Podcasts about mathematically

“You don't know who your bank is in bed with,” says Mitch Vexler, whistleblower and expert on property valuations. In this second interview with Daniela Cambone, Vexler explains how inflated property appraisals fuel massive school bond debt and overtax communities. “Mathematically, there are $5.1 trillion in school bonds that are already outstanding,” he says. “If you add in what's hidden, the exposure could be as high as $17.1 trillion.”Vexler also warns of fallout spreading far beyond homeowners: “So you end up in the exact same position where I wouldn't quite call it 70% credit risk, but I would certainly call it close to 50 to 60% credit risk with regard to your retail tenants.”Learn more about Mitch's work here: https://www.mockingbirdproperties.com/✅ FREE RESOURCESDownload The Private Wealth Playbook — a data-backed guide to strategically acquiring gold and silver for maximum protection, privacy, and performance. Plus, get Daniela Cambone's Top 10 Lessons to safeguard your wealth (FREE)

Oil prices have been trading at a premium to fair value over the last two months with Brent's outperformance driven not by geopolitical factors but rather by an lopsided build in global inventories,  with China accounting for two-thirds of the increase. While OECD inventories remain the primary driver in our pricing model, only 25% of this year's global stock build has entered OECD storage, compared to the historical average of 40%, creating a valuation challenge. Mathematically, lower OECD intake raises Brent's fair value, even as global stocks build, resulting in a storage premium. Looking ahead to 2H25, the key questions are how much spare storage capacity China has—currently about 600 million barrels—and whether China will use excess crude to ramp up processing and export more refined products. For now, stock builds are likely to continue outside price-setting Western markets, and despite higher refinery runs, Chinese product exports remain below last year's levels as domestic inventories are replenished. Still, given the market's move toward a sizable surplus and ongoing uncertainty around both the scale and drivers of China's stock build, we are maintaining our current price forecasts.   Speaker:   Natasha Kaneva, Head of Global Commodities Research   This podcast was recorded on September 5, 2025. This communication is provided for information purposes only. Institutional clients can view the related report at https://www.jpmm.com/research/content/GPS-5066258-0 for more information; please visit www.jpmm.com/research/disclosures for important disclosures. © 2025 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. This material or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the written consent of J.P. Morgan. It is strictly prohibited to use or share without prior written consent from J.P. Morgan any research material received from J.P. Morgan or an authorized third-party (“J.P. Morgan Data”) in any third-party artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems or models when such J.P. Morgan Data is accessible by a third-party. It is permissible to use J.P. Morgan Data for internal business purposes only in an AI system or model that protects the confidentiality of J.P. Morgan Data so as to prevent any and all access to or use of such J.P. Morgan Data by any third-party.

Are you looking to save time, make money, and start winning with less risk? Then head to https://www.ovtlyr.com.This isn't just another trading video — this is the wake-up call most retail traders never get until it's too late.If you've ever blown up a trading account, wondered why you keep losing even with high win rates, or felt like you're “almost there” but something's missing… this lesson is for you.We're breaking down the most critical skill in all of trading: risk management and position sizing. Inside this video, you'll discover:➡️ Why most traders lose in the first 90 days (and how to avoid it)➡️ How to use position sizing formulas based on ATR to protect your capital➡️ What a 50% loss really costs you (hint: it's way more than 50%)➡️ Why expectancy math is the secret weapon of professional traders➡️ The danger of high win-rate strategies with poor risk/reward➡️ How options trading can reduce risk when used correctly➡️ Real data simulations that show worst-case profit scenariosThis is where OVTLYR flips the script. The typical trader focuses on chasing gains, trying to pick the next moonshot. But the smart ones? They're managing risk like pros, testing strategies with data, and building plans that work even when the market doesn't.You'll see real backtesting examples, strategy simulations, and lessons on how to use volatility to your advantage. Whether you're trading stocks or options, this video shows you how to reduce exposure while increasing potential, one trade at a time.Forget hype. This is about building trading strategies that actually work, backed by data, logic, and a real understanding of how markets move. Because at the end of the day, if your worst-case scenario still makes money — you're doing it right.Gain instant access to the AI-powered tools and behavioral insights top traders use to spot big moves before the crowd. Start trading smarter today

There is still half a match to be played in Africa's richest league. Tomorrow, SuperSport United continue their load-shed match against Golden Arrows at midday with the score locked at 1-1. The match was abandoned more than three months ago. Mathematically, Golden Arrows could still reach the coveted Top 8 if they win the match with a margin of six goals. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC Sports News Anchor, Jon Gericke

What's up everyone, today we have the pleasure of sitting down with Constantine Yurevich, CEO and Co-Founder at SegmentStream. Summary: Multi-touch attribution is a beautifully crafted illusion we all pretend to believe in while knowing deep down it's flawed. The work is mysterious, but is it important? The big ad platforms sell us sophisticated solutions they don't even trust for their own internal decisions. Is it time we accept marketing causation is a thing we can't measure? Visitor behavior scoring is a really interesting alternative or extra ingredient to consider. Often thought of as a tool for lead management to help prioritize your SDR's time, the team at SegmentStream started using the same scoring methodology, but with an attribution application. Enter synthetic conversions. Instead of just tracking conversions, track meaningful visits like  time spent, pages explored, comparisons made. This allows you to connect upper-funnel campaigns to real behavior patterns rather than just looking at who converted in a single session. About Constantine/SegmentStreamSegmentStream was founded in 2018 in LondonFeb 2022 raised a first funding round of 2.7MSegmentStream is now trusted by more than 100 leading customers across the globe including L'Oreal, KitchenAid, Synthesia, Carshop, InstaHeadShots, and many othersThe Messy Truth About B2B vs B2C Attribution ModelsPrice tags and decision timeframes obliterate the B2B/B2C attribution divide faster than most marketers realize. Constantine shatters conventional wisdom by showing how his team leverages their own attribution tools to measure website engagement because enterprise software purchases rarely follow predictable patterns. "Trusting last click is impossible," he explains, "because it takes too much time before conversion happens."You've likely noticed this pattern in your own marketing stack. A $2,000 direct-to-consumer exercise bike creates the same multi-touch, 60-day consideration journey as many supposedly "straightforward" B2B software purchases. Meanwhile, those $30/month SaaS tools targeting small businesses convert with the immediacy of consumer products. Constantine points out how this pricing reality creates measurement challenges that transcend business categories:High-ticket B2C products demand extended 30-60 day consideration windows SMB-focused B2B subscriptions ($20-30/month) behave like impulse purchasesEnterprise B2B sales cycles stretch beyond a year with critical offline componentsThe offline measurement void plagues marketers everywhere. Constantine admits many of his most valuable marketing activities resist quantification. "I write a lot of LinkedIn posts, newsletters, we do podcasts. Some of these activities are very hard to measure unless you explicitly ask someone, 'How did you hear about us?'" Your gut tightens reading this because you've felt this same tension between attribution models and marketing reality.Scale transforms your attribution approach more dramatically than business classification ever could. Small operations handling 100 monthly leads can simply ask each prospect about their discovery journey. Large enterprises processing thousands of conversions require sophisticated multi-touch models regardless of whether they sell to businesses or consumers. Constantine explains this convergence clearly: "When we talk about larger B2B businesses with thousands of leads and purchases, it becomes more similar to B2C with a long sales cycle plus an offline component."The unmeasurable brand-building activities require a leap of faith that makes data-driven marketers squirm. Constantine embraces this uncertainty with refreshing honesty: "When you post on LinkedIn, build your personal brand, share content—that's really hard to measure and I don't even want to go there." His team focuses on delivering value through content, trusting that results will materialize. "You just share your content and eventually you see how it plays off." This pragmatic acceptance of attribution limitations feels like cool water in the desert of measurement obsession.Key takeaway: Match your attribution model to purchase complexity rather than business category. Implement multi-touch attribution with lead scoring for high-consideration purchases across both B2B and B2C, while accepting that valuable brand-building work often exists beyond the reach of your measurement tools.Why Marketing Attribution Still Matters Despite Its FlawsAttribution chaos continues to haunt marketers drowning in competing methodologies and high-priced solutions. Constantine blasts through the measurement fog with brutal practicality when tackling the Multi-Touch Attribution (MTA) debate. While many have written MTA's obituary due to its diminishing visibility into customer journeys, his take might surprise you.The attribution landscape brims with alternatives that look impressive in PowerPoint presentations but crumble under real business conditions:Geo holdout testing sounds brilliant: Turn off ads in half your markets, keep them running in others, measure the difference. Simple! Except it'll cost you millions in lost revenue during testing. Constantine points out the brutal math: "For some businesses, this is like losing 1 million, $2 million during the test. Would you be willing to run a test that's gonna cost you $1 million?" These tests require a minimum 5% revenue contribution from the channel to even register effects, making them impractical for anything but your biggest channels.MMM promises statistical rigor: But demands absurd amounts of data covering everything from your competitors' moves to presidential elections and global conflicts. Good luck collecting that comprehensive dataset spanning 2-3 years, then validating whether the TV attribution your fancy model spits out actually reflects reality.> "Mathematically, everything works fine, but when you apply it in reality, there is no way to test it. You just see some numbers and there is no way to test it."For scrappy D2C brands, SaaS startups, and lead gen businesses, Constantine argues MTA still delivers more practical value than its supposedly superior alternatives. You won't achieve perfect attribution, but you can compare campaigns at the same funnel stage against each other. Your lower-funnel campaigns can be measured against other lower-funnel efforts. Mid-funnel initiatives can compete with similar tactics.Constantine drops a bombshell observation that should make you question the industry's MMM evangelism: "If Google and Facebook so willingly open-source different MMM technologies and they really believe in this technology, why wouldn't they implement it into their own product?" These data behemoths with unparalleled user visibility still rely on variations of touch-based attribution internally. Something doesn't add up.Key takeaway: Stop chasing perfect attribution unicorns. MTA delivers practical campaign comparisons within funnel stages despite its flaws. For most businesses, sophisticated alternatives cost more than they're worth in lost revenue during testing or impossible data requirements. Compare apples to apples (lower-funnel to lower-funnel campaigns) with MTA, test different creatives, and focus on relative performance improvement. The big platforms themselves don't fully trust their publicly promoted alternatives - why should you bet your marketing budget on them?Simplified MMM is a Measurement Fantasy You're Being SoldMarketing Mix Modeling has roared back into fashion as third-party cookies crumble and marketers scramble for measurement alternatives. Constantine cuts through the hype with brutal clarity. Traditional MMM demands...

Ian is in the chair this week on the live show. He has Nick, Jel & Paul with him. As we reflect on another good week to be a Palace fan. #CPFC #CrystalPalace #facup #Esoucry #eze #mateta #crybha #bhafc #var #PremierLeague #Football Press LIKE if you enjoy this podcast! Twitter - https://twitter.com/red_blue_review Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063836118934 Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/red_and_blue_review/ You Tube - https://www.youtube.com/@theredbluereview8132/about

Summer pod has come early as the sun is shining and the Premier League is basically over once again.Any hopes of Saka's comeback goal against Fulham sparking some kind of title race chances for Arsenal were dashed just 24 hours later as Liverpool beat Everton in another Merseyside derby to extend their lead at the top.The heads of Carabao marketing must have looked on in glee as 100's of thousands lined the streets in Newcastle's first trophy parade in 70 odd years, but where oh where could the Geordies go to keep the party rolling?Things are going well for Aston Villa as their new superstars score for fun while they are going deep in the Champions League. But..is it too good to be true?Nottingham Forest beat Man United 1-0 thanks to a great goal from another player in a long line of players currently thriving away from their former club - Anthony Elanga. And in their time of need who did Man United turn to? Why Harry Maguire again of course.Support the showWant to support us and also get some sweet bonus exclusive pods? Head to patreon.com/nononsensepod where you can get access to:* Weekly Bonus Episodes! Midweek games, European games, it's all there folks!* A 20+ episode mini-pod called After The Nonsense where we chat everything except football* A full archive of all our bonus content in one handy to find spot!Retro Kits!Want a retro kit to show off your ball knowledge. Use this link and support the show!Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to youhttps://www.classicfootballshirts.co.uk/?ref=nwuyn2q&cid=

Host Alex Pierson is joined by the one and only, Tom Korski, the Managing Editor of Blacklock's Reporter to talk about the big stories on Parliament hill, like why cabinet will NEVER be able to meet its housing affordability target. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the "Chicken Dinner" podcast, Sam Panayotovich discusses Super Bowl LIX betting props and early thoughts on Chiefs-Eagles next Sunday in New Orleans. Special guests BeefLoaf and Chorizy-E from The 108 join the show. SUBSCRIBE! Apple, Spotify and all other podcast platformsFOLLOW! X @chickenxdinner | IG and YT @betchickendinner

In this episode of Beer and Money, Ryan Burklo and Alex Collins discuss the often misunderstood concept of recovery rates in investing, particularly after market downturns. They explore the mathematical realities of recovering from losses, the importance of strategic retirement planning, and the need for a balanced approach to investing that includes both market and non-market assets. The conversation aims to debunk common myths about rate of return and emphasizes the significance of cash flow in retirement planning. Check out our website:  beerandmoney.net For a quick assessment of your current financial life go to: https://www.livingbalancesheet.com/lbsVision/lite/RyanBurklo Takeaways We often underestimate the impact of market losses on retirement planning. To recover from a 22% loss, you need more than a 22% gain. Mathematically, recovering from losses is more complex than it seems. Investors should consider both market and non-market assets for retirement. Cash flow is crucial for retirement, not just rate of return. Planning for retirement requires understanding recovery rates. Market downturns can significantly affect retirement timelines. Diversifying investments can provide more flexibility in retirement. It's essential to control your retirement timing, not just rely on market performance. Understanding financial planning can help mitigate risks associated with market fluctuations. Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Recovery Rates in Investing 02:22 Understanding Market Downturns and Recovery Rates 10:01 Strategies for Retirement Planning Post-Loss 14:56 Debunking Myths About Rate of Return and Cash Flow    

