke. You make it where you can't mess it up. And that's another way to reduce communication, and then software, of course you have APIs.Austin Vernon (00:24:28):So I'm really interested in this overall concept of reducing communication, and reducing how much cooperation and everything we need to run the economy.Dwarkesh Patel (00:24:41):Right. Right. Speaking of the Toyota Production System, one thing they do to reduce that defect rate is if there's a problem, all the workers in that chain are forced to go to the place where the defect problem is and fix it before doing anything else. The idea there is that this will give them context to understand what the problem was and how to make sure it doesn't happen again. It also prevents a build up of inventory in a way that keeps making these defects happen or just keeps accumulating inventory before the place that can fix the defects is able to take care of them.Austin Vernon (00:25:17):Right. Yeah, yeah. Exactly.Dwarkesh Patel (00:25:19):Yeah. But I think one interesting thing about software and complexity is that software is a place where complexity is the highest in our world right now but software gives you the choice to interface with the complexity you want to interface with. I guess that's just part of specialization in general, but you could say for example that a machine learning model is really complex, but ideally, you get to a place where that's the only kind of complexity you have to deal with. You're not having to deal with the complexity of “How is this program compiled? How are the libraries that I'm using? How are they built?” You can fine tune and work on the complexity you need to work on.Dwarkesh Patel (00:26:05):It's similar to app development. Byrne Hobart has this blog post about Stripe as solid state. The basic idea is that Stripe hides all the complexity of the financial system: it charges a higher fee, but you can just treat it as an abstraction of a tithe you have to pay, and it'll just take care of that entire process so you can focus on your comparative advantage.Austin Vernon (00:26:29):It's really actually very similar in car manufacturing and the Toyota Production System if you really get into it. It's very much the same conceptual framework. There's this whole idea in Toyota Production System, everyone works at the same pace, which you kind of talked about. But also, your work content is the same. There's no room for not standardizing a way you're going to do things. So everyone gets together and they're like, “All right, we're going to do this certain part. We're going to put it together this certain way at this little micro station. And it's going to be the same way every time.” That's part of how they're reducing the defect rates. If your assembly process is longer than what your time allotment is to stay in touch with the rest of the process, then you just keep breaking it down into smaller pieces. So through this, each person only has to know a very small part of it.Austin Vernon (00:27:33):The overall engineering team has all sorts of strategies and all sorts of tools to help them break up all these processes into very small parts and make it all hold together. It's still very, very hard, but it's kind of a lot of the same ideas because you're taking away the complexity of making a $30,000 car or 30,000 part car where everyone's just focusing on their one little part and they don't care what someone else is doing.Dwarkesh Patel (00:28:06):Yeah. But the interesting thing is that it seems like you need one person who knows how everything fits together. Because from what I remember, one of the tenets of the Toyota Production System was you need to have a global view. So, in that book, was it the machine or the other one, the Toyota Production System book? But anyways, they were talking about examples where people would try to optimize for local efficiencies. I think they especially pointed to Ford and GM for trying to do this where they would try to make machines run all the time. And locally, you could say that, “oh this machine or process is super efficient. It's always outputting stuff.” But it ignores how that added inventory or that process had a bad consequence for the whole system.Dwarkesh Patel (00:28:50):And so it's interesting if you look at a company like Tesla that's able to do this really well. Tesla is run like a monarchy and this one guy has this total global view of how the entire process is supposed to run and where you have these inefficiencies.. You had some great examples of this in the blog post. I think one of the examples is this guy (the author) goes to this factory and he asks, "Is this an efficient factory?" And the guy's like, "Yeah, this is totally efficient. There's nothing we can do, adopting the Toyota way, to make this more efficient."Dwarkesh Patel (00:29:22):And so then he's like, "Okay, let me look." And he finds that they're treating steel in some way, and the main process does only take a couple of seconds, but some local manager decided that it would be more efficient to ship their parts out, to get the next stage of the process done somewhere else. So this is locally cheaper, but the result is that it takes weeks to get these parts shipped out and get them back. Which means that the actual time that the parts spend getting processed is 0.1% of the time, making the whole process super inefficient. So I don't know, it seems like the implication is you need a very monarchical structure, with one person who has a total view, in order to run such a system. Or am I getting that wrong?Austin Vernon (00:30:12):Not necessarily. I mean, you do have to make sure you're not optimizing locally, but I think it's the same. You have that same constraint in software, but I think a lot of times people are just running over it because processing has been getting so much cheaper. People are expensive, so if you could save development time, it just ends up the trade offs are different when you're talking about the tyranny of physical items and stuff like that, the constraints get a little more severe. But I think you have the same overall. You still have to fight local optimization, but the level you have to is probably different with physical goods.Austin Vernon (00:30:55):I was thinking about the smart grid situation from a software perspective, and there's this problem where, okay, I'm putting my solar farm here and it's impacting somewhere far away, and that's then creating these really high upgrade costs, that cost two or three times more than my solar farm. Well, the obvious thing would be, if you're doing software, is like you're going to break all these up into smaller sections, and then you wouldn't be impacting each other and all that, and you could work and focus on your own little thing.Austin Vernon (00:31:29):But the problem with that is if you're going to disconnect these areas of the grid, the equipment to do that is extremely expensive. It's not like I'm just going to hit a new tab and open a new file and start writing a new function. And not only that, but you still have to actually coordinate how this equipment is going to operate. So if you just let the grid flow as it does, everyone knows what's going to happen because they could just calculate the physics. If you start adding in all these checkpoints where humans are doing stuff, then you have to actually interface with the humans, and the amount of things that can happen really starts going up. So it's actually a really bad idea to try to cart all this stuff off, just because of the reality of the physical laws and the equipment you need and everything like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:32:22):Okay. Interesting. And then I think you have a similar Coasean argument in your software post about why vertically integrating software is beneficial. Do you want to explain that thesis?Austin Vernon (00:32:34):Yeah. I think it actually gets to what we're talking about here, where it allows you to avoid the local optimization. Because a lot of times you're trying to build a software MVP, and you're tying together a