Systematic theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study
POPULARITY
Categories
149 episodes with Methodology
88 episodes with Methodology
89 episodes with Methodology
56 episodes with Methodology
29 episodes with Methodology
38 episodes with Methodology
37 episodes with Methodology
34 episodes with Methodology
30 episodes with Methodology
75 episodes with Methodology
16 episodes with Methodology
28 episodes with Methodology
23 episodes with Methodology
22 episodes with Methodology
10 episodes with Methodology
14 episodes with Methodology
7 episodes with Methodology
33 episodes with Methodology
12 episodes with Methodology
8 episodes with Methodology
15 episodes with Methodology
21 episodes with Methodology
11 episodes with Methodology
11 episodes with Methodology
11 episodes with Methodology
17 episodes with Methodology
15 episodes with Methodology
12 episodes with Methodology
11 episodes with Methodology
8 episodes with Methodology
8 episodes with Methodology
7 episodes with Methodology
15 episodes with Methodology
9 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
12 episodes with Methodology
11 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
14 episodes with Methodology
20 episodes with Methodology
8 episodes with Methodology
9 episodes with Methodology
8 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
8 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
10 episodes with Methodology
13 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
7 episodes with Methodology
28 episodes with Methodology
4 episodes with Methodology
7 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
16 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
10 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
8 episodes with Methodology
7 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
15 episodes with Methodology
8 episodes with Methodology
4 episodes with Methodology
9 episodes with Methodology
4 episodes with Methodology
11 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
7 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
13 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
4 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
8 episodes with Methodology
7 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
4 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
4 episodes with Methodology
4 episodes with Methodology
2 episodes with Methodology
5 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
7 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
6 episodes with Methodology
4 episodes with Methodology
2 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
7 episodes with Methodology
4 episodes with Methodology
2 episodes with Methodology
2 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
2 episodes with Methodology
4 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
2 episodes with Methodology
2 episodes with Methodology
2 episodes with Methodology
2 episodes with Methodology
12 episodes with Methodology
11 episodes with Methodology
2 episodes with Methodology
3 episodes with Methodology
Better Edge : A Northwestern Medicine podcast for physicians
In this episode of Parts and Labor, Angela Chaudhari, MD, hosts a panel of experts from Northwestern Medicine's Division of Gynecologic Oncology to discuss the groundbreaking research and clinical trials shaping the future of gynecologic cancer care. The panel explores innovations in immunotherapy, investigator-initiated trials, survivorship and symptom science, while highlighting efforts to expand access and diversity in clinical research across Chicago and the surrounding suburbs.This episode's panel of guests includes:• Emma L. Barber, MD, John and Ruth Brewer Professor of Gynecology and Cancer Research, Division Chief of Gynecologic Oncology and Director of Robotic Surgery• Daniela E. Matei, MD, Diana, Princess of Wales Professor of Cancer Research and Chief of Reproductive Science in the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Hematology and Oncology• Dario R. Roque, MD, Associate Professor of Gynecologic Oncology and Fellowship Program Director• Emily M. Hinchcliff, MD, Assistant Professor of Gynecologic Oncology and Program Director of the OB-GYN Residency Program