Join Bill Bellows and Andrew Stotz as they discuss what actions (or inactions) make us worse than thieves and how that relates to expiration dates, and acceptability vs desirability. Plus, stories about job swapping, Achieving Competitive Excellence, and birthdays. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 31 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. Today is Episode 9, and it's entitled "Worse Than a Thief." Bill, take it away.   0:00:27.2 Bill Bellows: Welcome, Andrew. I haven't seen you in a while, and great to be back.   0:00:29.1 AS: It's been a while.   0:00:32.0 BB: Here we are. Episode 9 already. Gosh, [chuckle] time flies when we're having fun. First, let me say a shout out to people who are reaching out to me on LinkedIn. I spoke with another one of them this afternoon. It's always exciting to connect with them. And then I ideally connect in a regular basis and help them as best I can, and learn from them as best I can.   0:01:03.0 AS: Yep.   0:01:03.2 BB: So, for those who are thinking about it, they keep hearing you say, "Hey, you know how to reach Bill? Find him on LinkedIn." So, a reminder for those who are waiting for a nudge, here's a nudge. So, "Worse than a thief" is an expression that Dr. Taguchi used when he say, Andrew, "Don't be worse than a thief." And we'll get to that, but let me just give our audience some context on that.   0:01:37.8 AS: Yep.   0:01:39.0 BB: Dr. Taguchi would say... And actually, I don't know if Dr. Taguchi explained it. Someone explained it to me this way. He said a thief could be someone who steals your wallet, finds $20; which means they're up 20, you're down 20; which people refer to as "zero sum gain." Right? So, the thief's gain is my loss, zero sum. What could be worse than that? Well, "worse than a thief" would be a situation where what someone gains is nothing compared to what I lose. A simple example is, [chuckle] I'm not the only one who does this, but if I'm going to the supermarket and I get out of the car and I see a nail in the parking lot or a piece of glass in the parking lot on my way in. So, I'm not talking about walking all around the parking lot. I'm talking about if on my way into the store I see a nail, something that could puncture a foot, a tire, and I spend a few seconds to pick it up, throw it in the trash can right by the door, then my theory is the reason I do that, the reason others do that, is the belief that that little bit of time that I am spending doing that could potentially save someone far more than the few seconds it took me.   0:03:20.9 BB: Well, "worse than a thief" would be, I see that broken bottle, let's say a bunch of shards of glass. And having worked at my father's gas station, I've seen... A nail on a tire is one thing. Nail creates a puncture. A piece of glass in a tire creates a fracture. A piece of glass can destroy a tire 'cause you get a crack and it spreads, and that's hard to repair. A puncture with a nail, yeah, it's inconvenient, but that doesn't destroy the tire. So, I'm overly sensitive when I see pieces of glass in a parking lot, that that could ruin a tire.   0:04:04.8 AS: And ruin a day.   0:04:06.2 BB: Ruin a day, oh yeah. And so the idea is that for someone to not take the time, and the time they save cost you more than they saved, that's worse than a thief.   0:04:19.8 AS: Right.   0:04:20.0 BB: So, if I meet a set of requirements, leave the bowling ball in the doorway, deliver minimally, but in the world of acceptability, what do we call that, Andrew? It's good.   0:04:35.3 AS: It's good.   0:04:36.0 BB: Right? It's good. It's just within requirements, but good.   0:04:41.8 AS: It's not beyond looking good.   0:04:43.9 BB: And forget about beyond looking good; this is looking good. So, I leave the bowling ball in the doorway. I deliver to you the absolute minimum, which is still good. So, your response to that, Andrew, is, "Thank you, Bill." [chuckle]   0:05:00.0 AS: Yeah.   0:05:00.1 BB: And I'm not saying you know what I did, but let's say the situation where I am unaware of the loss function. I'm unaware that what I'm doing is make making your life worse.   0:05:12.2 AS: Right.   0:05:13.3 BB: But the idea is that my shortcut to deliver the D minus; D minus, minus, minus, minus, minus. 'Cause that's still not an F. What Taguchi is talking about is that the amount of resources I save, may be a fraction of what it cost you in terms of extra effort to use it. So, my savings of an hour, a minute, a second causing you far more than I saved, is worse than a thief. But in the world of acceptability, there is no such thing. In the world of acceptability, a little bit within requirements on the low side, a little bit within requirements on the high side, it's all the same. Again, there may be a situation where if you're putting a shelf on a piece of wood on a wall as a shelf and it's a little bit longer, a little bit long on either side, that may not have an impact; may not be touching anything on either side. It doesn't have to fit in.   0:06:25.9 BB: Now, this past weekend, our son and I were installing a new floor at our daughter's condo, and we wanted the pieces to fit in-between other pieces and this laminate floor which is a [chuckle] lot of work. Our son is turning into quite the artist when it comes to woodworking and things. But it's very precise getting things just right, just right, just right. And that attention to detail, that attention to making sure the gaps are just right, minding the gap and not the part. And there were pieces of this floor that he was trying to install. And it was driving him nuts, and finally... He's trying to figure it out and he finally figured it out what was going on. 'Cause he wanted that floor and the spacing between not just to meet requirements [chuckle] not that our daughter gave him and set the requirement, but he wanted the floor in those gaps to be invisible. He wanted things to... Right? He had a higher level, a higher standard.   0:07:25.3 BB: Now, this is the same kid who when he was 13 left the bowling ball in the doorway. But I would've done that. You would've done that. So, anyway, that's the difference between... Another reminder of, one, the difference between acceptability and desirability. But to add to this idea of "worse than a thief," embedded in the concept of desirability is not to be worse than a thief, is to understand the consequences of your action on others, and the amount of time and your decision on how you deliver it and how you meet the requirements. The idea is that, the less time you take in order to save at your end might be causing the person downstream in your organization more than you're saving.   0:08:22.8 AS: In other words, something small, you could adjust something small that would have a huge impact down the line, and you just didn't... You don't know about it.   0:08:32.2 BB: Again, that's why I go back to the nail in the parking lot. To not pick up the nail could cause someone so much more than the few seconds you didn't spend. But again, that could be...   [overlapping conversation]   0:08:44.0 AS: And one of the things that makes it easier or better for a working environment is you know your downstream.   0:08:51.8 BB: Yes.   0:08:51.8 AS: When you're walking in the parking lot, you don't know your downstream; it's just anybody generally, and hopefully I've stopped something from happening here, but you're never gonna know and all that. But with a business, you know your downstream, you know your upstream, and that communication can produce a really, really exciting result because you can see it and feel it.   0:09:11.8 BB: Well, and thank you for bringing that up, because I've got notes from... Since the last time we met, I keep a file for the next sessions we're gonna do. And so as things, ideas come up from people that I'm meeting on LinkedIn or elsewhere, then I, "Oh, let me throw that in." And so I throw it into a Word file for the next time. And so somewhere, I can't remember who, but since the last time we spoke, someone shared with me... Hold on, let me find it here. Okay. In their organization, they do staff rotation. They move people around in their organization. And the question had to do with, "Isn't that what Dr. Deming would promote? Is having people move around the organization?" And I said... Hold on, I gotta sneeze. I said, "Well, if I am the person that makes the parts that you have to assemble, and I make them just within requirements unaware of the downstream impact... " I don't know where they are within the requirements, let's say.   0:10:30.0 BB: All I know is that they're acceptable. I machine it, I measure it, the inspection says it's good, I don't know where within it's good. I don't know. So, I'm unaware. All I know is that it met the requirements. And I hand off to you on a regular basis, and then the boss comes along and says, "Bill, I wanna have you go do Andrew's job." So, now, I'm on the receiving end. And maybe you are upstream doing what I used to do. And you are likewise unaware that... You don't know that you're delivering acceptability. All you know is all the parts you deliver are good. You're trained the same way I'm trained, I'm doing your job. Does that change anything? [chuckle] If I take on your job and let's say, banging it together, whereas the week before you were banging it together, does that rotation create the conversation?   0:11:27.2 AS: So, you're saying rotation for the sake of rotation is not necessarily valuable if in fact, what could be more value is just the two of us sitting down and saying, "So what is it that you're doing with yours and what do you need?" and maybe visiting the other side or something like that.   0:11:44.9 BB: My point is, until the thought occurs to either one of us on the distinction between acceptable and desirable, neither one of us is the wiser as to why we do what we do. So, having people move around the organization and take on different roles, absent an understanding of this contrast, absent an understanding of what Dr. Deming is talking about, which includes these distinctions, that's not gonna do anything.   0:12:16.0 AS: Right.   0:12:16.8 BB: I would say it's a nice idea, and you hear about that all the time about oh the CEO's gonna go work at the front desk. But if the CEO goes to the front desk, again, unless he or she has a sense of what could be, that things could be smoother than what they are because of where they've worked before and it's so much smoother over there, that could lead to why at the Atlanta office does it take so much longer than the LA office. Now I'm beginning to wonder what might be causing that difference. But if I just take on your job for the first time, or if you and I every other week change jobs. So, I'm doing your job, we are both doing assembly, we're both making the parts. Absent an understanding of the contrast between a Deming environment or a non-Deming environment, which would include an appreciation of what Dr. Deming would call the System of Profound Knowledge and the elements of psychology and systems and variation, the theory of knowledge, just not enough. Insufficient. Nice idea. But it's when at Rocketdyne we would call "reforming."   0:13:39.0 BB: And we started 'cause Russ... Dr. Deming talks about transformation, and Russ talks about reforming. And so I started thinking, "How would I explain what... " I just thought it was too... My interpretation of what Dr. Deming is saying of the individual transform will begin to see things differently, okay. My interpretation is, I begin to hear things differently, I begin to hear the contrast between somebody referring to their son as "their son" versus "our son," my idea versus our idea; I start paying attention to pronouns, so I start hearing things differently; I start to think about, see things as a system a little... I become more aware, visually more aware.   0:14:43.9 BB: And to me, another aspect I think about relative to transformation is that, if I'm the professor and you're the student in a class, or in any situation, I don't see... I think about how I've contributed to whatever it is you're doing. I have somehow created the headache that you're experiencing. If I'm upstream of you in the organization, whether that's me delivering a report or a tool, or I'm the professor delivering the lecture, I began to realize that your issues I've created, and I begin to see things as a... I begin to see that I am part of the issue, Part of the solution, part of the problem. When I explained to students this, I began to realize as a professor that I am not an observer of your learning, asking "How did you do on the exam?" I am a participant in your learning, saying "How did we do in the lecture?" And to me, that's all part of this transformation.   0:15:53.0 BB: Now, the other word, "reform," which is associated with things I've heard from Russ. He talks about... Yeah, I'll just pause there. But I started thinking, well, Deming's talking about how I see the world, how I begin to see relationships differently, think about variation differently. That's a personal transformation. Reforming, and others began to explain to people at Rocketdyne and I do with clients and students is, reforming is when you and I swap jobs. Reforming is when I look at the process and get rid of a few steps. Reforming is changing titles. Reforming is painting something, [chuckle] changing the color. I think I shared, maybe in the first podcast series, I was doing a multi-day, one-on-one seminar with a pediatrician in Kazakhstan, who came to London to meet me and a bunch of other friends to learn more about Dr. Deming's work. And the entire thing was done through a translator.   0:17:07.1 BB: And so I would ask a question in English, it would be translated to Russian then back to me in English. And so at some point, I said to Ivan Klimenko, a wonderful, wonderful guy. I said, "Ivan," I said [chuckle] to Yuri, the translator, I said, "Ask Ivan, what's the fastest way for a Red Pen Company, a non-Deming company, a "Me" organization, to become a Blue Pen Company, otherwise known as a Deming company or "We" organization." And these are terms that we talked about in the first series; I don't think in this series. But, anyway, I said, "So what's the fastest way for a non-Deming company to become a Deming company? A Red Pen Company to become a Blue Pen Company?"   0:17:44.9 BB: And so he asked, and I'm listening to the translation. And he says, "Okay, I give up." I said, "Spray paint." [chuckle] And that's what reforming is: Getting out the red spray paint, having things become neat, clean, and organized, and you're just going through the motions. There's no change of state. And so, "I do your job, you do my job," that's not sufficient. But get us to think about the contrast of a Deming and a non-Deming organization, then you and I changing roles could be enormously beneficial as I begin to understand what it's like to be on the receiving end. Now, we're talking. And I think I mentioned in a previous podcast, I had a woman attend one of the classes I did at Rocketdyne, and she said, "Bill, in our organization, we have compassion for one another." It's the same thing. It's not sufficient. And that's me saying, "Andrew, I feel really bad. I lost a lot of sleep last night thinking about how much time you spend banging together all those parts that I give you. And if there was anything I could do to make things better, I would love to help you. But at the end of the day, Andrew, all the parts I gave you are good, right? I don't give you bad stuff, right? Have I ever given you a defective part, Andrew?"   0:19:12.0 AS: Nope.   0:19:13.1 BB: "So, everything's good, right? Everything's good that I give you? Well, then, if I could help you, but I don't know what else to do. Everything I give you is good. So, it must be on your end." [laughter]   [overlapping conversation]   0:19:24.1 AS: And I'm busy. Yeah.   0:19:26.6 BB: Must be on you. And that's what I'm talking about. Now, if I understand that I'm contributing to your headache, I'm contributing to the trouble you're having with an example, now I'm inspired; now I understand there's something on me. [chuckle] But, short of that, nice idea, it's not helping.   0:19:50.0 BB: [laughter] So, the story I wanted to share before we're talking about this role-changing. Again, role-changing by itself, nah, not sufficient. So, see if this sounds familiar. It has to do with acceptability. I'm pretty certain it's part of the first series. I wanna make sure it's part of the second series. So, I was in a seminar at Rocketdyne on something to do with quality. And I think United Technologies had purchased Rocketdyne. They were bringing to us their new quality management system. Not just any quality management system, Andrew. This was called ACE, A-C-E. And, when we first learned about this, I remember being in a room when their United Technologies, ACE experts started to explain it. And some of my colleagues said, "Well, what is ACE?" They said, "Well, it's Achieving Competitive Excellence." "Well, what is it? What is it, 'competitive... '"   0:20:52.2 AS: It sounds like you wanna put that up on the wall as a slogan.   0:20:56.0 BB: It was a slogan, "Achieving Competitive Excellence." And people says, "Well, what is it?" I said, "Well, it's Lean Six Sigma." Well, so why do you call it ACE? Well, our arch rivals, General Electric. they call it Lean Six Sigma. We ain't gonna call it Lean Six Sigma. So, we're calling it ACE, A-C-E, Achieving Competitive Excellence. But it's the same thing as Lean Six Sigma. [chuckle] And so we had all this mandatory ACE training that we would all sit through and pray that the rosters were never lost, were never lost so we wouldn't have to take the training again. So, in the training, there was a discussion of, how does the environment impact quality? And I don't know how it came up, but similar, there's a conversation about the environment could affect quality. And, so when that was raised, I think it was a question that came up.   0:21:56.9 BB: How does the environment affect quality? The physical environment: How hot it is, how cold it is. So, one of the attendees says, "I've got an example." He says, "I worked for a Boeing supplier," and it might have been, "I worked for Boeing in Australia." I know he said he worked in Australia. They made parts, big parts, very tall parts like a 15, 20... Very long section. And I think he said it had to do with the tails, part of the tail for Boeing airplane. [chuckle] He says, "When we would measure it," he said, "we knew that if we took the measurement first thing in the morning before the sun came up and it started to get hot, then there's a good chance that the length would meet requirements. And, we knew that once that part saw the heat of the sun and expanded, then it wouldn't meet requirements. So, we measured it first thing in the morning, [laughter] and that's an example of how the environment affects quality." And, my first thought when I heard that was, "You can't make that story up, that I will keep measuring it until it meets requirements." That, Andrew, is me shipping acceptability. Do I care at all about how that part is used, Andrew? [chuckle]   0:23:18.7 AS: Nope.   0:23:19.9 BB: Do I know how that part is installed? Am I watching you install it and go through all, you know, hammer it? Nope. No. Again, even if I did, would I think twice that I measured it before the sun came up and that might be causing the issue? No, that still would not occur to me. But the other thing I wanted to bring up on this, on the topic of ACE, remember what ACE stands for?   0:23:46.0 AS: Achieving Competitive...   0:23:50.0 BB: Excellence.   0:23:50.3 AS: Excellence.   0:23:51.8 BB: So, Rocketdyne was owned by United Technologies of Pratt and Whitney, division of West Palm Beach, for 10 years or so? 10 long years. ACE, ACE, ACE, ACE, ACE. So, I kept thinking, [chuckle] I said to some of my Deming colleagues, "There's gotta be another acronym which is A-C-E." Achieving Competitive... What? What might be another E word? 'Cause it's not... Instead of ACE, Achieving Competitive Excellence, I kept thinking of this, what might be another way of what this is really all about? And it dawned me. The embarrassment is how long it took me to come up with what ACE translated to. And it was "Achieving Compliance Excellence." [chuckle]   0:24:42.9 AS: Excellent.   0:24:45.0 BB: Does it meet requirements? Yes. And so what is compliance excellence? It gets us back to acceptability. So, traditional quality compliance. But then while I was on the thought of Achieving Compliance Excellence, and then, well, there's a place for meeting requirements. There's a place for compliance excellence. I'm not throwing it out the window. I would say, if I ask you, Andrew, how far it is to the closest airport and you say 42 miles, 42 kilometers, or you say it takes an hour, then embedded in that model is "A minute is a minute, an hour is an hour, a mile is a mile, and all the miles are the same." Well, maybe they aren't. Maybe they aren't. Maybe I'm walking that distance, and I'm going uphill and downhill. Maybe I'm driving that distance. And those changes in elevation don't matter as much. So, then, what I thought was, there's Achieving Compliance Excellence that's acceptability, and then there's Achieving Contextual Excellence, which is my understanding of the context.   0:25:56.7 BB: And given my understanding of the context, if you say to me, "How far is it to the nearest airport?" I say, "Well, tell me more about the context of your question. Are you driving there? Are you riding your bike there? Are you walking there?" 'Cause then I'm realizing that every mile with Compliance Excellence, I just treat it as "a mile is a mile is a mile." They're all interchangeable, they're all the same. With Contextual Excellence, the context matters. And I say to you, "That's a... I mean, 42 miles, but boy, every mile is... They're brutal." And so then just the idea that context matters, that the understanding of a system matters. All right. So, next thing I wanna get to, and we've talked about this before but we never got it in, but I wanna provide, I really... Well, what I think is a neat example. [laughter] Okay. Calm down, Bill. [laughter]   0:26:54.8 AS: Yeah. You're excited about it.   0:26:57.0 BB: All right.   0:26:57.1 AS: So, about your idea... [chuckle]   0:27:00.2 BB: All right. So, again, in this spirit, my aim in conversation with you is to provide insights to people trying to bring these ideas to their organization. They're either trying to improve their own understanding, looking for better ways to explain it to others. And towards that end, here is a keeper. And for those who try this, if you have trouble, get back to me. Let me know how it goes. Here's the scenario I give people, and I've done this many, many times. What I used to do is give everyone in the room a clear transparency. That's when you had overhead projectors. [chuckle] 'Cause people say, "What is a transparency? What is an overhead projector?"   [overlapping conversation]   0:27:45.0 AS: Yeah exactly.   0:27:46.8 BB: It's a clear piece of plastic, like the size of a sheet of paper. And on that sheet, on that piece of plastic was a vertical line and a horizontal line. I could call it set a set of axes, X-Y axis. And the vertical axis I called "flavor." And the horizontal axis, I called "time." And, so everyone, when they would walk into a seminar, would get a clear transparency. I give them a pen to write on this transparency. And I'd say to them, "Here's what I want you to imagine. The horizontal axis is time. The vertical axis is flavor." And I would hold up a can of soda and I'd say, "Imagine. Imagine, inside this can, imagine before the lid is put on, soda is added to this can," any kind of soda. Right? "Imagine soda's in the can. Imagine in the can is a probe, a flavor meter. And the flavor meter is connected to the pen in your hand." And what that... Wirelessly, Andrew. So, there's this probe that goes into the soda, into the can. It is, let's say, with Bluetooth technology connected to the pen in your hand, such that you have the ability with this magic pen to trace out what the flavor of the soda in the can is at any point in time.   0:29:31.0 BB: And so I would put on the vertical axis, right, the Y axis, I would put a little tick mark, maybe three quarters of the way up the vertical axis. And so everyone started at that tick mark. And I would say, "Okay, get your pen ready, get it on the tick mark. This flavor meter is inside the can. It's transmitting to your hand and the pen the flavor of Pepsi. If I was to seal this can, put the lid on it, and I say, 'Now the device is activated.' As soon as I put the lid on the can, the pen is activated and your hand starts to trace out what is the flavor of the soda doing over time." And I would say, "If you think the flavor gets better, then you have a curve going up. If you think the flavor of the soda's getting worse, then it goes down. If you think it stays the same, it just goes across."   0:30:37.1 BB: And I would just say, "What I want each of you to do, as soon as that can is sealed, I want you to imagine what the flavor of Pepsi, Coke, whatever it is, I want you to... " The question is, "What do you think the flavor of soda is doing in a sealed can over time?" And I would say, "Don't ask any questions. Just do that." Now, most of the people just take that and they just draw something. They might draw something flat going across. [chuckle] Now and then somebody would say, [chuckle] "Is the can in a refrigerator?" [chuckle] And my response is, "Don't complicate this."   [laughter]   0:31:26.1 BB: So, I just throw that out. Most people just take that and just trace something out. And for the one who says, "Is it refrigerated? What's the timescale? Is the horizontal axis years or minutes?" I'd say, "Don't complicate it." [chuckle]   0:31:46.8 AS: "And don't ask questions."   0:31:48.9 BB: "And don't ask... " But you can bring me over and I'll ask you a question. You can ask your questions, I would just say, "Don't complicate it." So, what do we do? Everyone gets a few minutes, they draw it. I take all those transparencies that you can see through, and I put them on top of one another. And I can now hold them up to the room and people can see what I'm holding up. They can see all the different curves.   0:32:17.0 AS: Right.   0:32:18.0 BB: 'Cause they all start at the same point. And then I would say to the audience, "What do they all have in common?" Well, they all start at the same point. "What else do they have in common? What do they all have in common?" And people are like, "I don't know." Some of them are flat. They go across, the flavor doesn't change. Most of them think it goes down at some rate.   0:32:43.4 AS: Yep.   0:32:45.0 BB: Either concave down or convex down. Now and then, somebody will say it goes up and up and up; might go up and then down. But most people think it goes down over time. That's the leading answer. The second leading answer is it's constant. Up and down, rarely. So, I've done that. I've had people do that. I used to have a stack of 500 of transparencies. I used to save them and just go through them. I've done it, let's say in round numbers, 1,500 to 2,000 people. So, all the curves start at that tick mark in the 99.9999% of them either go down or go across. What's cool is, all those curves are smooth. Meaning, very smoothly up, very smoothly across, very smoothly down. Mathematically, that's called a "continuous function." And what I explained to them is, if I draw a vertical line halfway across the horizontal axis, and I look at every one of those curves, because the curves are smooth, if I draw a vertical line and how each curve, your profile and all the others go across that line, immediately to the left and immediately to the right, it's the same value because the curve is smooth.   0:34:28.3 BB: But I don't ask them to draw a smooth curve. I just say, "What do you think the flavor does over time?" They always, with three exceptions, draw a smooth curve. And so when I ask them what do they have in common, you get, "They start at the same point." Nope, that's not it. I don't know if anyone's ever articulated, "They're all continuous functions." Very rarely. So, then I explained, "They're all continuous functions. But I didn't ask you to draw a continuous function." Well, when I point out to them that three times, three times, Andrew, out of nearly 2,000, somebody drew a curve that goes starting at the tick mark, zero time, and it goes straight across halfway across the page at the same level, and then drops down to zero instantly, it's what's known mathematically as a "step function."   0:35:26.9 BB: So, it goes across, goes across, and then in zero time drops down to zero and then continues. So, three out of nearly 2,000 people drew a curve that wasn't smooth. Again, mathematically known as a step function. And each time I went up to that person and I said, and I comment on it, and each of them said, there's a point at which it goes bad. And each of them had a job in a quality organization. [chuckle] And so why is this important? Because in industry, there's this thing known as an "expiration date." What is an expiration date? It's the date past which you cannot use the chemical, the thing. And what's the assumption? The assumption is, a second before midnight on that date, Andrew, you could use that chemical, that acid, that glue, whatever it is in our product; a second before midnight, before the expiration date, you can use that. But a second after midnight, we put this tape and we call it "defective." And so I've worked with companies that are in the chemical business, and they literally have this tape. At the expiration date, we don't use it. A second before midnight, we do. And so what you have is a sense that it goes from good to bad, you know how fast, Andrew?   0:37:15.0 AS: Tick of a clock.   0:37:17.0 BB: Faster than that, Andrew. Zero time.   0:37:21.0 AS: Yeah.   0:37:22.0 BB: Zero time. And so what I ask people is, "Can you think of any phenomenon that happens in zero time?" And people call that's... "Well, the driver was killed instantly." No, it wasn't zero time. "Well, someone is shot." It's not zero time. And so what's cool is, when I ask people to describe a phenomenon, describe any physical phenomenon that happens in zero time, that we go from one location to another, from one state to another in zero time, I've not been stumped on that. Although actually, [chuckle] there are some situations where that happens. Well, the reason that's important for our audience is, that's a demonstration that expiration-date thinking is an organizational construct. It's not a physical construct. Milk goes bad fast. [chuckle] I'll admit, the expiration date on the half gallon of milk, it goes bad fast.   0:38:27.2 BB: But a second before midnight and a second after midnight, it's still the same. So, expiration-date thinking is what acceptability is about; that everything is good, equally good, but once we go across that expiration date, Andrew, then the flavor changes suddenly. And so what I used to kid people is, imagine if that really happened, right? Then we'd have this contest. I'd say, "Andrew, I had a can of Pepsi recently. And have you ever done this, Andrew? You get the can of Pepsi that has the expiration date on it. And if you listen to it at midnight, on the expiration date, you listen closely, you can hear it go from good to bad, Andrew." [chuckle] Would that be awesome? [chuckle] So, I was sharing some of this recently with our good friend, Christina, at The Deming Institute office.   0:39:31.0 AS: Yep.   0:39:32.7 BB: And it happened to be her birthday. And, so I sent her a note and I said, "Happy birthday." And I said, "So, did you change age immediately on the second you were born?" 'Cause she said, 'cause I think she said something like, "My mom reached out to me and she reminded me exactly what time I was born." And I said, "Oh," I said, "so did you feel the change in age as you crossed that?" And she said, she said, "Hi, Bill. Of course, I felt instantly different on my birthday. My mom even told me what time, so I'd know exactly when to feel different." [chuckle] Now, so here's a question for you, Andrew. Can you think of a situation where something changes from one value to another in zero time? In zero time. Again, we don't go from living to dying in zero time. The change of Pepsi doesn't go from one value to another in zero time. The quality of any product is not changing, you go from one side to the other. But can you think of anything that actually happens in zero time: Across that line, it goes from one value to another?   0:41:05.0 AS: Nope, I can't.   0:41:08.8 BB: Oh, come on, Andrew. You ready?   0:41:16.2 AS: Go for it.   0:41:20.0 BB: Did you ever hear of the German novelist, Thomas Mann, M-A-N-N?   0:41:24.0 AS: No.   0:41:25.7 BB: All right. I wrote this down as a closing thought; it may not be the closing thought. We'll just throw it in right now. So, this in an article [chuckle] I wrote for the Lean Management Journal.   0:41:38.0 AS: By the way, it's gotta be the closing thought because we're running out of time. So, perfect.   0:41:43.7 BB: Fantastic! Well, then here's my closing thought, Andrew. You want my closing thought?   0:41:47.1 AS: Do it.   0:41:48.1 BB: All right. So, from an article I wrote for the Lean Management Journal, so here's the quote. "I have witnessed industrial chemicals in full use right up to the expiration date, and then banned from use and tagged for immediate disposal with a passing of the expiration date only seconds before the chemicals were freely used. While they may rapidly sour, it is unlikely that they expire with a big bang, all in keeping with a sentiment of German novelist Thomas Mann's observation about New Year's Eve," Andrew. What he said was, "Time has no divisions to market's passage. There's never a thunderstorm or a blare of trumpets to announce the beginning of a new month or year. Even when the century begins, it is only we mere mortals who ring bells and fire off pistols." So, at midnight on December 31st, a fraction of a second before midnight, we're in 2024 and we go to 2025 in zero time, Andrew. So, legally things change as you go across a line. You go from the United States to Mexico across a line of zero thickness. So, legally things across a line change instantly.   0:43:17.0 AS: Well.   0:43:18.0 BB: A coupon, Andrew, expires at midnight. [laughter]   0:43:22.7 AS: Yep. All right. Well, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you wanna keep in touch with Bill, as he mentioned at the beginning, just reach out to him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."