few services… they don't do quite what you need, so if you try to scale that, it would just break. But if you're going to take a really complex process, like car manufacturing or retail distribution, or the home buying process or something, you really have to vertically integrate it to be able to create a decent end-to-end experience and avoid that local optimization.Austin Vernon (00:33:20):And it's just very hard otherwise, because you just can't coordinate effectively if you have 10 different vendors trying to do all the same thing. You end up in just constant vendor meetings, where you're trying to decide what the specs are or something instead of giving someone the authority, or giving a team the authority to just start building stuff. Then if you look at these companies, they have to implement these somewhat decentralized processes when they get too complex, but at least they have control over how they're interfacing with each other. Walmart, as the vendors, control their own stock. They don't tell the vendor, "We need X parts." It's just like, it's on you to make sure your shelf is stocked.Dwarkesh Patel (00:34:07):Yeah. Yeah. So what was really interesting to me about this part of the post was, I don't know, I guess I had heard of this vision of we're software setting, where everybody will have a software as a service company, and they'll all be interfacing with each other in some sort of cycle where they're all just calling each other's APIs. And yeah, basically everybody and their mother would have a SAAS company. The implication here was, from your argument, that given the necessity of integrating all those complexity vertically in a coherent way, then the winners in software should end up being a few big companies, right? They compete with each other, but still...Austin Vernon (00:34:49):I think that's especially true when you're talking about combining bits and apps. Maybe less true for pure software. The physical world is just so much more complex, and so the constraints it creates are pretty extreme, compared to like... you could maybe get away with more of everyone and their mom having an API in a pure software world.Dwarkesh Patel (00:35:14):Right. Yeah. I guess, you might think that even in the physical world, given that people really need to focus on their comparative advantage, they would just try to outsource the software parts to these APIs. But is there any scenario where the learning curve for people who are not in the firm can be fast enough that they can keep up with the complexity? Because there's huge gains for specialization and competition that go away if this is the world we're forced to live in. And then I guess we have a lot of counter examples, or I guess we have a lot of examples of what you're talking about. Like Apple is the biggest market cap in the world, right? And famously they're super vertically integrated. And yeah, obviously their thing is combining hardware and software. But yeah, is there any world in which it can keep that kind of benefit, but have it be within multiple firms?Austin Vernon (00:36:10):This is a post I've got on my list I want to write. The blockchain application, which excites me personally the most, is reimagining enterprise software. Because the things you're talking about, like hard typing and APIs are just basically built into some of these protocols. So I think it just really has a lot of exciting implications for how much you can decentralize software development. But the thing is, you can still do that within the firm. So I think I mentioned this, if the government's going to place all these rules on the edge of the firm, it makes transactions with other firms expensive. So a few internal transactions can be cheaper, because they're avoiding the government reporting and taxes and all that kind of stuff. So I think you'd have to think about how these technologies can reduce transaction costs overall and decentralize that, but also what are the costs between firms?Dwarkesh Patel (00:37:22):Yeah, it's really interesting if the costs are logistic, or if they're based on the knowledge that is housed, as you were talking about, within a factory or something. Because if it is just logistical and stuff, like you had to report any outside transactions, then it does imply that those technology blockchain could help. But if it is just that you need to be in the same office, and if you're not, then you're going to have a hard time keeping up with what the new requirements for the API are, then maybe it's that, yeah, maybe the inevitability is that you'll have these big firms that are able to vertically integrate.Austin Vernon (00:37:59):Yeah, for these big firms to survive, they have to be somewhat decentralized within them. So I think you have... you're going to the same place as just how are we viewing it, what's our perception? So even if it's a giant corporation, it's going to have very independent business units as opposed to something like a 1950s corporation.Dwarkesh Patel (00:38:29):Yeah. Byrne Hobart, by the way, has this really interesting post that you might enjoy reading while you're writing that post. It's type safe communications, and it's about that Bezos thing, about his strict style for how to communicate and how little to communicate. There's many examples in Amazon protocols where you have to... the only way you can put in this report, is in this place you had to give a number. You can't just say, "This is very likely," you had to say like, "We project X percent increase," or whatever. So it has to be a percent. And there's many other cases where they're strict about what type definition you can have in written reports or something. It has kind of the same consequence that type strict languages have, which is that you can keep track of what the value is through the entire chain of the flow of control.Austin Vernon (00:39:22):You've got to keep work content standardized.Dwarkesh Patel (00:39:26):So we've been hinting at the Coasean analysis to this. I think we just talked about it indirectly, but for the people who might not know, Coase has this paper called The Theory of Firms, and he's trying to explain why we have firms at all. Why not just have everybody compete in the open market for employment, for anything? Why do we have jobs? Why not just have... you can just hire a secretary by the day or something.Dwarkesh Patel (00:39:51):And the conclusion he comes to is that by having a firm you're reducing the transaction cost. So people will have the same knowledge about what needs to get done, obviously you're reducing the transaction cost of contracting, finding labor, blah, blah, blah. And so the conclusion it comes to is the more the transaction costs are reduced within people in a firm, as compared to the transaction cost between different firms, the bigger firms will get. So I guess that's why the implication of your argument was that there should be bigger tech firms, right?Austin Vernon (00:40:27):Yes, yes, definitely. Because they can basically decrease the transaction costs faster within, and then even at the limit, if you have large transaction costs outside the firm, between other firms that are artificially imposed, then it will make firms bigger.Dwarkesh Patel (00:40:45):What does the world look like in that scenario? So would it just be these Japanese companies, these huge conglomerates who are just... you rise through the ranks, from the age of 20 until you die? Is that what software will turn into?Austin Vernon (00:40:59):It could be. I mean, I think it will be lots of very large companies, unless there's some kind of change in inner firm transaction costs. And again, that could possibly come from blockchain like technology, but you probably also need better regulation to make that cheaper, and then you would have smaller firms. But again, in the end, it doesn't really matter. You'd be working in your little unit of the big bank of corporate, or whatever. So I don't know what that would look like on a personal level.Car ManufacturingDwarkesh Patel (00:41:40):Yeah. Okay. So speaking of these Japanese