don't miss George's AIE talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRpqPgKeXNk —- From launching a side project in a Sydney basement to becoming the independent gold standard for AI benchmarking—trusted by developers, enterprises, and every major lab to navigate the exploding landscape of models, providers, and capabilities—George Cameron and Micah Hill-Smith have spent two years building Artificial Analysis into the platform that answers the questions no one else will: Which model is actually best for your use case? What are the real speed-cost trade-offs? And how open is "open" really? We discuss: The origin story: built as a side project in 2023 while Micah was building a legal AI assistant, launched publicly in January 2024, and went viral after Swyx's retweet Why they run evals themselves: labs prompt models differently, cherry-pick chain-of-thought examples (Google Gemini 1.0 Ultra used 32-shot prompts to beat GPT-4 on MMLU), and self-report inflated numbers The mystery shopper policy: they register accounts not on their own domain and run intelligence + performance benchmarks incognito to prevent labs from serving different models on private endpoints How they make money: enterprise benchmarking insights subscription (standardized reports on model deployment, serverless vs. managed vs. leasing chips) and private custom benchmarking for AI companies (no one pays to be on the public leaderboard) The Intelligence Index (V3): synthesizes 10 eval datasets (MMLU, GPQA, agentic benchmarks, long-context reasoning) into a single score, with 95% confidence intervals via repeated runs Omissions Index (hallucination rate): scores models from -100 to +100 (penalizing incorrect answers, rewarding "I don't know"), and Claude models lead with the lowest hallucination rates despite not always being the smartest GDP Val AA: their version of OpenAI's GDP-bench (44 white-collar tasks with spreadsheets, PDFs, PowerPoints), run through their Stirrup agent harness (up to 100 turns, code execution, web search, file system), graded by Gemini 3 Pro as an LLM judge (tested extensively, no self-preference bias) The Openness Index: scores models 0-18 on transparency of pre-training data, post-training data, methodology, training code, and licensing (AI2 OLMo 2 leads, followed by Nous Hermes and NVIDIA Nemotron) The smiling curve of AI costs: GPT-4-level intelligence is 100-1000x cheaper than at launch (thanks to smaller models like Amazon Nova), but frontier reasoning models in agentic workflows cost more than ever (sparsity, long context, multi-turn agents) Why sparsity might go way lower than 5%: GPT-4.5 is ~5% active, Gemini models might be ~3%, and Omissions Index accuracy correlates with total parameters (not active), suggesting massive sparse models are the future Token efficiency vs. turn efficiency: GPT-5 costs more per token but solves Tau-bench in fewer turns (cheaper overall), and models are getting better at using more tokens only when needed (5.1 Codex has tighter token distributions) V4 of the Intelligence Index coming soon: adding GDP Val AA, Critical Point, hallucination rate, and dropping some saturated benchmarks (human-eval-style coding is now trivial for small models) — Artificial Analysis Website: https://artificialanalysis.ai (https://artificialanalysis.ai ("https://artificialanalysis.ai")) George Cameron on X: https://x.com/grmcameron (https://x.com/grmcameron ("https://x.com/grmcameron")) Micah Hill-Smith on X: https://x.com/_micah_h (https://x.com/_micah_h ("https://x.com/_micah_h")) Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction: Full Circle Moment and Artificial Analysis Origins 00:01:08 Business Model: Independence and Revenue Streams 00:04:00 The Origin Story: From Legal AI to Benchmarking 00:07:00 Early Challenges: Cost, Methodology, and Independence 00:16:13 AI Grant and Moving to San Francisco 00:18:58 Evolution of the Intelligence Index: V1 to V3 00:27:55 New Benchmarks: Hallucination Rate and Omissions Index 00:33:19 Critical Point and Frontier Physics Problems 00:35:56 GDPVAL AA: Agentic Evaluation and Stirrup Harness 00:51:47 The Openness Index: Measuring Model Transparency 00:57:57 The Smiling Curve: Cost of Intelligence Paradox 01:04:00 Hardware Efficiency and Sparsity Trends 01:07:43 Reasoning vs Non-Reasoning: Token Efficiency Matters 01:10:47 Multimodal Benchmarking and Community Requests 01:14:50 Looking Ahead: V4 Intelligence Index and Beyond
Matt is out this week, toiling in the sulfur mines of Southeast Georgia. I am joined by our new producer, Jamaal Tuhrik. We talk with Winston Jones, writer, reader, dresser, student, teacher, New Yorker about his journey (a word I wish we had more synonyms for) from “student to teacher and back again.” We answer The Quarter-Zip-Question, Perks of Packing Light, New York, Methodologies of Childhood Clothing Acquisition, Parental Influence, Teaching, Learning, Classroom Style, A Deep Dive Into His Socials, Trials and Tribulations of Making Content, And More!