Explore how every choice we make sows seeds that shape our reality, guided by the universal law of karma. In this episode, we uncover the power of conscious creation, the importance of setting boundaries, and how to cultivate harmony in relationships to build a life of intentional abundance.Visit https://donorbox.org/aow-donations and be a blessing today. Together, we can change lives!The Folly of Man - Part IIExplore how every choice we make sows seeds that shape our reality, guided by the universal law of karma. In this episode, we uncover the power of conscious creation, the importance of setting boundaries, and how to cultivate harmony in relationships to build a life of intentional abundance.To contact Antonio T. Smith Jr.https://www.facebook.com/theatsjrhttps://www.amazon.com/stores/Antonio-T.-Smith-Jr/author/B00M3MPVJ8https://www.linkedin.com/in/antoniotsmithjrhttps://antoniotsmithjr.comhttps://www.instagram.com/theatsjr Key ConceptsFarewell Message and TransitionAntonio announces his farewell to the current phase of work, stating:This phase no longer aligns with his purpose or energy.His focus is shifting towards fulfilling his higher calling.Emphasizes the importance of listening to and acting on advice and guidance.Clarifies that his departure is not rooted in emotion but in necessity for his growth and others' empowerment.Stresses the urgency of individuals recognizing and appreciating his contributions while aligning with their own purpose.Life's Purpose and Personal MissionDeclares his life's purpose: “Gathering the wondrous and building heaven on earth.”Explains that achieving this requires leaving behind spaces and relationships that no longer serve mutual growth.Frames his departure as a necessary step to align his work with the broader mission of creating sustainable, impactful systems.Arlingbrook Project: Vision for a Unified Ethical Resource EcosystemOverviewArlingbrook is described as a groundbreaking city project rooted in:Sustainability.Equity.Innovation.Ethical resource management.Represents 20 years of dedicated planning and vision-building.Distinguishes itself from purely resource-based economies, incorporating human needs and rewards for excellence.Key FeaturesInfrastructure:Education, healthcare, and religious districts.Systems designed to elevate collective consciousness and reduce inequity.Governance:Operates as a legal municipality.Combines traditional structures with innovative governance principles.Economic System:Incorporates money but redefines its meaning to align with fairness and equity.Rewards excellence and incentivizes collective contributions without creating disparity.Goals:Serve as a living example of an ethical and sustainable city.Inspire global adoption of similar systems.Call for ContributionStresses the importance of financial readiness and personal growth to contribute effectively to ARlingbrook.Encourages supporters to align their personal success with Arlingbrook's vision.Call to Action for SupportersAntonio challenges individuals to:Evaluate whether their actions align with their higher purpose.Become conscious creators by focusing on meaningful contributions.Spread the message of ARlingbrook to others as part of a collective movement.Encourages personal accountability:Take small, consistent steps to improve circumstances and inspire others to do the same.Recognize the power of individual and collective action to effect significant change.Economic Philosophy of ArlingbrookCritique of Existing SystemsCriticizes traditional economic models like:Capitalism for its inequity.Socialism and communism for their inability to sustain innovation and fairness.Frames Arlingbrook as a “unified ethical resource ecosystem”:Balances human desires for reward with the need for communal equity.Aims to eliminate the flaws inherent in existing systems by redefining resource distribution.Innovation in EconomicsInspired by visionaries like Jacques Fresco and Louis Kelso, Antonio reimagines economic systems to focus on:Empowering individuals through shared resources.Redefining success and wealth in non-materialistic terms.Incorporates a hybrid model where financial incentives exist but are restructured to reflect contribution and equity.The Problem of IgnoranceIgnorance as Humanity's Primary ChallengeDefines ignorance as the root of all societal problems:Lack of understanding of the principles governing life and the universe.Misalignment between human behavior and natural laws.Asserts that ignorance perpetuates:Poor decision-making.Inequity.Environmental degradation.Solution Through Conscious ActionAdvocates for education and awareness as the path to overcoming ignorance:Learning and applying universal laws like cause and effect.Focusing on personal accountability and collective improvement.Uses the biblical reference of Jesus addressing ignorance even in his final moments as a model for prioritizing enlightenment over ego.Vision for Global ChangeMethodology for ChangeProposes a grassroots approach to global transformation:Starting with a small group of individuals (e.g., 25,000 people).Using exponential growth to reach larger populations.Mathematically demonstrates that starting with one person influencing three others can reach over 8 billion people in just 21 cycles.Emphasizes the power of simplicity in transformation:Focus on changing a few lives at a time.Use collective action to create ripple effects.Urgency of ActionHighlights the moral and ethical obligation to act:Challenges supporters to reflect on their own ignorance and complicity in societal issues.Urges alignment of personal actions with global change.Personal Growth and ResponsibilityAdvocates for individual transformation as the foundation for collective progress:Personal success, especially financial, is essential to contributing meaningfully to larger causes.Encourages supporters to:Overcome limiting beliefs.Embrace growth opportunities.Lead by example in their communities.Frames financial readiness as a critical step in supporting ARlingbrook and other transformative initiatives.Biblical and Philosophical UnderpinningsDraws parallels between Arlingbrook's vision and biblical teachings:Jesus' actions on the cross are used as an example of prioritizing enlightenment and forgiveness over personal suffering.Incorporates philosophical insights to inspire critical thinking and alignment with universal principles.AcknowledgmentExpresses gratitude to contributors, particularly Ine, for her instrumental role in designing and visualizing ARlingbrook's concepts.Recognizes the collective effort required to bring this vision to fruition.·      Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/secret-to-success-law-of-attraction/exclusive-contentAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Max Keiser appeared on Alex Jones to discuss how Bitcoin conquered the world and is now on a guaranteed path to $800,000 per BTC, “Bitcoin is mathematically guaranteed to go to $800,000 to take out gold because it's a superior form of value and money than gold.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Josh and Bryan welcome Brandon Cirbo (@ernekingpb) back to the FUPASU to mathematically and scientifically over-analyze and over-analogize episode three of Survivor 47. If you have enjoyed our coverage, please consider leaving us a review or rating. "Lord of the Rangs" / "Lotus" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