companies, let's talk about car manufacturing and everything involved there. Yeah, so we kind of hinted at a few elements of the Toyota way and production earlier, but do you want to give a brief overview of what that is, so we can compare it to potentially other systems?Austin Vernon (00:42:02):I think all these kinds of lean Toyota process systems, they do have a lot of similarities, where mostly you want to even-out your production, so you're producing very consistently, and you want to break it into small steps and you want to limit the amount of inventory you have in your system. When you do this, it makes it easy to see how the process is running and limit defects. And the ultimate is you're really trying to reduce defects, because they're very expensive. It's a little bit hard to summarize. I think that's my best shot at it there, quickly off the top of my head.Dwarkesh Patel (00:42:49):Yeah. The interesting thing about the Toyota system, so at least when the machine was released, is they talk about... that book was released I think the nineties, and they went to the history of Toyota, and one of the interesting things they talked about was there was a brief time where the company ran... I think, was this after World War II? But anyways, the company ran into some troubles. They needed to layoff people to not go bankrupt. They had much more debt on books than they had assets. So yeah, they wanted to layoff people, but obviously the people were not happy about this, so there were violent protests about this. And in fact I think the US written constitution gave strong protections to labor that they hadn't had before, which gave labor an even stronger hand here.Dwarkesh Patel (00:43:42):So anyway, Toyota came to this agreement with the unions that they'd be allowed to do this one time layoff to get the company on the right track, but afterwards they could never lay somebody off. Which would mean that a person who works at Toyota works there from the time they graduate college or high school till they die. Right? I don't know, that's super intense in a culture. I mean, in software, where you have the average tenure in a company's one year, the difference is so much.Dwarkesh Patel (00:44:13):And there's so many potential benefits here, I guess a lot of drawbacks too. But one is, obviously if you're talking in a time scale of 50 years, rather than one year, the incentives are more aligned between the company and the person. Because anything you could do in one year is not going to have a huge impact on your stock options in that amount of time. But if this company's your retirement plan, then you have a much stronger incentive to make sure that things at this company run well, which means you're probably optimizing for the company's long term cash flow yourself. And also, there's obviously benefits to having that knowledge built up in the firm from people who have been there for a long time. But yeah, that was an interesting difference. One of the interesting differences, at least.Austin Vernon (00:45:00):I mean, I think there's diminishing returns to how long your tenure's going to be. Maybe one year's too short, but there's a certain extent to where, if you grow faster than your role at the company, then it's time to switch. It's going to depend on the person, but maybe five years is a good number. And so if you're not getting promoted within the firm, then your human capital's being wasted, because you could go somewhere else and have more responsibility and perform better for them. Another interesting thing about that story, is almost all lean turnarounds, where they're like, we're going to implement something like Toyota production system, they come with no layoff promises. Because if you're going to increase productivity, that's when everyone's like, "Oh gosh, I'm going to get laid off." So instead you have to increase output and take more market share, is what you do.Dwarkesh Patel (00:46:00):It's kind of like burning your bridges, right? So this is the only way.Austin Vernon (00:46:05):The process really requires complete buy-in, because a lot of your ideas for how you're going to standardize work content come from your line workers, because that's what they're doing every day. So if you don't have their buy-in, then it's going to fail. So that's why it's really necessary to have those kinds of clauses.Dwarkesh Patel (00:46:22):Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. I think it was in your post where you said, if somebody makes their process more efficient, and therefore they're getting more work allotted to them, then obviously they're going to stop doing that. Right? Which means that, I don't know, do you ought to give more downtime to your best workers or something or the people who are most creative in your company?Austin Vernon (00:46:48):I was just going to say, if you're a worker at a plant, then a lot of times for that level of employee, actually small rewards work pretty well. A lot of people on drilling rigs used to give the guys that met certain targets $100 Walmart gift cards. So sometimes small, it's a reward, new ideas, stuff like that works.Austin Vernon (00:47:15):But because the whole system has to grow together, if you just improve one part of the process, it may not help you. You have to be improving all the right processes so normally it's much more collaborative. There's some engineer that's looking at it and like, "All right, this is where we're struggling," or "We have our defects here." And then you go get together with that supervisor and the workers in that area, then you all figure out what improvements could be together. Because usually the people already know. This is like, you see a problem at the top, and you're just now realizing it. Then you go talk to the people doing the work, and they're like, "Oh yeah, I tried to tell you about that two weeks ago, man." And then you figure out a better process from there.Dwarkesh Patel (00:47:58):Based on your recommendation, and Steven Malina's recommendation, I recently read The Goal. And after reading the book, I'm much more understanding of the value that consultants bring to companies, potentially. Because before you could think, “What does a 21 year old, who just graduated college, know about manufacturing? What are they going to tell this plant that they didn't already know? How could they possibly be adding value?” And afterwards, it occurred to me that there's so many abstract concepts that are necessary to understand in order to be able to increase your throughput. So now I guess I can see how somebody who's generically smart but doesn't have that much industry knowledge might be able to contribute to a plan and value consultants could be bringing.Austin Vernon (00:48:43):I think this applies to consultants or young engineers. A lot of times you put young engineers just right in the thick of it, working in production or process right on the line, where you're talking to the workers the most. And there's several advantages to that. One, the engineer learns faster, because they're actually seeing the real process, and the other is there's easy opportunities for them to still have a positive impact on the business, because there's $100 bills laying on the ground just from going up and talking to your workers and learning about stuff and figuring out problems they might be having and finding out things like that that could help you lower cost. I think there's a lot of consultants that... I don't know how the industry goes, but I would guess there's... I know Accenture has 600,000 employees. I don't know if that many, but it's just a large number, and a lot are doing more basic tasks and there are some people that are doing the more high level stuff, but it's probably a lot less.Dwarkesh Patel (00:49:51):Yeah. Yeah. There was a quote from one of those books that said, "At Toyota we don't consider you an engineer unless you need to wash your hands before you can have lunch." Yeah. Okay. So in your blog post about car manufacturing, you talk about Tesla. But what was really interesting is that in a footnote, I