In this episode of The Missing Secret Podcast, John and Kelly discuss why this 12 minute a day technique works. John opens the discussion by saying that it's a combination of two things. It gives a person immense control over themselves. But that is coupled with intelligent success strategies. John points out that when he was in his 50s and was blessed to make 25 times the 200 – $300,000 a year he was making the prior 20 years, it was happening because of the immense control he had over himself. But it also included being able to implement key strategies. Such as being highly organized. Planning his day the night before and time blocking his days. Also setting aside time each week to deep think two times a week. Also being a conduit of learning. Where he had a system where he would listen to great content an entrepreneur needed. Such as marketing, employee empowerment, time efficiency.He also focused only on what moves the needle. Of course all that was reinforced in his life GPS template. So it was a combination of knowing the right strategies to apply coupled with having immense control over himself that caused his income to go up so much. During this discussion John and Kelly talk about how most people are disappointed that their intentions oftentimes don't turn into reality. That's because they are only setting their intentions with their conscious mind. The subconscious mind is responsible for the doing. And since 95% of your daily thoughts and actions are unconscious, you have to influence the subconscious mind. Otherwise you play the game of life at 5% of your potential. John also talks about how the life GPS template has the maturity of a 50-year-old built into it. At the end of the show John and Kelly talk about your thoughts going on in your head most the time determined not only your success but your enjoyment of life.Buy John's book, THE MISSING SECRET of the Legendary Book Think and Grow Rich : And a 12-minute-a-day technique to apply it here.About the Hosts:John MitchellJohn's story is pretty amazing. After spending 20 years as an entrepreneur, John was 50 years old but wasn't as successful as he thought he should be. To rectify that, he decided to find the “top book in the world” on SUCCESS and apply that book literally Word for Word to his life. That Book is Think & Grow Rich. The book says there's a SECRET for success, but the author only gives you half the secret. John figured out the full secret and a 12 minute a day technique to apply it.When John applied his 12 minute a day technique to his life, he saw his yearly income go to over $5 million a year, after 20 years of $200k - 300k per year. The 25 times increase happened because John LEVERAGED himself by applying science to his life.His daily technique works because it focuses you ONLY on what moves the needle, triples your discipline, and consistently generates new business ideas every week. This happens because of 3 key aspects of the leveraging process.John's technique was profiled on the cover of Time Magazine. He teaches it at the University of Texas' McCombs School of Business, which is one the TOP 5 business schools in the country. He is also the “mental coach” for the head athletic coaches at the University of Texas as well.Reach out to John at john@thinkitbeit.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-mitchell-76483654/Kelly HatfieldKelly Hatfield is an entrepreneur at heart. She believes wholeheartedly in the power of the ripple effect and has built several successful companies aimed at helping others make a greater impact in their businesses and lives.She has been in the recruiting, HR, and leadership...
TL;DR LLMs pretrained on data about misaligned AIs themselves become less aligned. Luckily, pretraining LLMs with synthetic data about good AIs helps them become more aligned. These alignment priors persist through post-training, providing alignment-in-depth. We recommend labs pretrain for alignment, just as they do for capabilities. Website: alignmentpretraining.ai Us: geodesicresearch.org | x.com/geodesresearch Note: We are currently garnering feedback here before submitting to ICML. Any suggestions here or on our Google Doc are welcome! We will be releasing a revision on arXiv in the coming days. Folks who leave feedback will be added to the Acknowledgment section. Thank you! Abstract We pretrained a suite of 6.9B-parameter LLMs, varying only the content related to AI systems, and evaluated them for misalignment. When filtering the vast majority of the content related to AI, we see significant decreases in misalignment rates. The opposite was also true - synthetic positive AI data led to self-fulfilling alignment. While post-training decreased the effect size, benign fine-tuning[1] degrades the effects of post-training, models revert toward their midtraining misalignment rates. Models pretrained on realistic or artificial upsampled negative AI discourse become more misaligned with benign fine-tuning, while models pretrained on only positive AI discourse become more aligned. This [...] ---Outline:(00:15) TL;DR(01:10) Abstract(02:52) Background and Motivation(04:38) Methodology(04:41) Misalignment Evaluations(06:39) Synthetic AI Discourse Generation(07:57) Data Filtering(08:27) Training Setup(09:06) Post-Training(09:37) Results(09:41) Base Models: AI Discourse Causally Affects Alignment(10:50) Post-Training: Effects Persist(12:14) Tampering: Pretraining Provides Alignment-In-Depth(14:10) Additional Results(15:23) Discussion(15:26) Pretraining as Creating Good Alignment Priors(16:09) Curation Outperforms Naive Filtering(17:07) Alignment Pretraining(17:28) Limitations(18:16) Next Steps and Call for Feedback(19:18) Acknowledgements The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration. --- First published: December 20th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TcfyGD2aKdZ7Rt3hk/alignment-pretraining-ai-discourse-causes-self-fulfilling --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:
PESTO Trial Results: What Stroke Survivors Need to Know About Perispinal Etanercept If you've spent any time in stroke recovery communities, you've probably seen the same pattern: a treatment gets talked about with real intensity, people share personal stories that pull you in, and suddenly you're left trying to sort hope from hype from “maybe.” When the decision also involves significant cost, that uncertainty can feel even heavier. That's exactly why I recorded this episode: to help stroke survivors and their families understand the PESTO trial results in plain language without drama, without attacks, and without jumping to conclusions. In this interview, Professor Vincent Thijs explains what the PESTO trial set out to test, why it was designed the way it was, and what the results can (and can't) tell us about perispinal etanercept in stroke recovery. The real problem: not “hope vs skepticism”… it's confusion If you're a stroke survivor, you're already doing something heroic: you're living inside a recovery journey that demands patience, grit, and constant adjustment. The challenge isn't that you “don't want to believe” in something. The challenge is that it's genuinely hard to make an informed decision when: People report different outcomes Online conversations become polarised fast Scientific studies use unfamiliar language The same treatment can be described in completely different ways depending on who you're listening to My goal here isn't to tell you what to do. It's to help you think clearly, ask better questions, and understand what the best available evidence from this trial actually tested. What the PESTO trial was trying to investigate (in simple terms) Professor Thijs explains that the PESTO trial was designed in response to strong community interest. Stroke survivors wanted to know whether the way perispinal etanercept is currently administered in some settings could be demonstrated to work under the standards used for medicines to become widely accepted as part of routine care. So the researchers designed a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. In this type of study: A computer assigns participants to either the treatment or a placebo Participants and clinicians are kept “blinded” (they don't know who got what) Outcomes are measured in a consistent way at set time points In the PESTO trial, the focus was on stroke survivors with moderate to severe disability and reduced quality of life. The primary question was straightforward: Does quality of life improve after one or two injections compared with placebo, over the measured timeframe? Why this study looked at quality of life (not one symptom) One key detail Professor Thijs highlights is the design choice: the trial didn't only target one issue, like pain or walking. It aimed to be more “pragmatic,” reflecting how treatment is used in real-world settings where people seek help for different post-stroke challenges (mobility, fatigue, speech, cognition, pain, and more). That means the main outcome wasn't “Did walking speed improve?” or “Did pain reduce?” It was broader: Quality of life at 28 days And again after the second injection timeframe (56 days total) This matters because your results can look different depending on what you measure. A trial targeting one symptom might see a signal that a broad quality-of-life measure doesn't detect (and vice versa). What the PESTO trial results found In Professor Thijs' words, the trial did not show a difference in quality of life between the treatment and placebo groups at the measured time points: No clear quality-of-life improvement at 28 days No clear improvement after two injections at 56 days That's the central outcome. But there's another finding that grabbed my attention—and it's one many listeners will find surprising. Quote block (mid-article): “We saw that 58% of the people also had that improvement [with placebo] and 53% had it with etanercept… our initial guess was very wrong.” — Professor Vincent Thijs The “placebo signal” and why it matters A strong placebo response doesn't mean “it was all in their heads.” It means that in a blinded clinical trial, people can improve for multiple reasons that aren't specific to the drug itself, such as: Expectation and hope Natural fluctuations in symptoms The impact of being monitored and supported Regression to the mean (symptoms often move toward average over time) The structure and attention that come with trial participation Professor Thijs describes how, during the blinded phase, participants reported improvements in a variety of areas (like sensation, vision, speech). The crucial point is: the team didn't know who had a placebo or an active treatment at the time, which is exactly why blinding exists. For you, the