On this show you've heard us talk about these instances that happen in our life where two or more happenings collide. Some will say it's just a coincidence, but over here we know them as synchronicities. Mathematically these things shouldn't happen, however they seem to be happening nonstop. Regardless of how it works, one thing seems to be apparent, it is something that is happening for you. You Don't Know What You Don't Know! Up For The Meta Mysteries Patreon—> https://www.patreon.com/MetaMysteriesFor 10% OFF Orgonite----> Click Here! (Use Code: ONE)Reach out to us! ---> MetaMysteries111@gmail.comInquire about a Past Life Regression---> MetaHypnosis@Protonmail.comGive us a follow on Instagram---> @MetaMysteriesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/meta-mysteries--5795466/support.

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: A Robust Natural Latent Over A Mixed Distribution Is Natural Over The Distributions Which Were Mixed, published by johnswentworth on August 22, 2024 on The AI Alignment Forum. This post walks through the math for a theorem. It's intended to be a reference post, which we'll link back to as-needed from future posts. The question which first motivated this theorem for us was: "Redness of a marker seems like maybe a natural latent over a bunch of parts of the marker, and redness of a car seems like maybe a natural latent over a bunch of parts of the car, but what makes redness of the marker 'the same as' redness of the car? How are they both instances of one natural thing, i.e. redness? (or 'color'?)". But we're not going to explain in this post how the math might connect to that use-case; this post is just the math. Suppose we have multiple distributions P1,…,Pk over the same random variables X1,…,Xn. (Speaking somewhat more precisely: the distributions are over the same set, and an element of that set is represented by values (x1,…,xn).) We take a mixture of the distributions: P[X]:=jαjPj[X], where jαj=1 and α is nonnegative. Then our theorem says: if an approximate natural latent exists over P[X], and that latent is robustly natural under changing the mixture weights α, then the same latent is approximately natural over Pj[X] for all j. Mathematically: the natural latent over P[X] is defined by (x,λP[Λ=λ|X=x]), and naturality means that the distribution (x,λP[Λ=λ|X=x]P[X=x]) satisfies the naturality conditions (mediation and redundancy).The theorem says that, if the joint distribution (x,λP[Λ=λ|X=x]jαjPj[X=x]) satisfies the naturality conditions robustly with respect to changes in α, then (x,λP[Λ=λ|X=x]Pj[X=x]) satisfies the naturality conditions for all j. "Robustness" here can be interpreted in multiple ways - we'll cover two here, one for which the theorem is trivial and another more substantive, but we expect there are probably more notions of "robustness" which also make the theorem work. Trivial Version First notion of robustness: the joint distribution (x,λP[Λ=λ|X=x]jαjPj[X=x]) satisfies the naturality conditions to within ϵ for all values of α (subject to jαj=1 and α nonnegative). Then: the joint distribution (x,λP[Λ=λ|X=x]jαjPj[X=x]) satisfies the naturality conditions to within ϵ specifically for αj=δjk, i.e. α which is 0 in all entries except a 1 in entry k. In that case, the joint distribution is (x,λP[Λ=λ|X=x]Pk[X=x]), therefore Λ is natural over Pk. Invoke for each k, and the theorem is proven. ... but that's just abusing an overly-strong notion of robustness. Let's do a more interesting one. Nontrivial Version Second notion of robustness: the joint distribution (x,λP[Λ=λ|X=x]jαjPj[X=x]) satisfies the naturality conditions to within ϵ, and the gradient of the approximation error with respect to (allowed) changes in α is (locally) zero. We need to prove that the joint distributions (x,λP[Λ=λ|X=x]Pj[X=x]) satisfy both the mediation and redundancy conditions for each j. We'll start with redundancy, because it's simpler. Redundancy We can express the approximation error of the redundancy condition with respect to Xi under the mixed distribution as DKL(P[Λ,X]||P[X]P[Λ|Xi])=EX[DKL(P[Λ|X]||P[Λ|Xi])] where, recall, P[Λ,X]:=P[Λ|X]jαjPj[X]. We can rewrite that approximation error as: EX[DKL(P[Λ|X]||P[Λ|Xi])] =jαjPj[X]DKL(P[Λ|X]||P[Λ|Xi]) =jαjEjX[DKL(P[Λ|X]||P[Λ|Xi])] Note that Pj[Λ|X]=P[Λ|X] is the same under all the distributions (by definition), so: =jαjDKL(Pj[Λ,X]||P[Λ|Xi]) and by factorization transfer: jαjDKL(Pj[Λ,X]||Pj[Λ|Xi]) In other words: if ϵji is the redundancy error with respect to Xi under distribution j, and ϵi is the redundancy error with respect to Xi under the mixed distribution P, then ϵijαjϵji The redundancy error of the mixed distribution is a...

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: Interoperable High Level Structures: Early Thoughts on Adjectives, published by johnswentworth on August 22, 2024 on The AI Alignment Forum. Meta: This post is a relatively rough dump of some recent research thoughts; it's not one of our more polished posts, in terms of either clarity or rigor. You've been warned. The Interoperable Semantics post and the Solomonoff Inductor Walks Into A Bar post each tackled the question of how different agents in the same world can coordinate on an ontology, so that language can work at all given only a handful of example usages of each word (similar to e.g. children learning new words). Both use natural latents as a central mathematical tool - one in a Bayesian probabilistic framework, the other in a minimum description length framework. Both focus mainly on nouns, i.e. interoperable-across-minds clusters of "objects" in the environment. … and the two propose totally different models. In one, the interoperability of cluster labels (i.e. nouns) follows from natural latent conditions over different features of each object. In the other, interoperability follows from natural latent conditions across objects, with no mention of features. The two models are not, in general, equivalent; they can't both be both correct and complete. In this post, we'll propose that while the natural latent conditions over objects still seem to intuitively capture the rough notion of nouns, the natural latent conditions over features seem much better suited to adjectives. We'll briefly lay out two different potential ways to use natural latents over features as semantic values for adjectives. Then we'll talk a bit about implications, open threads and how this fits into a broader research gameplan. The Problem When children learn language, the cognitive process seems to go: Observe the world a bunch … organize knowledge of the world according to some categories, concepts, ontology, etc … those categories, concepts, ontology, etc match other humans' categories, concepts, ontology, etc reasonably well … so it only takes a handful of examples (1-3, say) of the use of a given word in order for the child to learn what the word refers to. The crucial point here is that the categories/concepts/ontology are mostly learned before a word is attached; children do not brute-force learn categories/concepts/ontology from "labeled data". We can tell this is true mainly because it typically takes so few examples to learn the meaning of a new word. The big puzzle, then, is that different humans learn mostly approximately the same categories/concepts/ontology - i.e. the same "candidates" to which words might point - as required for language to work at all with so few examples. How does that work? Mathematically, what are those "interoperable" categories/concepts/ontology, which different humans mostly convergently learn? How can we characterize them? Or, somewhat earlier on the tech tree: can we find even a single model capable of accounting for the phenomenon of different minds in the same environment robustly converging on approximately the same categories/concepts/ontology? Forget whether we can find a model which correctly captures the ontology converged upon by humans, can we even find any model capable of accounting for any sort of robust ontological convergence? Can we find such a model for which the convergent ontology even vaguely resembles the sorts of things in human language (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc)? What would such a model even look like? That's roughly the stage we're at in this post. Two Previous Models: Naturality Over Objects vs Features Our main tool is (deterministic) natural latents. The usage looks like: Suppose the different minds each look for (and find) a latent variable which satisfies the natural latent conditions over some lower-level variab...

How Mathematically, Open-Mindedness = Intellect Let's Talk About Us! Tiktok/IG: LTAUwithUche TheUche.com

Gary Morgan joins the show tonight! Mathematically, no, but the Pirates are all but eliminated from this wild card race. Season high losing streak puts them closer to last place than postseason. Unless a major miracle occurs, there 45 games for this season. What can we learn over the course of the next 49 days?https://linktr.ee/bridgetobuctoberSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/bridge-to-buctober/donations

This is my Monday episode. I go to the casino between meetings and work. I also discuss an idea regarding card cutting. Is there a way to rig the deck so that no matter where it is cut the house has a mathematical advantage above the normal built-in blackjack advantage? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/mw-usa/support

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: Why Would Belief-States Have A Fractal Structure, And Why Would That Matter For Interpretability? An Explainer, published by johnswentworth on April 18, 2024 on LessWrong. Yesterday Adam Shai put up a cool post which… well, take a look at the visual: Yup, it sure looks like that fractal is very noisily embedded in the residual activations of a neural net trained on a toy problem. Linearly embedded, no less. I (John) initially misunderstood what was going on in that post, but some back-and-forth with Adam convinced me that it really is as cool as that visual makes it look, and arguably even cooler. So David and I wrote up this post / some code, partly as an explainer for why on earth that fractal would show up, and partly as an explainer for the possibilities this work potentially opens up for interpretability. One sentence summary: when tracking the hidden state of a hidden Markov model, a Bayesian's beliefs follow a chaos game (with the observations randomly selecting the update at each time), so the set of such beliefs naturally forms a fractal structure. By the end of the post, hopefully that will all sound straightforward and simple. Background: Fractals and Symmetry Let's start with the famous Sierpinski Triangle: Looks qualitatively a lot like Shai's theoretically-predicted fractal, right? That's not a coincidence; we'll see that the two fractals can be generated by very similar mechanisms. The key defining feature of the Sierpinski triangle is that it consists of three copies of itself, each shrunken and moved to a particular spot: Mathematically: we can think of the Sierpinski triangle as a set of points in two dimensions (i.e. the blue points in the image). Call that set S. Then "the Sierpinski triangle consists of three copies of itself, each shrunken and moved to a particular spot" can be written algebraically as S=f1(S)f2(S)f3(S) where f1,f2,f3 are the three functions which "shrink and position" the three copies. (Conveniently, they are affine functions, i.e. linear transformations for the shrinking plus a constant vector for the positioning.) That equation, S=f1(S)f2(S)f3(S), expresses the set of points in the Sierpinski triangle as a function of that same set - in other words, the Sierpinski triangle is a fixed point of that equation. That suggests a way to (approximately) compute the triangle: to find a fixed point of a function, start with some ~arbitrary input, then apply the function over and over again. And indeed, we can use that technique to generate the Sierpinski triangle. Here's one standard visual way to generate the triangle: Notice that this is a special case of repeatedly applying Sf1(S)f2(S)f3(S)! We start with the set of all the points in the initial triangle, then at each step we make three copies, shrink and position them according to the three functions, take the union of the copies, and then pass that set onwards to the next iteration. … but we don't need to start with a triangle. As is typically the case when finding a fixed point via iteration, the initial set can be pretty arbitrary. For instance, we could just as easily start with a square: … or even just some random points. They'll all converge to the same triangle. Point is: it's mainly the symmetry relationship S=f1(S)f2(S)f3(S) which specifies the Sierpinski triangle. Other symmetries typically generate other fractals; for instance, this one generates a fern-like shape: Once we know the symmetry, we can generate the fractal by iterating from some ~arbitrary starting point. Background: Chaos Games There's one big problem with computationally generating fractals via the iterative approach in the previous section: the number of points explodes exponentially. For the Sierpinski triangle, we need to make three copies each iteration, so after n timesteps we'll be tracking 3^n times...