think you mentioned that you bought Tesla stocks in 2014, which also might be interesting to talk about again when we go to the market and alpha part. But anyways. Okay. And then you talk about Tesla using something called metal manufacturing. So first of all, how did you know in 2014 that Tesla was headed here? And what is metal manufacturing and how does it differ from the Toyota production system?Austin Vernon (00:50:42):Yeah. So yeah, I just was goofing around and made that up. Someone actually emailed me and they were like, "Hey, what is this metal manufacturing? I want to learn more about this." It's like, "Well, sorry, I just kind of made that up, because I thought it sounded funny." But yeah, I think it's really the idea that there's this guy, Dimming, and he found a lot of the same ideas that Toyota ended up implementing, and Toyota respected his ideas a lot. America never really got fully on board with this in manufacturing. Of course it's software people that are coming and implementing this and manufacturing now which is like the real American way of doing things.Austin Vernon (00:51:32):Because when you look at these manufacturing processes, the best place to save money and optimize is before you ever build the process or the plant. It's very early on. So I think if there's a criticism of Toyota, it's that they're optimizing too late and they're not creative enough in their production technology and stuff. They're very conservative, and that's why they have hydrogen cars and not battery cars, even though they came out with the Prius, which was the first large sales hybrid.Austin Vernon (00:52:12):So yeah, I think what Tesla's doing with really just making Dimming's ideas our own and really just Americanizing it with like, "Oh, well, we want to cast this, because that would be easier." Well, we can't, because we don't have an alloy. "We'll invent the alloy." I love it. It's great. Mostly, I love Tesla because they do such... I agree with their engineering principles. So I didn't know that the company would come to be so valuable. It's just, I was just always reading their stock reports and stuff so I was like, "Well, at least I need to buy some stock so that I have a justification for spending all this time reading their 10 Ks."Dwarkesh Patel (00:52:53):I want to get a little bit more in detail about the exact difference here. So lean production, I guess, is they're able to produce their cars without defects and with matching demand or whatever. But what is it about their system that prevents them from making the kinds of innovations that Tesla is able to make?Austin Vernon (00:53:16):It's just too incremental. It's so hard to get these processes working. So the faster you change things, it becomes very, very difficult to change the whole system. So one of the advantages Tesla has is, well, if you're making electric cars, you have just a lot less parts. So that makes it easier. And once you start doing the really hard work of basically digitizing stuff, like they don't have speed limit dials, you start just removing parts from the thing and you can actually then start increasing your rate of change even faster.Austin Vernon (00:53:55):It makes it harder to get behind if you have these old dinosaur processes. But I think there's a YouTube channel called The Limiting Factor, and he actually went into the detail of numbers on what it costs for Tesla to do their giga-casting, which saves tons of parts and deletes zillions of thousands of robots from their process. If you already have an existing stamping line and all that, where you're just changing the dyes based on your model, then it doesn't make sense to switch to the casting. But if you're building new factories, like Tesla is, well, then it makes sense to do the casting and you can build new factories very cheaply and comparatively and much easier. So there's a little bit of... they just have lots of technical data, I guess you could say, in a software sense.Dwarkesh Patel (00:54:47):Yeah. That's super interesting. The analogy is actually quite... it's like, Microsoft has probably tens of thousands of software engineers who are just basically servicing its technical debt and making sure that the old systems run properly, whereas a new company like Tesla doesn't have to deal with that. The thing that's super interesting about Tesla is like, Tesla's market cap is way over a trillion, right? And then Toyota's is 300 billion. And Tesla is such a new company. The fact that you have this Toyota, which is legendary for its production system, and this company that's less than two decades old is worth many times more, it's kind of funny.Austin Vernon (00:55:32):Yeah. I would say that, in that measure, I don't like market cap. You need to use enterprise value. These old car companies have so much debt, that if you look at enterprise value, it's not so jarring. Literally, I don't know, I can't remember what GM's worth, like 40 billion or something, and then they have $120 billion in debt. So their enterprise value is five times more than their market cap.Dwarkesh Patel (00:56:02):What is enterprise value?Austin Vernon (00:56:03):Enterprise value is basically what is the value of the actual company before you have any claims on it. It's the market cap plus your debt. But basically, if you're the equity holder and the company gets sold, you have to pay the debt first. So you only get the value of what's left over after the debt. So that's why market cap is... when Tesla has very little debt and a lot of market cap, and then these other guys have a lot of debt with less market cap, it skews the comparison.Dwarkesh Patel (00:56:34):Yeah, and one of the interesting things, it's similar to your post on software, is that it seems like one of the interesting themes across your work is automating processes often leads to decreased eventual throughput, because you're probably adding capacity in a place that you're deciding excess capacity, and you're also making the money part of your operation less efficient by have it interface with this automated part. It sounds like there's a similar story there with car manufacturing, right?Austin Vernon (00:57:08):Yeah. I think if we tie it back into what we were talking about earlier, automation promotes local optimization and premature optimization. So a lot of times it's better to figure out, instead of automating a process to make a really hard to make part, you should just figure out how to make that part easy to make. Then after you do that, then it may not even make sense to automate it anymore. Or get rid of it all together, then you just delete all those robots.Austin's Carbon Capture ProjectDwarkesh Patel (00:57:37):Yeah. Yeah, that's interesting. Okay. So let's talk about the project that you're working on right now, the CO2 electrolysis. Do you want to explain what this is, and what your current approach is? What is going on here?Austin Vernon (00:57:55):Yeah, so I think just overall, electrofuels right now are super underrated, because you're about to get hopefully some very cheap electricity from solar, or it could be, maybe, some land. If we get really lucky, possibly some nuclear, geothermal. It'll just make sense to create liquid fuels, or natural gas, or something just from electricity and air, essentially.Austin Vernon (00:58:25):There's a whole spectrum of ways to do this, so O2 electrolysis is one of those. Basically, you take water, electricity, and CO2, and a catalyst. And then, you make more complex molecules, like carbon monoxide, or formic acid, or ethylene, or ethanol, or methane or methine. Those are all options. But it's important to point out that, right now, I think if you added up all the CO2 electrolyzers in the world, you'd be measuring their output and kilograms per day. We make millions of tons per day off of the products I just mentioned. So there's a massive scale up if it's going to have a wider impact.Austin Vernon (00:59:15):So there's some debate. I think the debate for the whole electrofuels sector is: How much are you going to do in the electrolyzer? One company whose