listener, this is a reminder of something empowering: Personal stories can be real and meaningful—and still not answer the question of efficacy on their own. “Am I a candidate?” The trial's honest answer: we don't know how to predict it (yet) One of the most important parts of this conversation is the desire to identify who might benefit most. Professor Thijs explains that the team looked at subgroups (for example: age, sex, severity, diabetes, time since stroke). In this trial, they didn't find a clear subgroup where the treatment stood out as reliably beneficial compared with placebo. He also adds an important caveat: subgroup analysis is difficult, especially in trials that aren't extremely large. So the absence of a clear “responder profile” here doesn't automatically prove none exists—it means this trial didn't reveal one. What this episode is (and isn't) saying Let's keep this grounded and fair. This interview is not about attacking any person, provider, or clinic. It's not about shaming stroke survivors who tried something. It's not even about telling you that you should or shouldn't pursue a treatment. It is about this: Understanding what the PESTO trial tested Understanding what the results showed within their timeframe Knowing the limits of what the trial can conclude Using evidence to reduce confusion before making big decisions A simple “clarity plan” before you decide anything big If you're considering any high-stakes treatment decision, here's a neutral, practical way to move forward: 1) Ask: “What outcome matters most for me?” Is it pain? walking? fatigue? speech? cognition? daily function? quality of life? A treatment might be studied for one outcome and discussed online for another. 2) Ask: “What does the best evidence say—specifically?” Not “Does it work?” in general, but: In what population? Using what method? At what dose? Over what timeframe? Compared with what? 3) Ask: “What are my options and trade-offs?” Talk with a qualified healthcare professional who understands your medical history, risk factors, and rehab plan. Ask about: Potential risks and side effects Opportunity cost (what else could you do with the same time, money, and energy?) Evidence-based rehab and supports that match your goals Listen to the full interview If you want the clearest explanation of the PESTO trial results—from the lead researcher himself—listen to the full episode with Professor Vincent Thijs. And if you'd like to support the podcast (and help keep these conversations going for stroke survivors who need hope and clarity): Bill's book: recoveryafterstroke.com/book Patreon: patreon.com/recoveryafterstroke Medical disclaimer This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Please consult your doctor before making any changes to your health or recovery plan. PESTO Trial Results (Etanercept After Stroke) | Interview with Professor Vincent Thijs Confused about perispinal etanercept after stroke? Prof Vincent Thijs explains the PESTO trial results clearly, calmly, and evidence-first. More About Perispinal Etanercept: Etanercept Stroke Recovery: Wesley Ray's Relentless Comeback Dwayne Semple's Remarkable Stroke Journey and Perispinal Etanercept Etanercept for Stroke Recovery – Andrew Stopps Support The Recovery After Stroke Podcast on Patreon Highlights: 00:00 Introduction and Overview of the PESTO Trial 04:19 Design and Objectives of the PESTO Trial 11:23 Recruitment and Methodology of the Trial 18:31 PESTO Trial Results and Findings 24:28 Implications and Future Directions for Research 32:15 Conclusions and Final Thoughts Transcript: Introduction: PESTO Trial Results Bill Gasiamis (00:00) Hello and welcome back to Recovery After Stroke. Before we get started, a quick thank you to my Patreon supporters. Your support helps cover the hosting costs after more than 10 years of me doing this show solo. And it helps me keep creating episodes for stroke survivors who need hope and practical guidance. And thank you as well to everyone who comments on YouTube, leaves reviews on Spotify and Apple podcasts. buys the book and even to those of you who don’t skip the ads. Every bit of that supports keep this podcast going. Now today’s episode is about the PESTO trial results and I’m interviewing Professor Vincent Theis. If you’ve ever felt confused by the conversation online about perisponal antenna sept, some people sharing positive experiences while others are feeling disappointed and plenty of strong opinions in between, this episode is designed to bring clarity. We talk about what the PESTO trial set out to test, how the study was designed, what it found within the measured timeframes and what the results can and can’t tell us. Just a quick note, this conversation is educational and not medical advice. Always speak with a qualified health professional about your situation. All right, let’s get into it. Professor Vincent Dase, welcome to the podcast. Vincent Thijs (01:24) Thank you for having me, Bill. Bill Gasiamis (01:26) I’m really looking forward to this conversation. Atenosept is one of the most hotly discussed topics in stroke recovery. And there’s a lot of misconceptions about whether or not it is or is not efficacious. And while there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence where some people have had positive outcomes from injections, there’s also a lot of people’s feedback, which