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: Generalized Stat Mech: The Boltzmann Approach, published by David Lorell on April 12, 2024 on LessWrong. Context There's a common intuition that the tools and frames of statistical mechanics ought to generalize far beyond physics and, of particular interest to us, it feels like they ought to say a lot about agency and intelligence. But, in practice, attempts to apply stat mech tools beyond physics tend to be pretty shallow and unsatisfying. This post was originally drafted to be the first in a sequence on "generalized statistical mechanics": stat mech, but presented in a way intended to generalize beyond the usual physics applications. The rest of the supposed sequence may or may not ever be written. In what follows, we present very roughly the formulation of stat mech given by Clausius, Maxwell and Boltzmann (though we have diverged substantially; we're not aiming for historical accuracy here) in a frame intended to make generalization to other fields relatively easy. We'll cover three main topics: Boltzmann's definition for entropy, and the derivation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics from that definition. Derivation of the thermodynamic efficiency bound for heat engines, as a prototypical example application. How to measure Boltzmann entropy functions experimentally (assuming the Second Law holds), with only access to macroscopic measurements. Entropy To start, let's give a Boltzmann-flavored definition of (physical) entropy. The "Boltzmann Entropy" SBoltzmann is the log number of microstates of a system consistent with a given macrostate. We'll use the notation: SBoltzmann(Y=y)=logN[X|Y=y] Where Y=y is a value of the macrostate, and X is a variable representing possible microstate values (analogous to how a random variable X would specify a distribution over some outcomes, and X=x would give one particular value from that outcome-space.) Note that Boltzmann entropy is a function of the macrostate. Different macrostates - i.e. different pressures, volumes, temperatures, flow fields, center-of-mass positions or momenta, etc - have different Boltzmann entropies. So for an ideal gas, for instance, we might write SBoltzmann(P,V,T), to indicate which variables constitute "the macrostate". Considerations for Generalization What hidden assumptions about the system does Boltzmann's definition introduce, which we need to pay attention to when trying to generalize to other kinds of applications? There's a division between "microstates" and "macrostates", obviously. As yet, we haven't done any derivations which make assumptions about those, but we will soon. The main three assumptions we'll need are: Microstates evolve reversibly over time. Macrostate at each time is a function of the microstate at that time. Macrostates evolve deterministically over time. Mathematically, we have some microstate which varies as a function of time, x(t), and some macrostate which is also a function of time, y(t). The first assumption says that x(t)=ft(x(t1)) for some invertible function ft. The second assumption says that y(t)=gt(x(t)) for some function gt. The third assumption says that y(t)=Ft(y(t1)) for some function Ft. The Second Law: Derivation The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy can never decrease over time, only increase. Let's derive that as a theorem for Boltzmann Entropy. Mathematically, we want to show: logN[X(t+1)|Y(t+1)=y(t+1)]logN[X(t)|Y(t)=y(t)] Visually, the proof works via this diagram: The arrows in the diagram show which states (micro/macro at t/t+1) are mapped to which other states by some function. Each of our three assumptions contributes one set of arrows: By assumption 1, microstate x(t) can be computed as a function of x(t+1) (i.e. no two microstates x(t) both evolve to the same later microstate x(t+1)). By assumption 2, macrostate y(t) can be comput...

In our first segment, we discuss the Montreal Canadiens game against the Tampa Bay Lightning, during which the Habs were officially mathematically eliminated from playoff contention. As is the case too many times with these teams, the officiating was the story of the game. In our second segment, we discuss Lane Hutson not being a finalist for the Honey Baker award for the second year in a row. Finally, we get into some mailbag questions, and ask ourselves, should the Canadiens trade for Jonathan Huberdeau? Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors!eBay MotorsFor parts that fit, head to eBay Motors and look for the green check. Stay in the game with eBay Guaranteed Fit at eBayMotos.com. Let's ride. eBay Guaranteed Fit only available to US customers. Eligible items only. Exclusions apply.IndeedIndeed knows when you're growing your own business, you have to make every dollar count. Visit Indeed.com/LOCKEDON to start hiring now. RobinhoodRobinhood has the only IRA that gives you a 3% boost on every dollar you contribute when you subscribe to Robinhood Gold. Now through April 30th, Robinhood is even boosting every single dollar you transfer in from other retirement accounts with a 3% match. Available to U.S. customers in good standing. Robinhood Financial LLC (member SIPC), is a registered broker dealer.SleeperDownload the Sleeper App and use promo code LOCKEDONNHL to get up to a $100 match on your first deposit. Terms and conditions apply. See Sleeper's Terms of Use for details.GametimeDownload the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDONNHLfor $20 off your first purchase.FanDuelNew customers, join today and you'll get TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS in BONUS BETS if your first bet of FIVE DOLLARS or more wins. Visit FanDuel.com/LOCKEDON to get started. FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN)

Mathematically, the Devils are still in the playoff race. But can they resurrect themselves?By Sam Woo http://JoinOurCrew.comhttps://pucksandpitchforks.comhttps://www.LetsGoDevils.comRATE, REVIEW, AND SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lets-go-devils-podcast/id1371371669#NJDevils #NHL #LetsGoDevils #LGD #Devils #NewJersey #NCAA #AHLBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/let-s-go-devils-podcast--2862943/support.

How does a high school dropout go on to earn a Ph.D. from the University Of Iowa and become the host of one of Apple Podcast's Top 15 shows on Management? Dr. Andrew Temte's mission is to Teach, Coach, Mentor, and Inspire, and today, the Scaling UP! H2O podcast is honored to feature him. In this transformative interview, Andrew discusses the foundational elements of building company culture, emphasizing that it starts with leadership. He shares valuable insights on why companies should prioritize defining their purpose before diving into marketing strategies. Additionally, Andrew explores the concept of leadership as stewardship and offers guidance on identifying core values while ensuring that everyone's voice is heard and valued. Discover the Value of People in Business: Emphasizing the importance of supporting and empowering employees, the conversation delves into how people are the most valuable asset in any organization. The need for leaders to embrace diversity of thought and opinion to create a culture where every voice is valued is highlighted. Explore Leadership Mindset: The transition from directive to non-directive leadership styles is discussed, emphasizing the importance of fostering an environment where diverse perspectives are welcomed and respected. Embrace a Stewardship Mindset: Advocating for adopting a stewardship mindset as a leader, the discussion focuses on the long-term success of both the business and its people, rather than personal power or ego. Learn about Compassionate Leadership: The concept of compassionate leadership is explored, which involves empathizing with employees and taking proactive steps to address their needs and concerns. Key Takeaway: Discover the importance of purpose and adopting a stewardship mindset, especially in cross-generational leadership, as highlighted in this insightful conversation. Everyone knows what it's like to work for a horrible boss, but what could your life look like if you had a great boss - one who viewed you as the greatest asset in the company, ensured everyone's voice was heard, and lived out the company values in their daily lives. A leader with empathy is what every team wants. If you're eager to enhance your leadership skills and empower yourself and your team in the water industry, join us to uncover essential insights on making your team flourish, regardless of the challenges you may face.   Timestamps 01:00 - Trace Blackmore welcomes you to the second quarter of 2024, a good time to review your goals and make a plan for the next quarter  07:00 - The Hang is coming up April 11, 2024 and Upcoming Events for Water Treatment Professionals  12:30 - Interview with Dr. Andrew Temte  48:00 - Lightning round questions 59:00 - Drop by Drop With James McDonald    Quotes “Values and behaviors go together like peanut butter and jelly. Values are the nouns that you are creating for the overall structure of what you want your business to be. Behaviors are the verbs, they are the actions, they are the ‘how' we should show up each day in the business. Don't shy away from that work, engage in that work, and pay it the attention that it's due.” - Dr. Andrew Temte  “Far too many leaders leave the business world and take all of their accumulated knowledge with them; maybe it gets disseminated to a small group of folks, maybe they do a little teaching and coaching on the side. I wanted to do something much bigger than that. I wanted to reach a much larger potential audience.” - Dr. Andrew Temte  “Go to the Gemba - where the work happens and how teams interact. Listen to the people who interact with your customers. Set your ego aside and go to where the work happens, and listen to where the work is going on.” - Dr. Andrew Temte  “As a leader, you need to create clarity. Clarity for everybody involved: your customers, your vendors, your people, your investors, your stakeholders.” - Dr. Andrew Temte  “As a compassionate leader, you need to hear the successes and the pain points across the organization.” - Dr. Andrew Temte  “Compassionate leadership is Empathy + Willingness and the ability to do something about it. You are putting yourself into the shoes of your people, and you are pledging to make their work better.” - Dr. Andrew Temte    Connect with Andrew Temte Phone: 608.385.9050 Email: andy@skillsowl.com Website: www.andrewtemte.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/atemte   Links Mentioned Skills Owl Add a link to Andy's podcast show, The Balancing Act Podcast Listen to Episode 109 of The Balancing Act Podcast with Trace Blackmore HERE  Podify Episode 4 with Charlie Cichetti The Rising Tide Mastermind Scaling UP! H2O Academy video courses Submit a Show Idea AWT (Association of Water Technologies)   Books Mentioned The Balanced Business: Building Organizational Trust and Accountability through Smooth Workflows by Andrew Temte Balancing Act: Teach Coach Mentor Inspire by Andrew Temte The 12 Week Year: Get More Done in 12 Weeks than Others Do in 12 Months by Brian P. Moran and Michael Lennington What the Heck Is EOS? by Gino Wickman and Tom Bouwer Traction: Get a Grip on Your Business by Gino Wickman Unmanaged: Master the Magic of Creating Empowered and Happy Organizations by Jack Skeels The NEW ROI: Return on Individuals by Dave Bookbinder The People Side of Lean Thinking by Robert Brown   2024 Events for Water Professionals Check out our Scaling UP! H2O Events Calendar where we've listed every event Water Treaters should be aware of by clicking HERE or using the dropdown menu.   Drop By Drop with James  Today's topic is Reverse Osmosis data normalization. Over time, RO membrane performance changes. The quality and quantity of permeate water produced and the energy required to produce it will vary.  In Episode 339, Jane Kucera, author of the book “Reverse Osmosis,” said, “There are six things that affect membrane performance:  fouling, scaling, membrane degradation, temperature, pressure, and concentration.”    I really like that succinct list: fouling, scaling, membrane degradation, temperature, pressure, and concentration. The impacts of each of these are interrelated and complex. Changes in one of them can either hide or exasperate the effects of another. For example, dropping temperature may reduce the permeate flow rate while increasing pressure may increase it, thus canceling out the effects of each.  This makes it next to impossible to determine the true performance of an RO system by simply looking at the raw data.    So, what's the solution? If we lived in the world of scifi, we could take today's RO membranes, put them into a time machine, activate the flux capacitor like in “Back to the Future,” travel back in time, and install those membranes in the RO machine at the same time they were started up, replaced, or even cleaned so you could measure how they would perform under the exact same conditions as the baseline. The same pressure, same temperature, and same water concentration. I keep saying the word “same,” but that is key here.  How would today's membranes perform in yesterday's machine under the same baseline conditions? Then you could eliminate the influences of changes in temperature, pressure, and concentration and figure out the real impacts of fouling, scaling, and membrane degradation. Simple, right? Now where did we put that flux capacitor? It's got to be around here somewhere. Oh, wait.  Flux capacitors don't actually exist yet. Dang it! Now what?    That's where normalization comes into play. Normalization is a fancy way of saying you are going to MATHEMATICALLY take those membranes back in time and adjust for changes in temperature, pressure, and concentration. This will allow you to make an apples-to-apples comparison of permeate flows by calculating the normalized permeate flow (NPF) of today to compare to the permeate flow at the baseline conditions.  The same goes for normalized pressure differential (NPD) and normalized salt rejection (NSR).  Your next logical question may be, “Well, where do I get these miraculous normalization equations?” While there are ASTM standards for such calculations, your easiest route is probably to visit your RO membrane manufacturer's website to download their normalization tool. It may be as simple as an Excel worksheet. If you manage an RO system, it is worth your time to learn how to use these tools to normalize your RO data so you know when it is time to clean the membranes and to find problems as they occur.   

It's an annual tradition that the Ducks don't want any part of. The annual tradition of being mathematically eliminated from the playoffs weeks before the end of the NHL season. JD Hernandez talks about what went wrong for the Ducks to get to this point again, and what changes need to be made. Also, we look at the Ducks' 6th consecutive loss to finish a winless road trip against the St. Louis Blues... and the lack of discipline costing the Ducks again.RobinhoodRobinhood has the only IRA that gives you a 3% boost on every dollar you contribute when you subscribe to Robinhood Gold. Now through April 30th, Robinhood is even boosting every single dollar you transfer in from other retirement accounts with a 3% match. Available to U.S. customers in good standing. Robinhood Financial LLC (member SIPC), is a registered broker dealer.SleeperDownload the Sleeper App and use promo code LOCKEDONNHL to get up to a $100 match on your first deposit. Terms and conditions apply. See Sleeper's Terms of Use for details.