approach I really like is Terraform Industries. They want to make methane, which is the main natural gas. But they're just making hydrogen in their electrolyzer, and then they capture the CO2 and then put it into a methanation reaction. So everything they're doing is already world scale, basically.Austin Vernon (00:59:47):We've had hydrogen electrolyzers power fertilizer plants, providing them with the Hydrogen that they need. Methanation happens in all ammonia plants and several other examples. It's well known, very old. Methanation is hydrogen CO2 combined to make water and methane. So their approach is more conservative, but if you do more in the electrolyzer, like I'm going to make the methane actually in the electrolyzer instead of adding this other process, you could potentially have a much simpler process that has less CapEx and scales downward better. Traditional chemical engineering heavily favors scaling. With the more Terraform processes, they're playing as absolutely ginormous factories. These can take a long time to build.Austin Vernon (01:00:42):So one of the things they're doing is: they're having to fight the complexity that creeps into chemical engineering every step of the way. Because if they don't, they'll end up with a plant that takes 10 years to build, and that's not their goal. It takes 10 years to build a new refinery, because they're so complex. So yeah, that's where I am. I'm more on the speculative edge, and it's not clear yet which products will be favorable for which approaches.Dwarkesh Patel (01:01:15):Okay, yeah. And you're building this out of your garage, correct?Austin Vernon (01:01:19):Yeah. So that's where electrolyzers... Everything with electric chemistry is a flat plate instead of a vessel, so it scales down. So I can have a pretty good idea of what my 100 square centimeter electrolyzer is going to do, if I make it quite a bit bigger. I have to worry about how my flow might interact in the larger one and make sure the mixing's good, but it's pretty straightforward because you're just making your flat plate a larger area. Whereas the scale, it is different from scaling a traditional chemical process.Dwarkesh Patel (01:01:56):I'm curious how cheap energy has to be before this is efficient. If you're turning it into methane or something like that, presumably for fuel, is the entire process energy positive? Or how cheap would energy, electricity you need to get before that's the case?Austin Vernon (01:02:18):The different products and different methods have different crossovers. So Terraform Industries, they're shooting for $10 a megawatt hour for electricity. But again, their process is simpler, a little less efficient than a lot of the other products. They also have better premiums, just worth more per ton than methane. So your crossover happens somewhere in between $10 and $20 a megawatt hour, which is... I mean, that's pretty... Right now, solar, it's maybe like $25. Maybe it's a little higher because payment prices have gone up in the last year, but I think the expectation is they'll come back down. And so, getting down to $15 where you start having crossovers for some of these products like ethanol or ethylene or methanol, it's not science fiction.Dwarkesh Patel (01:03:08):I think in Texas where I live, that's where it's at right? The cost of energy is 20 or something dollars per megawatt hour.Austin Vernon (01:03:16):Well, not this summer! But yeah, a lot of times in Texas, the wholesale prices are around $25 to $30.Dwarkesh Patel (01:03:26):Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. So a lot of the actual details you said about how this works went over my head. So what is a flat plate? I guess before you answer that question, can you just generally describe the approach? What is it? What are you doing to convert CO2 into these other compounds?Austin Vernon (01:03:45):Well, yeah, it literally just looks like an electrolyzer. You have two sides and anode and a cathode and they're just smushed together like this because of the electrical resistance. If you put them far apart, it makes it... uses up a lot of energy. So you smush them together as close as you can. And then, you're basically just trading electrons back and forth. On one side, you're turning CO2 into a more complex molecule, and on the other side, you're taking apart water. And so, when you take apart the water, it balances out the equation, balances out your electrons and everything like that. I probably need to work on that elevator pitch there, huh?Dwarkesh Patel (01:04:31):I guess what the basic idea is, you need to put power in to convert CO2 into these other compounds.Austin Vernon (01:04:38):The inputs are electricity, water, and CO2, and the output is usually oxygen and whatever chemical you're trying to create is, along with some side reactions.Dwarkesh Patel (01:04:49):And then, these chemicals you mentioned, I think ethanol, methane, formic acid, are these all just fuels or what are the other uses for them?Austin Vernon (01:04:58):A lot of people are taking a hybrid approach with carbon monoxide. So this would be like Twelve Co… They've raised a lot of money to do this and 100 employees or something. You can take that carbon monoxide and make hydrogen, and then you have to send gas to make liquid fuels. So they want to make all sorts of chemicals, but one of the main volume ones would be like jet fuel.Austin Vernon (01:05:22):Let's see Formic acid is, it's the little fry of all these. It is an additive in a lot of things like preserving hay for animals and stuff like that. Then, ethanol there's people that want to... There's this company that makes ethylene, which goes into plastics that makes polyethylene, which is the most produced plastic. Or you can burn it in your car, although I think ethanol is a terrible vehicle fuel. But then you can also just make ethylene straight in the electrolyzer. So there's many paths. So which path wins is an interesting race to see.Dwarkesh Patel (01:06:13):The ability to produce jet fuel is really interesting, because in your energy superabundance paper, you talk about... You would think that even if we can electrify everything in solar and when it becomes super cheap, that's not going to have an impact on the prices to go to space for example. But I don't know. If a process like this is possible, then it's some way to in financial terms, add liquidity. And then turn, basically, this cheap solar and wind into jet fuel through this indirect process. So the price to send stuff to space or cheap plane flights or whatever––all of that goes down as well.Austin Vernon (01:06:52):It basically sets a price ceiling on the price of oil. Whatever you can produce this for is the ceiling now, which is maybe the way I think about it.Dwarkesh Patel (01:07:06):Yeah. So do you want to talk a little bit about how your background led into this project? This is your full-time thing, right? I don't know if I read about that, but where did you get this idea and how long have you been pursuing it? And what's the progress and so on.Austin Vernon (01:07:20):I've always loved chemical engineering, and I love working at the big processing plant because it's like being a kid in a candy store. If I had extra time, I'd just walk around and look at the plant, like it's so cool. But the plant where I worked at, their up time was 99.7%. So if you wanted to change anything or do anything new, it terrified everyone. That's how they earned their bonuses: run the plant a 100% uptime all the time. So that just wasn't a good fit for me. And also, so I always wanted my own chemical plant, but it's billions of dollars to build plants so that was a pretty big step. So I think this new technology of... there's a window where you might be able to build smaller plants until it optimizes to be hard to enter again.Dwarkesh Patel (01:08:21):And then, why will it become hard to enter again? What will happen?Austin Vernon (01:08:27):If someone figures out how to build a really cheap electrolyzer, and they just keep it as intellectual property, then it would be hard to rediscover that and