is very negative about their experience with the Etanercept injections and the lack of results. So today, the reason I reached out is because I wanted to get to the bottom of the findings of the PESTO trial. And I’m hoping that you can shed some light on that. The first question basically is, can you start by explaining in simple terms what it was that the PESTO trial set out to investigate? Vincent Thijs (02:22) All right. The PESTO trial was in response to community members, stroke survivors, wanting to find out whether the current practice of administering Etanercept has done in the U.S. in private practice. In Denmark, I hear there are some sites that provide this treatment. Whether the treatment and genders can be actually proven according to the standards that we use in the pharmaceutical industry to get it to become accepted as a standard of care treatment. For that, you need to do what we call a randomized controlled clinical trial, preferably two that show evidence that treatment does what it’s set out to do. And that’s why with this background and the community pressuring the minister several years ago, Mr. Hunt at the time, to fund a trial that would help answer that question. Design and Objectives of the PESTO Trial There was a call was set out to do this trial and several groups in Australia applied and then an independent committee decided to award the trial to the PESTO study group. And then we tried to design this trial to give an answer. So it’s mostly about people that have moderate to severe disability after their stroke that have reduced quality of life. And We wanted to know, does their quality of life improve when Etanercept is administered? And we wanted to test whether one or two injections were needed. Because that’s what we heard from stroke survivors that from Australia and internationally that went over to the US. Well, this is how it’s done. You get one or two injections and there was a paper that had shown big effects with one injection. So that was the primary endpoint, but then we also looked at whether two injections could help. And when you design a trial, you have to make a decision, will we focus on people with. pain after stroke, or will we look at people who have mobility issues or speech issues or cognitive issues? And we saw that current clinical practice actually was people with various impairments after stroke were accepted and received the treatment. And what would have been the advantage of doing say only mobility or only pain? Well, you can then look at the outcome of pain or mobility, does it improve? Or is your cognition improved? But because we wanted to be pragmatic and we know that recruitment in clinical trials needs to reflect how is current practice. So we thought let’s put in all the people with moderate to severe disability, whatever their impairment after stroke and reduce quality of life. And then we looked at quality of life as an outcome rather than an individual impairment. And so what we did then was to use the randomized technique and where it’s left up to the computer to decide what treatment a person will receive, the active Etanercept or a similar looking placebo, and then look at 28 days and we had to make a decision what makes sense 28 days, what is practical. to see whether that injection then had improved quality of life. And then we did another injection again with a placebo or the active drug. And then after 28 days again, we looked again whether that had made a difference. So we have people that had received two times the placebo, one time the placebo, and one active injection. And then we have people that had received two active injections. And then we were able to compare those and see whether they had made bigger improvements if you receive two injections versus one or zero. Unfortunately, we couldn’t show a difference in quality of life at 28 days. And we also couldn’t show an improvement at 56 days after people had two injections. But that was in a nutshell how we designed and the background of the study. Bill Gasiamis (07:25) So the main difference then between the Griffith University study and your particular study was that they did go after a specific improvement in one area, I believe. it in? Okay. So although those guys went after pain, you guys went after just a general improvement in quality of life after the injection and your stroke survivors. Vincent Thijs (07:39) Mostly, think. Bill Gasiamis (07:54) would have been as far as 15 years post stroke. Is that right? Vincent Thijs (07:59) Yes, correct. We wanted to have people early after stroke between one and five years, and then also between people five to 15 years after stroke. That was also for practical reasons. Once you start trial, you see how good recruitment is, how many people want to participate in the study. And we saw that if we went to up to five years. Recruitment was relatively slow. So we added this additional group of people later on after their stroke. that because many people, I’m five years, I’m six years after stroke. Why can’t I get the treatment? And you know, so we also wanted to expand the pool. And that’s also what happens in clinical practice. Current clinical practice, I don’t think the sites and the US and they would refuse the patient six years or so. We just wanted to reflect the people that we see on the website going for this