The Detroit Red Wings ended their seven-game losing streak and are still in a dog fight for the final playoff spot in the Eastern Conference. Brian Fisher of Locked On Red Wings joins us to discuss the major differences between the team's play during their winning streak and losing streak and what it will take to reach the Stanley Cup Playoffs. The Minnesota Wild have points in their last four games (3-0-1) and their in a real fight for the final playoff spot in the West. Can veteran goalie Marc-Andre Fleury get them there? Seth Toupal of Locked On Wild joins us to discuss Fleury's latest milestone and what it will take for the Wild to reach the Stanely Cup Playoffs this season.The Anaheim Ducks lost their sixth straight and are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. But what lies ahead for the Ducks and what are some bright spots they can build upon?Jason Hernandez of Locked On Ducks joins us to discuss this and all things Ducks.All this and more on today's Locked On NHL Podcast with Gil Martin.Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors!eBay MotorsFor parts that fit, head to eBay Motors and look for the green check. Stay in the game with eBay Guaranteed Fit at eBayMotos.com. Let's ride. eBay Guaranteed Fit only available to US customers. Eligible items only. Exclusions apply.IndeedIndeed knows when you're growing your own business, you have to make every dollar count. Visit Indeed.com/LOCKEDON to start hiring now. RobinhoodRobinhood has the only IRA that gives you a 3% boost on every dollar you contribute when you subscribe to Robinhood Gold. Now through April 30th, Robinhood is even boosting every single dollar you transfer in from other retirement accounts with a 3% match. Available to U.S. customers in good standing. Robinhood Financial LLC (member SIPC), is a registered broker dealer.SleeperDownload the Sleeper App and use promo code LOCKEDONNHL to get up to a $100 match on your first deposit. Terms and conditions apply. See Sleeper's Terms of Use for details.GametimeDownload the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDON for $20 off your first purchase.FanDuelNew customers, join today and you'll get TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS in BONUS BETS if your first bet of FIVE DOLLARS or more wins. Visit FanDuel.com/LOCKEDON to get started. FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN)

So I took my level of danger to a new level by engaging in the Sheepdog Response Protector Course and I tell you all about how not bad ass I am. Plus I clear up some issues people are having with my prior comments on training. Dude. An incredibly small percentage of people who listen to show are not subscribed. Please do that. Mathematically zero people subscribe and engage with my YouTube page so go do that. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtUpQZF2a02K2EoGEDDxcfQ Thank you to South of the Border - https://www.southoftheborder.com/?gad_source=1 1st detachment - https://1stdetachment.com/mike10 Bet Online - https://www.betonline.ag If you're interested in more detailed assistance, my patreon is here for you https://www.patreon.com/user?u=2666345&fan_landing=true

This is a recap of the top 10 posts on Hacker News on February 28th, 2024.This podcast was generated by wondercraft.ai(00:37): The Era of 1-bit LLMs: ternary parameters for cost-effective computingOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39535800&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(02:17): Why I use FirefoxOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39537543&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(04:06): Look, ma, no matricesOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39538670&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(05:52): 'Mathematically perfect' star system being investigated for potential alien techOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39538425&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(07:44): HDMI Forum Rejects Open-Source HDMI 2.1 Driver Support Sought by AMDOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39543291&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(09:25): SymPy: Symbolic Mathematics in PythonOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39537448&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(11:05): Pingora: build fast, reliable and programmable networked systemsOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39535969&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(12:49): MicroZig: Unified abstraction layer and HAL for Zig on several microcontrollersOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39540886&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(14:19): Intel puts 1nm process (10A) on the roadmap for 2027Original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39538526&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(16:00): How The Pentagon learned to use targeted ads to find its targetsOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39540738&utm_source=wondercraft_aiThis is a third-party project, independent from HN and YC. Text and audio generated using AI, by wondercraft.ai. Create your own studio quality podcast with text as the only input in seconds at app.wondercraft.ai. Issues or feedback? We'd love to hear from you: team@wondercraft.ai

In today's flashback, an outtake from Episode 29, my conversation with author Ben Loory. It first aired on December 25, 2011. Loory is the author of the story collections Tales of Falling and Flying and Stories for Nighttime and Some for the Day, and a picture book for children, The Baseball Player and the Walrus. His stories have appeared in The New Yorker, Tin House, READ Magazine, and Fairy Tale Review; been heard on This American Life and Selected Shorts; performed live at WordTheatre in Los Angeles and London; and translated into many languages, including Japanese, Farsi, Arabic, and Indonesian. A graduate of Harvard and the American Film Institute, Loory lives in Los Angeles, where he is an Instructor for the UCLA Extension Writers' Program. *** Otherppl with Brad Listi is a weekly literary podcast featuring in-depth interviews with today's leading writers. Available where podcasts are available: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, etc. Subscribe to Brad Listi's email newsletter. Support the show on Patreon Merch @otherppl Instagram  TikTok Email the show: letters [at] otherppl [dot] com The podcast is a proud affiliate partner of Bookshop, working to support local, independent bookstores. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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: On coincidences and Bayesian reasoning, as applied to the origins of COVID-19, published by viking math on February 19, 2024 on LessWrong. (Or: sometimes heuristics are no substitute for a deep dive into all of the available information). This post is a response to Roko's recent series of posts (Brute Force Manufactured Consensus is Hiding the Crime of the Century, The Math of Suspicious Coincidences, and A Back-Of-The-Envelope Calculation On How Unlikely The Circumstantial Evidence Around Covid-19 Is); however, I made a separate post for a few reasons. I think it's in-depth enough to warrant its own post, rather than making comments It contains content that is not just a direct response to these posts It's important, because those posts seem to have gotten a lot of attention and I think they're very wrong. Additional note: Much of this information is from the recent Rootclaim debate; if you've already seen that, you may be familiar with some of what I'm saying. If you haven't, I strongly recommend it. Miller's videos have fine-grained topic timestamps, so you can easily jump to sections that you think are most relevant. The use of coincidences in Bayesian reasoning A coincidence, in this context, is some occurrence that is not impossible or violates some hypothesis, but is a priori unlikely because it involves 2 otherwise unrelated things actually occurring together or with some relationship. For example, suppose I claimed to shuffle a deck of cards, but when you look at it, it is actually in some highly specific order; it could be 2 through Ace of spades, then clubs, hearts, and diamonds. The probability of this exact ordering, like any specific ordering, is 1/52! from a truly random shuffle. Of course, by definition, every ordering is equally likely. However, there is a seeming order to this shuffle which should be rare among all orderings. In order to formalize our intuition, we would probably rely on some measure of "randomness" or some notion related to entropy, and note that most orderings have a much higher value on this metric than ours. Of course, a few other orderings are similarly rare (e.g. permuting the order of suits, or maybe having all 2s, then all 3s, etc. each in suit order) but probably only a few dozen or a few hundred. So we say that "the probability of a coincidence like this one" is < 1000/52!, which is still fantastically tiny, and thus we have strong evidence that the deck was not shuffled randomly. On the other hand, maybe I am an expert of sleight of hand and could easily sort the deck, say with probability 10%. Mathematically, we could say something like P(Shuffled deck|Measured randomness)=P(Shuffled deck)(1000/52!)(1000/52!+0.10) And similarly for the alternative hypothesis, that I manipulated the shuffle. On the other hand, we might have a much weaker coincidence. For example, we could see a 4 of the same value in a row somewhere in the deck, which has probability about 1/425 (assuming https://www.reddit.com/r/AskStatistics/comments/m1q494/what_are_the_chances_of_finding_4_of_a_kind_in_a/ is correct). This is weird, but if you shuffled decks of cards on a regular basis, you would find such an occurrence fairly often. If you saw such a pattern on a single draw, you might be suspicious that the dealer were a trickster, but not enough to overcome strong evidence that the deck is indeed random (or even moderate evidence, depending on your prior). However, if we want to know the probability of some coincidence in general, that's more difficult, since we haven't defined what "some coincidence" is. For example, we could list all easily-describable patterns that we might find, and say that any pattern with a probability of at most 1/100 from a given shuffle is a strange coincidence. So if we shuffle the deck and find such a coincidence, what's...

In today's episode of the PT on ICE Daily Show, ICE Chief Executive Officer Jeff Moore discusses how friction opposes the momentum of starting a business but offers different solutions on how to overcome the initial friction encountered when starting.  Take a listen to the podcast episode or check out the full show notes on our blog at www.ptonice.com/blog. If you're looking to learn more about courses designed to start your own practice, check out our Brick by Brick practice management course or our online physical therapy courses, check out our entire list of continuing education courses for physical therapy including our physical therapy certifications by checking out our website. Don't forget about all of our FREE eBooks, prebuilt workshops, free CEUs, and other physical therapy continuing education on our Resources tab. EPISODE TRANSCRIPTION INTRODUCTION Hey everyone, this is Alan. Chief Operating Officer here at ICE. Before we get started with today's episode, I want to talk to you about VersaLifts. Today's episode is brought to you by VersaLifts. Best known for their heel lift shoe inserts, VersaLifts has been a leading innovator in bringing simple but highly effective rehab tools to the market. If you have clients with stiff ankles, Achilles tendinopathy, or basic skeletal structure limitations keeping them from squatting with proper form and good depth, a little heel lift can make a huge difference. VersaLifts heel lifts are available in three different sizes and all of them add an additional half inch of h drop to any training shoe, helping athletes squat deeper with better form. Visit www.vlifts.com/icephysio or click the link in today's show notes to get your VersaLifts today. JEFF MOORE All right, team, what is up? Welcome back to the PT on ICE Daily Show. My name is Dr. Jeff Moore, currently serving as the CEO of Ice, and always thrilled to be on the Daily Show, Mike, and always happy to be here on a Leadership Thursday that is a Gut Check Thursday. As always, let's start with the workout. It's gonna be a little bit rough. We got five rounds for time. It's just a simple couplet, but there's no rest to be found. The workout is five rounds for time, you are gonna do 30 calories for the gents, 25 calories for the gals on the rower, and then you're gonna do 15 burpees over that same rower. and you're simply going to, I say simply, but ouch, going to repeat that for five rounds, okay? So thinking a little bit about time domain as always, you got to think about maybe that row is going to take you what? Maybe up on two minutes and then a little bit over a minute for those burpees. So a great target would be 15 minutes. Try to keep it inside of 20. I think that would be a reasonable goal for the workout. It was a qualifier workout. It's gonna hurt. The heart rate's gonna be peaked. There's just nowhere to hide during those five rounds. So enjoy that. Make sure you're tagging Ice Physio. Make sure you hit Gut Check Thursday with that hashtag. It's so fun for us to be able to follow along with you. So enjoy that workout today. "IS IT WORTH IT?"Let's talk about friction in your business. Specifically, Let's talk about friction coefficients and how it relates to your business. So I get to talk to a lot of people who are in the process of starting up their companies, kind of in that early phase, okay? And many of them engage with me when they're in the harder part of that phase, right? Where they're starting to wonder, is this worth it? Like maybe the excitement of starting something new and all the fervor that comes along with that has legitimately turned into the daily grind and some real questions about, is this going to turn over? Is this going to catch some momentum? Is this gonna work? Are really starting to come to the forefront? Is the ROI there? The first thing I want to say is don't shame yourself. If you're in these shoes, don't shame yourself for asking that question. I think that this latest generation of business gurus, this mantra of everything is going to work as long as you keep going is the most ridiculous mantra of all time. That makes absolutely no sense. I can list off an innumerable people who have hit dead ends and pivoted and had drastic levels of success because they were willing to say, this route, the way I went about it, this approach, this area doesn't make as much sense. Now that I've seen around the corner a bit, that does not make sense. I'm going to pivot. I'm going to pull back. I'm going to redirect. And those people have a huge amount of success. So don't feel like It's not logical or you're less than because you're asking the question, is it gonna be worth it? It isn't always. That being said, if you've hit that spot and you've thought, is it worth it? Do I really wanna be in this space? And the answer is a hell yes. You say, I love serving these people. I know it's what I'm called to do. I know I bring some unique value to this area. I know that I've got something to share in this space. I wanna keep going. I want this to work. If that's you, then I want to share with you what I think is both an accurate and helpful analogy from physics that correlates beautifully with the business journey. OVERCOMING FRICTION So, in physics, If we can get you to think way back, right? When an object is stationary and you want to move it, to do so, you have to overcome static friction, right? And this is really hard. You know this because you've encountered it in plenty of places on a daily basis, maybe even in your workout. So if you're in the gym and you're trying to push a box, right, you're trying to do box pushes across the floor. You can all picture how agonizing that is. You know the worst part is getting the box started, right? It's that initial setting into motion. Once the box is sliding across the ground, I'm not saying it's easier, but it's certainly better, right? The same is true for plate pushes. Like when the 45 pound plate is on the ground and you're trying to push it across the floor, it's getting it started that's the absolute worst. Keeping it moving isn't nearly as hard. Mathematically, The reason for that is that the coefficient of static friction is larger than the coefficient of kinetic friction, right? When you're doing equations, the thing you multiply the forces against is larger when you're talking about static friction, things that are not yet in motion. Now, you don't have to, if you're not a math person, you don't need to gravitate towards that part of the conversation. It's best illustrated visually probably that, let's imagine that you had two hand saws, okay? We're talking about like the saw that you would cut a Christmas tree down with, right? Let's say this is one hand saw. These are all the teeth of the hand saw. This is the other hand saw, okay? So you're putting teeth to teeth on these two hand saws, yeah? Like this, okay. If they're sitting stationary, the one on the top, settles into the one at the bottom, right? And they've been sitting there for a while. And now you wanna move the top saw relative to the bottom saw. This is gonna be tough, right? Because you've gotta break all of that and get things moving. However, once the top saw is moving across the bottom saw, as long as there's decent speed here, there's not enough time for the top saw to sink and settle into the bottom saw. Thus, you kind of click across the top significantly easier than it was to break that original static bond. Once something is in motion, it's not settled into the other object. Keeping it in motion is not nearly as hard. Team getting a company going and keeping a company going is the exact same scenario. BUSINESS IS PHYSICSThe business rules follow the physical world. It's why we use all the same terminology all the time, right? How often do we say, oh, it's an uphill battle, right? I've got the wind at my back. We've got momentum, right? Momentum. We're talking physics all the time because the same mechanics happen. They're in different environments, but the same terminology, the same laws apply. Okay, so if what we're saying is, you gotta get some speed going, because that is significantly easier once built up to keep it going, well, what do we mean by the speed of our business? We gotta break that down, because that's where the action item lives for today. So, the speed of your business, getting the saw moving over the other saw, is best looked at as a compilation or an aggregate or a sum of the speed of all the different parts of your business. And this is where it can get actionable. First of all, appreciate that at the beginning, they all start at zero. They are settled into one another. Each part of your business has to break the static friction to get things into motion. For example, idea or concept generation, right? The hardest thing is thinking of that first original concept that's paradigm shifting. It's got static friction. It's hard to create that first great idea. But once you do it, once a unique and valuable concept has been created, building off of it seems effortless, right? Then it's like, once you've done that, you're like, oh, now we should do this, and now this opportunity becomes available. Once you get that first great original idea, Building off of it seems effortless. Team building has significant static friction. Think about it. People want to join a great culture. Well, you need a team to have a culture. So in the beginning, there is no culture, which is why there's so much static friction to team building. But once you get a couple great people on board, they naturally attract a bunch of other great people. Once the saw is moving, it's really easy to keep it moving. You just got to get it moving. It's all about finding those first couple people that will then attract other great people almost effortlessly. ATTRACTING BUSINESS IS OVERCOMING STATIC FRICTION Attracting consumers or customers has significant static friction. Think about when you walk by a restaurant and there's nobody in there. Do you want to be the first people to go in, especially if you're not familiar with the area? Absolutely not. But once there's a few people in there and they seem to be having a good time, other people just naturally come in. Why do you think happy hour is always so discounted, right? People want their restaurants to look full and bustling, so people will come in and actually have dinner. That's what draws them in. Consumers attracting them has significant static friction. When there's none, it's hard to get one. But once you have a few, it's easy to keep the saw blades moving. This is how I want you to think about your business. And your action item is to realize that you can get each of these going, or any of these going, and the beauty of getting them going is you can use them to nudge the other one. This is where you got to get clinical with it, right? So when you've got that box for that box push that you know is going to be tough to get moving, right? The best, the hack would be, could there be another moving box that you could slam into this one just to break that static friction? So then you could then push it from there once it's already in motion. The answer in business is yes. You could choose any of those boxes if you will. Idea generation, team building, attracting consumers. Those are all individual physics scenarios that you could focus on and get one of those in motion and I promise you it'll ram into the next one. If you break the static friction of team building and you get a couple of great people, I promise you, you'll get more great ideas, right? So that one box that's now moving will slam into the other box and you won't have to do quite so much work to break the static friction of the other one. So you can use success or momentum in any of these individual areas to nudge into the other one and make it easier to get it into motion. FINDING THE LOWEST BARRIER TO ENTRY IN BUSINESS TO BUILD MOMENTUM The key then is to figure out which one for your business has the lowest barrier of entry. Which box, if you will, can you get moving the easiest? Is it team building? Is it attracting consumers and getting social proof? What area in your business can you get moving so it can slam into the other boxes and get them moving for you without quite as heavy of a lift? That's what I want you to really think on today. Before I let you go though, there's a couple other thoughts that go along with this topic that I've got to share, especially because I think they give you a lot of hope. And the first one is, you only do this once, in most cases. There's exceptions, things happen. But in most cases, you only get it going, if you will. You only get the box moving or the saw blades rubbing. You only do it once. Once you've got momentum, once you've got speed, once you're only dealing with kinetic friction, you just keep it moving, right? You don't have to start and stop again. So realize that if you're feeling like, my gosh, this is a heavy lift, it gets lighter, because the boxes, once moving, are easier, but they also slam into each other, and overall, the momentum builds and it does get easier. You don't have to keep facing that your entire career. So if that's you and you're in that spot, hold onto that. And number two, to get even more exciting, to think a little bit bigger this morning, soon, it's not that one component of your business bumps into the next one. A couple of years down the road, what begins to happen is your businesses begin to bump into each other, right? If you're playing this game right, if you've got one business that's really humming, Oftentimes, that can help to create an offshoot business that doesn't have nearly as much labor required to break the bonds of static friction because you have so many resources from the first one. So pretty soon, what you realize in the game of business is that every time you create, it's a little bit less effort and a little bit more impact. If you're watching this and resonating, you're probably at the hardest part right now. But if you can think about how to use one box to bang into the other, you can get this thing moving. If you can realize that you only have to do it once, hopefully that can help you have the effort you need to build the speed. If you can really dream and realize that soon one of these lifts can make all the other ones happen almost for free, you can realize this game becomes, you never want to say effortless, but you do want to say a return on investment that you probably never imagined. when you were first starting off and maybe sitting right now in a bit of a tough trough looking at a big mountain, right? The top is brighter than you could ever imagine. So think a little bit about how the physics of friction in your business work together and think about the upside of that, not just how hard it is to get that damn box started to begin with. I hope that gives you a little bit of hope this morning on Leadership Thursday. Team, There are so many courses going on. I'm in Reno, Nevada right now. I'm doing all the logistics for Ice Sampler. Ice Sampler is sold out for this year. It's been sold out for a long time. Those of you coming to the event, this is going to be an absolute banger. Carson City is so beautiful. The gym is so beautiful. Carson City CrossFit. So if you're coming to Sampler, get excited for that. Other than that, we have some online courses that are almost sold out. Essential Foundations Level 1 only has a handful of seats left. We are more than half sold out for Pelvic Level 1, which starts in March. Point is, a lot of these online courses, especially, are selling out like crazy. So get on ptinex.com, jump in, grab what you need, get it done, break that static friction. Cheers, team. Have an awesome day. OUTRO Hey, thanks for tuning in to the PT on Ice daily show. If you enjoyed this content, head on over to iTunes and leave us a review, and be sure to check us out on Facebook and Instagram at the Institute of Clinical Excellence. If you're interested in getting plugged into more ice content on a weekly basis while earning CEUs from home, check out our virtual ice online mentorship program at ptonice.com. While you're there, sign up for our Hump Day Hustling newsletter for a free email every Wednesday morning with our top five research articles and social media posts that we think are worth reading. Head over to ptonice.com and scroll to the bottom of the page to sign up.  