compete with them.Dwarkesh Patel (01:08:38):And so, how long have you been working on this?Austin Vernon (01:08:42):Oh, not quite a year. But yeah, I actually got this idea to work on it from writing my blog. So when I wrote the heating fuel post, I didn't really know much about... There's another company in the space, Prometheus Fuels and I'm like, "Oh, this is an interesting idea." And then, I got talking to a guy named Brian Heligman, and he's like, "You should do this, but not what Prometheus is doing." And so, then I started looking at it and I liked it, so I've been working on it since.Dwarkesh Patel (01:09:08):Yeah. It's interesting because if energy does become as cheap as you suspect it might. If this process works, then yeah, this is a trillion dollar company probably, right? If you're going to get the patents and everything.Austin Vernon (01:09:22):I mean, maybe. With chemical plants, there's a certain limitation where your physical limitation is. There's only so many places that are good places for chemical plants. You start getting hit by transportation and all that. So, you can't just produce all the chemical for the entire world in Texas and transport it all around. It wouldn't work. So you're talking about a full, globe-spanning thing. At that point, if y
Police have been searching for a missing Mom and two teens from Springfield, Missouri for twenty years. The Springfield Three are friends Suzanne Street, Stacy McCall and Streeter's mother, Sherrill Levitt. The women went missing from Levitt's home. All of their personal belongings, including cars and purses, were left behind. Police say there was no signs of a struggle other than a broken globe on a porch light. Joining Nancy Grace Today: Nicole Deborde Hochglaube - Criminal Defense Lawyer (Houston TX), Former Prosecutor, Twitter: @debordelaw, HoustonCriminalDefense.com Dr. Shari Schwartz - Forensic Psychologist specializing in Capital Mitigation and Victim Advocacy (Miami Beach, FL), Panthermitigation.com, Twitter: @TrialDoc, Author: "Criminal Behavior" and "Where Law and Psychology Intersect: Issues in Legal Psychology" Rick Bookout - Former Springfield Police Officer (first officer on scene) Joe Scott Morgan - Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author, "Blood Beneath My Feet", Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan" Anne Roderique-Jones - Writer and Host, Podcast: "The Springfield Three: A Small-Town Disappearance" anneroderiquejones.com, Instagram: @anniemarie_, Twitter: @AnnieMarie_ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
TRIGGER WARNING: Use of the O-words All good things must come to an end my friends. This podcast has saved me in a multitude of ways. The books I've read for the show, the people I've met have changed my life. I am a different, a better person because I did this show. I am also a more confident speaker and connector to others because I had a podcast. I just feel so grateful for the opportunity to run a show about something I love and connect to you, the listeners. I am so, so grateful you listened, subscribed and enjoyed. But life has taken me in a different direction and so (at least for now) after episode 80 (stick around for that one!) the show will be on a break. I really do hope to come back in the new year but until then, maybe you wan't to check out my guest's podcast! Amanda Levitt is the host of a podcast called Fat Theory Book Club so not only does she read body liberation books but she also talks to readers and authors alike about the ideas in them. It is worth your time to check it out BUT FIRST (lol), check out my chat with Amanda where we talk about Fat-Talk Nation by Susan Greenhalgh. We cover:Amanda's journey to activismBaby steps for baby activistsWhy Amanda picked this bookThe research in this book and how that compares to fat liberation classic readsThe concept of biocitizenshipWas there a difference between the Obese and the Overweight chapters in terms of experiences and Greenhalgh's analysisHow the War on Obesity's capitalist agenda affects Ivy League universities and their researchDiscussing the thin experienceHave there been changes since this book?Some medical devices for weight loss that you've never heard of!
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Will MacAskill Media for WWOTF - Full List, published by James Aitchison on August 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Never before have we had the chance to enjoy so much Will MacAskill. He seems to have been everywhere. What a superb and exhaustive job he and his team have done to promote 'What We Owe The Future.' So far I have counted 16 podcasts, 18 articles and 6 other bits and pieces. I have listed all these below with links and brief comments. Podcast Appearances The 80,000 Hours Podcast with Rob Wiblin. A warm and comprehensive three-hour discussion. Making Sense Podcast with Sam Harris. Harris is strongly supportive, MacAskill particularly inspiring on the sweep of history. Mindscape Podcast with Sean Carroll. Carroll asks questions about utilitarianism, metaethics and population ethics which MacAskill handles well. The Ezra Klein Show Podcast. A fine conversation on long-termism. Klein structures the discusion around ‘Three simple sentences: Future people count. There could be a lot of them. And we can make their lives better.' Good discussions about history - the contingent nature of the abolition of slavery and that certain times have plasticity. Tim Ferriss Podcast. A lively discussion with much humour and several gems from MacAskill. Includes recommendation of Joseph Henrich's 'The Secret of Our Success.' Deep Dive with Ali Abdaal Podcast. A relaxed, friendly and wide-ranging three-hour conversation. Covers a lot of ground including EA psychology and MacAskill's work methods. This is a high-quality YouTube production as well as a podcast and is my favourite among the appearances. Conversations with Tyler Podcast . Tyler Cowan's questioning focuses on the limits of utilitarianism. The Lunar Society Podcast with Dwarkesh Patel. Mainly on the contingency of moral progress. Global Dispatch Podcast with Mark Goldberg. Discussion on longtermism and the United Nations. Goldberg enthusiastic about the UN adopting some longtermist thinking. Modern Wisdom Podcast with Chris Williamson. An accessible discussion of longtermism. Conversations with Coleman with Coleman Hughes Includes population ethics, economic growth and moral change. Daily Stoic Podcast with Ryan Holiday. Mainly on altruism and moral change. Kera Think with Krys Boyd. 30 minutes conversation. Freakanomics Podcast with Steve Levitt. Discussion mainly on the economic themes in WWOTF, which MacAskill handles very well. 1a Podcast on NPR. David Gurn discussion on EA as a life changing philosophy. Includes comments from Sofya Lebedeva and Spencer Goldberg. Ten Percent Happier Podcast with Dan Harris. A warm discussion on donations, EA and longtermism. There are transcripts for the podcasts by Wiblin, Carroll, Klein, Cowan, Patel, Goldberg and Levitt. Articles and Book Reviews The New Yorker: The Reluctant Prophet of Effective Altruism by Gideon Lewis-Kraus. A fine 10,000-word article profiling MacAskill and setting out the history of the EA movement. The author spent several days with his subject and covers MacAskill as an individual and the ideas and dynamics of the movement. MacAskill comments on the article in this Twitter Thread Time: Want to Do More Good? This Movement might have the Answer by Naina Bajekal . A beautifully written and inspiring profile of MacAskill and the EA movement. Vox: How Effective Altruism Went from a Niche Movement to a Billion-Dollar Force by Dylan Matthews. A well-informed and thoughtful article on EA's evolution by an EA insider. Wired: The Future Could be Blissful - If Human's Don't Go Extinct First. Shorter interview with Will Macaskill by Matt Reynolds. New York Times: The Case for Longtermism by Will MacAskill A Guest Essay adapted from the book. BBC Futures: What is Longtermism and Why Does it Matter? by Will MacAskill. Another essay based on the book. Foreig...