treatment. Bill Gasiamis (09:01) Yeah, yeah. And then the difference between the Griffith trial and your trial as well was the actual dosage of Etanercept the amount that was in the injection. I do believe that your trial was a 25 milligram injection. And I believe that the Griffith University trial was 25 milligram. injection to 50 milligram injection. Vincent Thijs (09:34) Yeah, we just based on what people told us they received when they went to the clinic, also the other sites and then also 35 milligram was chosen because that’s in the patent for the street. Bill Gasiamis (09:49) Okay, I see. So you’re trying to as much as possible mimic what was happening out there in in the private practice Vincent Thijs (10:00) We wanted to answer the question, is current clinical practice, is that beneficial? And that’s what sort of what the call was to do a clinical trial in current clinical practice. You can, you have to make decisions, right? And I think this was the most relevant for a stroke survivor. Bill Gasiamis (10:17) Now that’s really interesting that stroke survivors were able to twist the arm of a minister to get the funding to begin that process of the trial. How long ago did this actually start? Vincent Thijs (10:28) I think it was 2016, 2017 or so. So it takes a while to get the minister and then I think that the trial started in 2019. took a while to complete as well. Bill Gasiamis (10:43) Right understood. Okay So then you recruit people they come along and they go through the trial through the particular trial How does that work on the day do they turn up are they admitted? We’ll be back with more of professor face explanation in just a moment But I want to pause here because if you’ve ever felt stuck between hope and uncertainty, you’re not alone When you’re recovering from stroke, you’re constantly making decisions and some decisions feel high stakes, especially when confronting information that’s conflicting. Recruitment and Methodology of the Trial In the second half of this conversation, we get into the parts that really help you think clearly. What the trial results do and don’t mean, and why placebo responses matter in blinded research, and how to frame smarter questions before you commit time, money, or energy to any path. If you want to support the podcast and keep these episodes coming, You can grab my book at recoveryafterstroke.com/book or join the Patreon at patreon.com/recoveryafterstroke All right, back to the episode. Vincent Thijs (11:51) All right, so we recruited from a variety of sources. So we had kept a log of people that were interested in this. We had a Facebook post in New Zealand, for instance, where we recruited as well. We had people from the Stroke Clinical Registry that were approached. We had a website and people could register their interest if they were doing a search online to participate in clinical trial. So the variety of sources and then we have to determine eligibility that was mostly done either via an in-person visit or remotely via telehealth. We tried to get their medical information, what type of stroke they had. And then we also questioned whether they had this modified rank in scale, the disability they had, the impairments they had from their stroke. so then people came. they were considered eligible, then we scheduled a visit and they would typically come in no overnight stay needed. It was a day procedure that was done. People were then receiving another questionnaire on the day itself to measure their quality of life and other measures like their fatigue levels and how much help they required, etc. And then we proceeded with the injection, which was done. We had bought a special bed that was able to do the, the, the tilting that was required. So we set the people up, injected and then tilted the table. so, we received the drug. It was prepared independently by the pharmacist. So the pharmacist, they took the drug off the shelf or the made the placebo. and they made sure it looked exactly alike. So then somebody from the trial team picked it up from the pharmacist. The pharmacist didn’t tell, of course, what it was. And then the administration happened. So the doctor who administered and the participant did not know what they received. So after the procedure, they were left like this for four minutes. And then after four minutes, people could sit up again. And we waited about half an hour. then we asked them how they were doing, whether there were any adverse reactions, ⁓ and ⁓ then after that half an hour of observation people could go back to their habitual situation. ⁓ it’s a very simple ⁓ procedure to do. Bill Gasiamis (14:35) I believe there was a was there 126 participants Vincent Thijs (14:40) Yes, 126 people participated. had anticipated a little bit more people to participate. So we had hoped 168, but recruitment fell flat after a while and we were not able to find more people to recruit. So we made a decision and then, you know, these clinical trials, they have some funding ⁓ and they require the treatment team to be paid, et cetera, and that ran out. So we had to stop at a certain time. Bill Gasiamis (15:13) Was the study stopped early because of a decrease in the amount of funding or was there an issue with the funding at some point? Vincent Thijs (15:23) Funding ran out. You hire people for a certain amount of years and then you have