The Trek Bois try their hardest not to just repeat the great jokes from this episode while wrestling with the ultimate question - is Peanut Hamper lovable? Or love to hateable? Or hate to lovable? Tune in to find out! This is the final episode of Sully's "Prime Directive Defective Collection" as chosen by and voted on our patrons! You can join in and tell us what to watch by becoming a patron today! SUPPORT US ON PATREON WITH YOUR LATINUM! - www.patreon.com/mclasspodcast Need info about the show? Find it at www.mclasspodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: @MClassPodcast And/or follow our personal accounts: @_JeffPennington @henderson1983

Fresh off the bye week the Raiders are ready to take on the Minnesota Vikings and host Evan Groat is ready to talk about it this week on Just Pod Baby.  The main topic of the show is, what to look for in the final five games of the season.  Mathematically the Raiders season is still alive but getting to the playoffs will require something very special by Las Vegas in the next five games.  In segment two, Matthew Coller who covers the Vikings for PurpleInsider.com joins the show to discuss his new book, "Football Is A Numbers Game" and helps to preview the Vikings.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mathematically, more young people will choose careers in secular fields than in ministry. Which is how it should be! In the conclusion of their three part series, Kyle and Derek take a look at how students can prep for a career in a secular field, and how God has still called them to be a part of the Body of Christ.

Season 15, Episode 7: We've reached the stage of the World Cup where very few teams have been eliminated yet it is the four who are currently in the semi-final positions who would need to trip up badly to not feature in the big games in a few weeks from now. England are one of those - their last week was even worse than the one before, which really took some doing. After all that, we take a look some off-field bits and pieces, including CA's annual report, a massive Tasmanian run chase, and tip our lids to an umpiring great. Your Nerd Pledge number this week: 6.17 - Prathamesh Deshpande Support the show with a Nerd Pledge at patreon.com/thefinalword Sign up to learn about all the Lord's Taverners projects at bit.ly/tavssignup Find previous episodes at finalwordcricket.com Title track by Urthboy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

JMM Storytelling Event: minoritymath.org/storytellingNational Diversity in STEM Conference (SACNAS): sacnas.orgNSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP): https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2023/nsf23605/nsf23605.htm Connect with Mathematically Uncensored:Email: mu@minoritymath.orgTwitter: @MathUncensoredWebsite: minoritymath.org/mathematically-uncensored

Olympic Champion, Hashimoto Daiki, got 2-per-countried out of the all-around final, but he's competing anyway! Germany beat China The U.S. Mathematically qualified to the Olympics Carlos Yulo fell on vault and got a zero meaning he will not compete in the all around. Website: neutraldeductions.com Email: neutraldeductions@gmail.com --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/neutral-deductions/support

- I AM THE NOISE T-SHIRT: https://www.bonfire.com/i-am-the-noise/ - SUBSCRIBE TO OUR PODCAST: http://cornerofthegalaxy.com/subscribe/ - COG LA GALAXY DISCORD: https://discord.gg/drr9HFZY2P COG STUDIOS, Calif. -- The LA Galaxy have one of the season's biggest games on Saturday night. Will the rain hold off? Or will the Galaxy's playoff hopes come crashing down along with the raindrops? Hosts Josh Guesman and Eric Vieira discuss the Galaxy's chances of coming out on top against a red-hot Portland side. And with Riqui Puig questionable, Douglas Costa probable, and Chris Mavinga out, will the Galaxy have enough difference-makers to make their final case? Chief Creative and Brand Officer Will Misselbrook will also join the guys. Will and the guys will discuss the Galaxy's brand and why he thinks he can bring it back to the spotlight! Mathematically, the Galaxy won't be eliminated on Saturday with a loss. But with such a small window to get to the playoffs, it would be hard to pretend they could make it without a win against Portland. Who will play significant roles against Portland? And why is it anyone's guess about how this team progresses through the final five games? We've got a bunch to talk about and get to! So don't miss it! Join us as we get you ready for Portland!

Trace Fowler hosts Friday's Off The Bench. Topics include: The Cincinnati Reds being Mathematically alive still after the rain delay in the Marlins game. Thursday Night Football Lions take care of business and become top CAT in the NFC North. The OTB Crew talks about Bengals Football and the 5 things that need to happen in order for them to pick up the win in Nashville. BUY or SELL NFL Week 4 Edition. They make their weekly picks and wrap up the show.

Fish Creek artist and gallery owner Sophie Parr on creating more than one hundred 0.5"-to-the-mile maps using aerial imagery and a 0.2mm-tip pen, why she only accepts 2x2" commissions (while working on her own 2x3 ft. map of Chicago), representing a variety of landscapes within the constraints of black ink, when returning a client's deposit feels so good, why she won't work in color, how discipline will get you farther than enthusiasm, curating other artists' work to exhibit in her Door County gallery, and how often she hears “I have never seen anyone do something like this.” See her work at mapsbysophie.com Sophie's Instagram Visit her gallery in Ellison Bay, WI Madison, WI: 22x33" (four hours of drawing per day for 35 days) Lower Manhattan Washington D.C. Thun, Switzerland Custom-maps-for-retailers wholesale program Ed Fairburn Cam Ojeda Need maps for your org's reports, decks, walls and events? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Map Consultancy makes real nice maps, real fast.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ See what good maps can do for you at themapconsultancy.com I have three words for you: Big. Glowing. Maps. Depending on how that makes you feel, you might like two more words: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Radiant Maps⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. See ultra-detailed backlit maps at radiantmaps.co Time for some map gifts: get 15% off woven map blankets and backlit map decor with code 15OFF, everything ships free – ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.etsy.com/shop/RadiantMaps?coupon=15OFF

From June 25, 2009. Why was there a difference between the amount of matter and antimatter at the beginning of the Universe? Mathematics lets us travel faster than light speed, so why can't we? And are there stars forming around black holes?   - Why was there a difference between the amount of matter and antimatter at the beginning of the Universe? Do black holes have something to do with this? - Mathematically, we can have a velocity greater than the speed of lights lets us travel faster than light speed, so why can't we? - Can stars form in accretion disks around black holes? - How much precision is needed to keep space telescopes focused on one spot?  I have a hard enough time keeping my camera steady! - How can matter exist with antimatter? - What causes sunspots and do they influence Earth in any way? - How do we know what the speed of light is?  How can we measure something that fast and how did scientists figure that out? - Would life as we know it be able to survive around a Red Dwarf? - Could matter escape from the event horizon of two black holes colliding? - Why is it so bright in the center of the galaxy with a black hole there? - What is behind a black hole?   We've added a new way to donate to 365 Days of Astronomy to support editing, hosting, and production costs.  Just visit: https://www.patreon.com/365DaysOfAstronomy and donate as much as you can! Share the podcast with your friends and send the Patreon link to them too!  Every bit helps! Thank you! ------------------------------------ Do go visit http://www.redbubble.com/people/CosmoQuestX/shop for cool Astronomy Cast and CosmoQuest t-shirts, coffee mugs and other awesomeness! http://cosmoquest.org/Donate This show is made possible through your donations.  Thank you! (Haven't donated? It's not too late! Just click!) ------------------------------------ The 365 Days of Astronomy Podcast is produced by the Planetary Science Institute. http://www.psi.edu Visit us on the web at 365DaysOfAstronomy.org or email us at info@365DaysOfAstronomy.org.

Mathematically there has to be the best thief and the worst thief. Moe almost definitely might have seen the worst thief in Greece.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ralph welcomes Abigail Disney, to discuss her work trying to get her namesake's company to pay their workers a fair, livable wage as told in her documentary, “The American Dream: And Other Fairy Tales.” Plus, Erica Payne cofounder of The Patriotic Millionaires and co-author of “Tax The Rich!” returns to update us on their latest work educating ordinary Americans about how they can advocate for a fairer tax system.Abigail Disney is a social activist, philanthropist, and an Emmy-winning documentary filmmaker. She is also Chair and Co-Founder of Level Forward, an ecosystem of storytellers, entrepreneurs, and social change-makers dedicated to balancing artistic vision, social impact, and stakeholder return. She also created the nonprofit Peace is Loud, which uses storytelling to advance social movements, and the Daphne Foundation, which supports organizations working for a more equitable, fair, and peaceful New York City. She is Co-Founder of Fork Films, a nonfiction media production company, which produces original documentaries and the podcast All Ears. Her latest film, which she co-directed with Kathleen Hughes, is The American Dream and Other Fairy Tales.Heirs and heiresses have gotten into a lot of trouble down the years trying to impose their will on the world. I think that my job, if I have one, is to impose the will of the world on wealthy people instead of the other way around.Abigail DisneyWe need to reinvigorate the IRS, we need to reinvigorate OSHA, we need to reinvigorate the NLRB and the other referees that have been made anemic by the constant assault of budget cuts.Abigail DisneyIt is amazing to me that, as this far rightwing guy, [Roy Disney] would never have treated his workers in a million years the way that the CEO at the time—Bob Iger, who was toying with running for president as a Democrat—was treating them on the regular. And that was the total capture of the entire American political spectrum by an idea about work and working that was the inverse—in a relatively short period of time— of what my grandfather was doing as a matter of course.Abigail DisneyErica Payne is the founder and president of Patriotic Millionaires, an organization of high-net-worth individuals that aims to restructure America's political economy to suit the needs of all Americans. Their work includes advocating for a highly progressive tax system, a livable minimum wage, and equal political representation for all citizens. She is the co-author, with Morris Pearl, of Tax the Rich: How Lies, Loopholes and Lobbyists Make the Rich Even Richer.As far as I can tell, the billionaire class bought up the entire Republican Party and a sufficient number of Democrats that they got a stranglehold on this economy. What they basically created is a system that guarantees we become more unequal more quickly over time, they destabilize the entire country, they threaten democratic capitalism around the world…Mathematically, there's absolutely no direction this country can go in other than more unequal. And we're looking at a game of economic Jenga, where we're basically pulling money out of the bottom and the middle and putting it on the top and the whole thing's in the process of collapsing.Erica PayneIf they are talking to you about something other than money, they are stealing your money. So the next time someone is talking to you about abortion, or transgender rights, or critical race theory, or any of these other things, you can rest assured that these politicians on the back end are stealing your money.Erica PayneI'm glad you mentioned Reagan, because I think liberals and progressives underestimate the gigantic impact this cruel man with a smile had on the culture with his market fundamentalism.Ralph NaderWe are excited to announce a book giveaway featuring "Tax the Rich!: How Lies, Loopholes, and Lobbyists Make the Rich Even Richer" by Erica Payne and Morris Pearl. To participate, simply click this email link and provide your full name, address (including city, state, and zip code). Please note that the giveaway is limited to one copy per person or household. We have a total of thirty books available, which will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. Act fast to secure your copy and uncover the truths behind wealth inequality. In Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeStantis1. As the reinvigorated Teamsters union engages in a massive contract renegotiation with UPS, the labor group has announced they scored a major victory – elimination of 22.4, the “two-tier” system, meaning “all drivers currently classified under the 22.4 system would be reclassified immediately to Regular Package Car Drivers, placed in seniority, and have their pay adjusted to the appropriate RPCD rate.” The two-tier system has been a central issue for organized labor in recent years, and a catalyst for the proliferation of a more militant labor movement.2. For the past six years, the Department of Energy has been attempting to clean up a “highly radioactive” spill near the Columbia River in Washington State. Now, the Tri-City Herald reports that the spill is “both deeper and broader than anticipated.” The Energy Department is already quoted saying “the soil beneath the 324 Building is so radioactively hot that it would be lethal to a worker on direct contact within two minutes.”3. Amid a slew of reactionary decisions, the Supreme Court somehow made the right call in a major case. In a 5-4 decision, led by Gorsuch, the Court ruled in Mallory v. Norfolk that “Pennsylvania's law establishing personal jurisdiction over a corporation through mandatory registration does NOT violate due process,” Mark Joseph Stern reports. The full opinion is available here.4. The membership of the Screen Actors Guild have already voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike, yet union president Fran Drescher seems to be merely using that vote as leverage to demand concessions from the studios. In response, Rolling Stone reports that over 300 actors – including household names like Meryl Streep, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and Quinta Brunson – sent a public letter urging against compromise with the studios in the face of major threats like AI. The letter ends by saying “For our union and its future, this is our moment. We hope that, on our behalf, you will meet that moment and not miss it.”5. A major new report by Good Jobs First found that major corporate polluters in Michigan have been exploiting an anti-pollution subsidy in the state for decades. Just since 2010, corporations like GM, Ford, and Stellantis have cheated the Michigan treasury of $2.2 billion. As the group notes, the first step to addressing this corporate welfare crisis is “A proper accounting of which communities are losing how much money.”6. The New York Times reports that, as a result of corrupt dealings within the Department of Education, New York City schoolchildren were fed chicken tenders containing pieces of metal and plastic. This serves as a sobering reminder of the real-world impacts of corporate capture and corruption.7. In Korea, embattled extreme Right-wing president Yoon Suk Yeol – who, among other dangerous proposals has sought to resurrect the country's nuclear weapons program – is seeking to crackdown on the country's unions. In response, the Korea Herald reports that the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions will hold two weeks of sustained strikes intended to drive Yoon from office. Between 400,000 and half a million workers are expected to participate.8. The “Greedflation” theory – which contends the recent spate of inflation is due to corporate profit seeking rather than a tight labor market – has won a major backer: the International Monetary Fund, or IMF. A new report on inflation in Europe published by the international finance agency found that profits account for no less than 45% of price rises since 2022. Import costs accounted for another 40%. This is a stunning finding for a group that typically does everything in its power to aid multinational capital.9. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has announced some major wins from the recent state legislative sessions, including defending Washington State's capital gains tax and blocking a regressive package of tax cuts in Kansas. If he were dead, Grover Norquist would be rolling in his grave. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