Nadine Levitt Twitter is a Swiss-born German, Kiwi, US transplant, and founder of the music technology company, Wurrly, LLC. She began her career as a lawyer but after 6 years of practice, she began to pursue a career in music as a professional opera singer and songwriter. She has performed extensively all over the United States and the world, sharing the stage with David Foster, Andrea Boccelli, Kiri Te Kanawa, Roger Daltry, Christina Perri, and Steven Tyler to name a few. Passionate about music in schools she sits on the national board of Little Kids Rock, and in 2016 led the development of the music education platform WURRLYedu, which empowers student voices and makes it easy to bring a fun and effective music education to schools. Nadine is also an author of children's books, including the My Mama Says book series, which teaches kids to identify, acknowledge and direct their emotions. PDReimagined.com Mary Ellen Imodino-Yang TEDX Talk Value Care package. Each month has a theme. Work in groups to come up with strategies to come up in daily life. Do things in 2–3 minutes or less. How do you get up when you don't know where the ground is? The power of curiosity. It's not an end destination, it's a journey. Music to move you. The power of music in SEL situations. We shouldn't teach music to be a musician. Physiological - music is one of the only things that can really get into our brains. Music can interrupt other emotional cycles. People are more inclined to buy expensive items when the store is playing classical music. How to rekindle their passion? Time scarcity - brought on by an emotional response that you're feeling overwhelm. Interrupt overwhelm - do something different Free to teachers, cost to districts. The more you apply these skills the easier it is to avoid and manage overwhelm. Emotions are just messages We are engineered to see patterns. Thoughts are just patterns. Often our thoughts are not based in patterns. When you become aware you're telling yourself a story, just tell yourself. Respond rather than react. Communication cards Need to speak freely: challenged and rewarded. When we share, we don't feel shame. The need for people to take responsibility for their part. Leadership - formal and informal leadership opportunities. Leadership is having control over the outcome. Controlling your own identity. SEL - Teach emotions in an isolated way How you can use for deeper learning Sponsors Transformative Principal Mastermind Lead a school everyone can be proud of. Being a principal is tough work. You're pulled in all kinds of directions. You never have the time to do the work that really matters. Join me as I help school leaders find the time to do the work they became principals to do. I help you stop putting out fires and start leading. Learn more at https://transformativeprincipal.com Just Right Reader Just Right Reader Decodables are a great way to help your students learn how to read, with research-based strategies that are proven to be effective. Each grade level has over 100 books. Send books home in packs of ten, with video lessons accessible via QR codes on each book, with lessons in Spanish and English. Learn more at https://justrightreader.com
What’s more fintech than discussing the latest AI tools for financial services with Kevin Levitt, Business Development, Financial Services at NVIDIA? This week on the Fintech Newscast Click Subscribe to keep up to date on the world of fintech! Reach us at email@example.com or at @fintechnewscast on Twitter
Megyn Kelly is joined by Andrew Klavan of The Daily Wire to talk about President Biden's "debt forgiveness" plan which is actually just a wealth transfer plan, the morality of the concept, how it subsidizes the "credentialed" in our society, the false promise of "free" when it comes to the government, victimhood in American society today, the reality of "effort," Pelosi's flip-flopping, what's really behind the left's focus on the Mar-a-Lago raid, Stelter's CNN exit and cultural changes, the collapse of the establishment in our culture, and more. Then Nicole Levitt, an attorney for Women Against Abuse, joins the show to talk about her lawsuit against the organization over a racially hostile work environment, and the woke drift at her organization. And Todd Ricketts, former RNC finance chair and co-owner of the Chicago Cubs joins to discuss his new search engine, Freespoke, and why he started the search engine that is unbiased and uncensored, the need to avoid tech suppression and search censorship, tech bias in email, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow
The lymphatic system is incredibly important for detoxification and overall health. Lisa is a lymph expert and in this episode, she shares all the details on what it does and how you can take care of it. I hope you walk away from this episode with a few new practices to support your lymphatic system and your overall health. Guest: Lisa Levitt Gainsley Episode Highlights: 8:40 What is the lymphatic system? 13:14 What happens when your lymph system isn't working properly 18:58 The biggest factors that disrupt the lymphatic system 24:29 Why lymphatic drainage is so important for people with cancer and chronic illness Resources We Mention: Lisa's Website Lisa on Instagram The Book of Lymph: Self-Care Practices to Enhance Immunity, Health, and Beauty Related Episodes: Podcast 007: Mold, Mycotoxins, Detox and Sick Building Syndrome with Dr. Jill Crista Podcast 061: Health Beyond Food: Detox, Sauna, Sleep and Addressing Childhood Trauma with Dr. Tyler Jean Podcast 099: The Great Challenge of Lyme Disease: Testing, Symptoms, Dismissal, Treatment and Finding Harmony On The Other Side of Healing with Dr. Jaban Moore, D.C Health Resources Healing Hashimoto's Course Thyroid Lab Guide + Tracker (free) Recommended Non-Toxic Products Connect With Carly: CarlyJohnsonBrawner.com Instagram: @carlyjohnsonbrawner Sponsors: Organifi (Use code Carly for 20% off) BiOptimize: Magnesium Breakthrough (use code Carly10 for 10% off) Ned (use code Carly for 15% off) Complete Show Notes Here