If you're not familiar with Pareto's Law, here's what it simply is:  Mathematically, the 80/20 rule is roughly described by a power law distribution (also known as a Pareto distribution) for a particular set of parameters. So how does this apply to life?  In sales, 20% of the people make 80% of the money.  In life, 20% of the population controls 80% of the awesomeness.  But there's a law around generosity in there.  I give 80% more than I take.  I write 10-15 thousand words every single day.  About 20% of the people see it and come our way.  I don't ask for much.  And you should be the same way, too.  Most people live life on the taking side.  The key is to give much more than you take.  Those who have given the most, have left the planet making the biggest impact.  Martin Luther King Jr.  Jesus.  Both were not the richest men.  But when you start to give and feel the fulfillment of filling people up, the Universe sees it and rewards you.  Give 80% without expectation. You'll receive 10-fold in return.  That's the lesson for the day!  #RiseAbove    HOW TO GET INVOLVED:  This planet is based on an algorithm and with every positive action, there is an adverse reaction.  Ryan Stewman rose and overcame a life of addiction, imprisonment, divorce, and circumstances that would break the spirit of the average human being.  He went on to create a powerful network of winners and champions in life and business creating a movement quickly changing lives one day at a time.  Learn more at: www.JoinTheApex.com   Check out this show and previous killer episodes of the ReWire Podcast in Apple Podcasts.

Making, recording, and evaluating predictions is a simple way to improve your thinking and decision-making. But the way to properly make and record predictions isn't obvious. In this article, I'll share some predictions I've made, what I've learned, and how you can improve your thinking by making predictions. Making predictions has grown my business Five years ago, I had been running my business for ten years, and it wasn't going great. Then, I started publishing monthly income reports, and along the way, making predictions. My income has nearly doubled, and I attribute much of that success to my habit of making predictions. I began by predicting how much money I'd make in a product launch, and grew to predicting how much traffic articles I had written would gain, and how many copies books I'd written would sell. I now routinely make predictions for things as seemingly mundane as whether I'll enjoy a conference, whether I'll still be publishing on TikTok a year from now, or whether an avocado is ripe. On the surface, making predictions seems like a pointless game. This is, indeed, true of making predictions the wrong way. But making predictions the right way helps you deal with uncertainty you otherwise have no hope of handling. Predictions help you bet your life, better Each of us has limited resources, such as time, money, and mental energy. We're constantly making decisions about how to use these resources, and when we make those decisions, we are expecting outcomes. If we go on this date, will we find the love of our life, or wish we'd stayed in? If we write this book, will we achieve fame and fortune, or feel as if we've wasted years of our life? If we spend an hour on social media, will we make valuable connections, or spiral into self-hatred over our lack of discipline? As Annie Duke, author of Thinking in Bets wrote: In most of our decisions, we are not betting against another person. Rather, we are betting against all the future versions of ourselves that we are not choosing. —Annie Duke, Thinking in Bets Each decision we make is a bet. We bet a resource, and expect something in return. Most of us don't recognize or express the expectations of our bets. But we should. Some bets are clearer than others If you bet a dollar on a coin flip and only win $1.50 for guessing correctly, you'd easily recognize that as an unfair bet: There's a 50% chance of guessing correctly, so you clearly should receive two dollars. But the more variable the odds, and the more vague your wager and winnings, the more difficult it becomes to think clearly. What's the value of finding the love of your life? What other benefits can you get writing a book besides fame and fortune? What are the chances that during this hour of social media you'll make a life-changing discovery? Making objective decisions taking into account all these variables becomes so complicated you might as well throw up your hands, surrender to randomness, and do what feels right in the moment. And that's what most of us do. Case in point: The multi-billion-dollar gambling industry, propped up by people doing what feels right in the moment – their decision-making shrouded by the smokescreen of ever more complex and variable bets. The key to making predictions in a way that helps you evaluate your decisions is to avoid what Annie Duke calls “resulting.” If you wager a dollar on a coin flip, with a chance to win $10, and lose, the result of your decision was bad, but your decision was good. The odds were clearly in your favor. Mathematically, you were sure you'd win that bet one of two times. If you had won, you were going to win ten times your money. Now how do you apply this thinking to more complex and vague situations, such as a product launch, your Saturday night plans, or whether or not your new hobby is a passing obsession? The key is to make a prediction, the right way. How to make predictions the right way There are two components to making predictions the right way. Turn it into a coin flip. Identify the odds. 1. Turn the outcome into a “coin flip” First, turn the prediction into a coin flip. I don't mean in terms of odds, but in terms of result. When you flip a coin, it comes up heads or tails. When you make a prediction about a result, that result must either happen or not. For a prediction to be useful, it has to be falsifiable. This is not easy to do, which is why few of us make predictions the right way, if at all. If you think it's going to rain, in what area will it rain, by what time? Does a single raindrop count? If you think you'll still be doing bird photography in six months, how many bird photos will you have taken, within the previous month? If you think you'll enjoy going to the party, how many good memories will you be able to recall a week later? You can define a successful result in whatever measurable way you want. The important thing is that to make a prediction, you need to turn the result into a coin flip. Not in terms of odds, but in terms of how you define the result. Some actual predictions I've turned into coin flips: My Black Friday promotion will earn $3,000–$6,000. My blog post on Zettelkasten will average worse than a ranking of 10 for the keyword “zettelkasten”, the first three months after publish, according to Google Console. I will sell 5,000–15,000 copies of Mind Management, Not Time Management within the first year. With each of these predictions, I was wagering resources. It took, time, money, and energy to run a promotion, write a blog post, and write a book. But what did I expect from those investments? I could have done any of these without making a prediction. Besides the long-term benefits of making these predictions – which I'll get to in a bit – turning these predictions into coin flips had immediate benefits. Turning predictions into coin flips helps answer these questions: Is this worth doing? By defining a successful result, you're forced to ask yourself if it's worth the investment, based upon your expectations. How will I achieve this? In the process of defining a successful result, you start thinking about why you expect to achieve that result. Do you have prior experiences or past data to draw upon? You'll never search as hard for these as when you're making a prediction. Can I do better? Defining a successful result has a symbiotic relationship with the effort you put forth trying to achieve the result. Making the prediction motivates you to try to make that prediction correct, which sometimes motivates you to predict and try to achieve an even better result. When you flip a coin, you of course aren't sure whether it will come up heads or tails, and when you make a prediction, you aren't sure whether you'll achieve that result. And that is how it should be. 2. Identify the odds The second way to make a prediction the right way is to identify the odds of achieving that result. You've turned the prediction into a coin flip, but it's not necessarily a coin flip with 50/50 odds. It may be more like a die roll, with 1:6 odds, or a roll of four or lower, with 2:3 odds. If you've turned your predicted result into a coin flip by adjusting a range, you can adjust that range according to your expected odds. In this way, if you want to literally turn your prediction into a coin flip, you can pick a range you feel you have 50/50 odds of achieving. For example, I believed I had 50/50 odds of making $3,000–$6,000 on my Black Friday promotion, and of selling 5,000–15,000 copies of my book in the first year. I specifically chose those ranges based upon what I expected to have 50/50 odds of achieving. If your prediction doesn't involve a range, such as whether or not you will regret going to a party, then you simply have to identify your expected odds of that result. For all odds, I think it's easiest to choose a percentage of confidence, such as 50% for 50/50 odds, or 66% for 2:3 odds. For example, I was 70% sure I wouldn't regret attending a conference in Vegas last year. Each of these predictions is for one event. But the result will either be achieved, or not. Therefore, what you felt 70% sure would happen will in retrospect look as if it had 0 or 100% odds of happening. So what is the point of choosing odds for your prediction? There are three benefits of choosing odds: It helps you gain clarity on each decision. It helps you distinguish risky from not-risky decisions. It helps you rate and improve your decision-making, over time. Choosing odds helps you gain clarity First, choosing odds of achieving a result helps you gain clarity on a decision. Let's say you buy your first guitar. Surely you're picturing yourself being a pretty good guitar player someday. But how do you define that, how sure are you you'll become a good guitar player, and how soon? A year later, when your guitar is collecting dust in your closet, you might feel pretty bad about yourself. But suppose that when you bought your guitar you had predicted that you were 50% sure, one year later, you would have practiced guitar at least fifteen minutes in the previous month? Based upon that prediction, it turns out you weren't so sure to begin with that you'd become a good guitar player. Choosing odds helps you distinguish sure bets from wildcards Which brings us to the second benefit of choosing odds, which is that it helps you distinguish risky decisions from not-risky decisions. You took a chance buying a guitar, and it didn't work out. That's easier to live with if you know you were taking a chance. Some of life and business's greatest benefits come from taking chances. But you only have so many resources to gamble with. Professional poker players know they need a certain “bank roll” to stay in the game and keep making bets. If they have a lot of bank roll, they might play a riskier bet than if they have little. They're able to do that because they know the odds. In business, especially creative business, your “sure bets” keep you in business, while “wildcards” can change your business. As you decide how to invest your resources, and evaluate whether you've achieved successful results, you'll make better decisions if you know ahead of time whether you're playing a sure bet or a wildcard. For example, I was 95% sure my Zettelkasten blog post wouldn't rank in the top ten for the search term, so I was clear going into it I was playing a wildcard. Additionally, while I was 50% sure I'd sell 5,000–15,000 copies of my book in the first year, I was 90% sure I'd sell fewer than 250,000 copies, which helped put a ceiling on my expectations. Choosing odds improves your decision-making Which is the third benefit of choosing odds: improving your decision-making over time. If you had been 90% sure you'd've practiced guitar ten hours in a month, you'd still feel bad when it turned out you didn't, but at least you'd have data to learn from. Without that data, you might say to yourself, “I never finish what I start. I'm a loser.” With that data, you can say, “I overestimated my enthusiasm to play guitar. I'll keep that mistake in mind in the future.” Notice you wouldn't tell yourself you were “wrong.” Because you weren't. Even if you were 90% sure you'd've practiced guitar ten hours in a month and didn't, you'd only end up 90% wrong. Which means you were 10% right. When you choose odds of your expected results, it's easier to learn from your mistakes because you're never totally wrong, and always a little right – which makes your mistakes sting a little less. But to get enough data to know how good your predictions are, you need to make a lot of predictions over time. If you don't know the odds of a coin flip, and your prediction turns out wrong, you don't learn a whole lot. But if you make a hundred predictions, you'll end up with a pretty good idea of the odds of that coin flip. Make many predictions with the same odds, for faster calibration The more predictions you make with the same odds, the more quickly you can tell how good your predictions are. I've presented to you examples of predictions I've made with various odds. But whenever possible, I try to choose “coin flips” I believe have a 70% chance of being correct. 70% is an arbitrary level of confidence. What's important is that by making many predictions of which I have 70% confidence, I learn how accurate my predictions tend to be at that confidence level. I've made 19 predictions at 70% confidence. Only 63% of those have turned out correct. By making and tracking many predictions, I've learned that when I'm 70% confident something will happen, it will generally happen only 63% of the time. I'm slightly overconfident at that range, and so should be more conservative with my future predictions. My prediction track-record I keep track of and publicly display many of my predictions on PredictionBook.com, which is one of those totally free websites with no ads that makes you nostalgic for 2007. Because I've made more than fifty predictions, I can see how good I am at predicting at various levels. For example, after fifteen predictions at 90% confidence, 80% have turned out correct. After five at 50% confidence, and five at 60% confidence, those have turned out correct 80% and 100% of the time, respectively. While I should to be more pessimistic about things I'm pretty sure will happen, it seems I should be more optimistic about things I'm not so sure will happen. It turned out the prediction that my Black Friday promotion would earn between $3,000 and $6,000 was correct. Since I was 50% confident, I was half-right, and half-wrong. I did sell between 5,000 and 15,000 copies of my book in the first year. Again, half-right, half-wrong. And the Zettelkasten blog post I was 95% sure wouldn't rank in the top ten, actually did! I was happy to be 95% wrong about that – it was a wildcard that turned out. Making predictions feels unnatural – which is why you do it The next time you're choosing whether something is worth doing, I highly recommend you make a prediction. If turning the outcome into a coin-flip and picking a percentage of confidence feels uncomfortable to you – it should. Thinking in this way doesn't come naturally – which is why it's a superpower. Image: Ghost of a Genius, by Paul Klee About Your Host, David Kadavy David Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative. Follow David on: Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on Patreon Put your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon »       Show notes: https://kadavy.net/blog/posts/make-predictions/

This March 14, Short Wave is celebrating pi ... and pie! We do that with the help of mathematician Eugenia Cheng, Scientist In Residence at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and author of the book How to Bake Pi. We start with a recipe for clotted cream and end, deliciously, at how math is so much more expansive than grade school tests.Click through to our episode page for the recipes mentioned in this episode.Plus, Eugenia's been on Short Wave before! To hear more, check out our episode, A Mathematician's Manifesto For Rethinking Gender.Curious about other math magic? Email us at shortwave@npr.org.

The 2022 Minnesota Vikings are not mathematically possible but here they are still with a 12-4 record; Plus thoughts on the Gophers, Timberwolves and more on Reusse Unchained.