My good friend Jon Levitt is back on the pod and we had an epic conversation. There are few people I know that are more introspective and open than Jon. In this episode we have a wide ranging conversation about how his competitive nature has evolved, how he learned to let go of traditional goals, how he has blasted past his previous understandings of fatigue, and what he has learned from interviewing and be-friending some of the top athletes in the sport. You can learn more about Jon's excellent "For the Long Run" podcast at https://forthelong.run. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Spotlight On Arts & Culture | August 8, 2022 | The Levitt Pavilion + Other Great Free Concert Venues This Summer Hosted by David Green of The Cultural Alliance Of Fairfield County. For our August show we turned our attention to some of the great free concert series in our region. Our main focus was on The Levitt Pavilion for the Performing Arts in Westport. For almost 50 years, this community-based, magical performance space has welcomed performing artists from all genres and from the local to the internationally known. With a few fundraising concerts, it otherwise offers mostly free concerts. We interview Freda and Carleigh Welsh, the driving forces behind The Pavilion and its commitment to creating a strong community through music and the other performing arts. We also hear from Bennie Wallace, renowned saxophonist with BackCountry Jazz, who created the Greenwich Jazz Festival, and from Paul Frucht, Artistic Director of the Charles Ives Music Festival.
Sam Levitt of 97.3 The Fan in San Diego drops by to discuss all the wheeling and dealing by Padres' GM A.J. Preller. Since his previous experience dealt with Double-A baseball, Sam and Suzie have a lot to discuss. Meghan Angley looks into her crystal ball to help figure out a few things for Suzie and Brendan, who have a lot of trades to sort out: Juan Soto, Josh Hader, Frankie Montas and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This week we finally re-watch 500 Days of Summer, Directed by Mark Webb. 500 Days of Summer is the story of Tom Hansen played by Joseph Gordon Levitt and Summer Finn played by Zoey Deschanel. The peculiar way in which this story is told makes it hard to give a lead in without totally spoiling the film. This story spans 500 days… 500 days in which Tom Hansen is in love with Summer Finn, but the story is not told in sequential order, we jump in and out of these 500 days, slowly piecing together this story like a jig-saw puzzle. At times we peek in on a horrible argument, other times we jump backward in time to a beautiful date night at the movies. Slowly as we the audience step back… and back again… we get a full picture of the love, the loss, the rebirth of these two individuals Tom Hansen and Summer Finn, as we ultimately learn the story… of 500 Days of Summer…See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this episode, Nadine Levitt joins us to discuss the importance of helping our kids learn social and emotional intelligence. Nadine is an education thought leader and advocate, having spoken all over the world on the importance of social and emotional learning, and the power of music education. Born in Switzerland, she grew up in Germany and New Zealand, but settled in the United States in 2004. As a proud mom to several two and four legged beings, she is passionate about wellness-centric education, and embraces the philosophy of play and curiosity as a gateway to learning. In 2015, Nadine founded WURRLY, which also makes WURRLYedu - a leading ed tech platform that weaves social and emotional learning into musical skill development for a fun and effective music education. Nadine is also the Founder of My Mama Says, a social emotional learning and e-commerce business that has an entire curriculum attached to it. Nadine wrote these books as a simple and empowering tool to use with her own kids, to help them develop positive self-awareness, self-regulation skills, confidence, empathy, creativity and self-expression! Where you can find Nadine's work: https://www.wurrlyedu.com https://www.mymamasays.com (free resources located here) https://www.pdreimagined.com/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/taylorkulik/support
Outdoor concerts are a staple of the Colorado experience, and this month, Levitt Pavilion Denver is celebrating five years of bringing live shows to the Ruby Hill neighborhood. On the show today, host Bree Davies talks with Levitt's Interim Executive Director, Andy Thomas, and Marketing and Development Director Jessi Whitten about why Levitt is about more than live music — it's about creating community, paying local musicians fairly, and creating the next generation of Denver music lovers, movers, and shakers. Levitt Pavilion Denver still has dozens of free and ticketed shows coming up this season — check out their concert calendar for a list of great local and national acts to see this summer and fall! Miguel Aviña, front-person for the band iZCALLI, was mentioned several times — hear his interview with City Cast Denver from a few months ago! All the news you need, right here in the City Cast Denver newsletter. Read and subscribe: https://denver.citycast.fm/newsletter/ Share your Levitt Pavilion Denver memories with us on Twitter: @citycastdenver Leave us a voicemail with your name and neighborhood, and you might hear it on the show: (720) 500-5418 Learn more about the sponsors of this episode: Colfax Ave. BID presents Independents Day Denver Film presents Film on the Rocks: Summer of Soul Looking to advertise on City Cast Denver? Check out our options for podcast and newsletter ads at citycast.fm/advertise Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Music education typically focuses on teaching students who want to be musicians or music teachers, but this week's guest sees it as a vehicle for teaching an entire spectrum of social emotional learning skills. Nadine Levitt is a mother, former opera singer and the founder of WURRLYedu, which uses music to teach children about things like empathy, collaboration, impulse control and so much more. In this episode, she explains how music can help change the way young learners look at the world and broaden their understanding of complex emotions. In this episode, you'll learn: How her career as a performer led Nadine to create Wurrlyedu. How music can help children learn critical life skills. Why using music for social emotional learning is particularly important in our current environment.