fewer patients than you anticipate. So you have to stop. Bill Gasiamis (15:32) huh, okay. So would that affect the outcome of the trial? Would you say the lack of funding or the lack of the ability to take the trial further? Vincent Thijs (15:42) Yeah, well, what we had when you do the trial, when you plan the trial, you say, well, this is what we’re going to expect in terms of efficacy. You have to make a guess and say, well, that many people will have an improvement in quality of life if we give them the placebo and that many people will have an improvement in quality of life with the trial drug. And we had thought that about 11 % would improve with the placebo based on an earlier study. And then we had to make a guess because nobody had done this type of study on what Etanosap would provide. But reading the report that was published several years ago now, where 90 % of the people reported improvement in their impairments, we thought, well, Let’s not go for 90%, but a 30 % improvement. And so that was based on that we needed 168 people to participate in the trial. So that was what we call the pre-planned sample size estimation, which is a guess. When we stopped at 126 participants, actually we saw that the results were very different. There was not that 11 % actually in the placebo arm. saw that 58 % of the people also had that improvement and 53 % had it with ethanosab. So our initial guess was very wrong based on some statistical advanced statistical techniques we have. We have quite a lot of power to estimate whether there was a difference. So I think the trial can provide us an answer. It’s large enough to give us an answer about this particular question. Is current clinical practice in these people with this range after their stroke, does it improve? quality of life after a month or after two months. I’m not speaking about early improvement, I’m not speaking about six months down the line. We only can decide what we see in this study. Bill Gasiamis (18:05) So you have some limitations because you can’t have the funding to test one month, two months, six months, 12 months. You have the funding to basically meet the design of your study and then you can report on that. Now what’s really interesting is that the placebo had such a large result. PESTO Trial Results and Findings Vincent Thijs (18:34) What kind of things were people reporting that improved for the people who had the placebo injection?Look, this is, course, when we were in the blinded phase, when neither myself or my colleagues who did these scales, we were totally blinded. And that’s, remember vividly people saying, it didn’t do anything for me. But then there were also people said that they could see again. And so people that had improvement in sensation. Some people had improvement in their speech. there were, we, we observed these things, but we didn’t know whether they were active or placebo. And then surprisingly we had some people in whom we thought, they must have had active drug that turned out to have the placebo, but that’s years after, right? Because it takes a little bit of time to accumulate a sufficient number of patients. And we were only reporting and breaking the blind when the trial was finished. because otherwise you may be biased in all your analysis, et cetera. You don’t want to do that. So you wait until the end of the study to break the blind. And that’s very frustrating for the participants because there were many people that said, I must have had the placebo because it didn’t do anything for me. And there were other people that were, and some people like that, they said, I still want to go to the US. Bill Gasiamis (19:37) I see. Vincent Thijs (19:59) And please, can you tell me if I received a placebo? And I understand it was terribly frustrating for these participants. But we were very strict. No, we don’t want to break the blind. This is against the rules that you have to adhere to in a clinical trial. And so we didn’t do that. Of course, once the trial was finished, we were able to report the results back to the the participants. And then there were some people that were very surprised that they had received the active drug. I remember one person vividly who said, you have to tell me now because I’m going. And then I said, hold off, hold off. And then we told them you had twice the active drug. And so they decided not to go anymore. So you see how From a clinical trial perspective, it’s very important to remain very objective and not being able to see what people have received. From a humane level, of course, I understand it was very important to these people. Bill Gasiamis (21:02) Yeah, that’d be difficult. ⁓ And then I imagine that had the placebo not worked and then the tenisept did work, then there would have been people who would have said, well, I’ve received the placebo. It didn’t work for me. Other people received the tenisept. It did work for them. Why can’t I get the tenisept injection now? Vincent Thijs (21:26) Yeah, and we also had two people, people that had twice the placebo who noticed an improvement and have told me the improvement is still there. Bill Gasiamis (21:35) Wow. Vincent Thijs (21:36) So it. Bill Gasiamis (21:38) That’s amazing. Now was the. Vincent Thijs (21:40) And often that, and I must tell you, often those were relatively little things that seemed to improve both with the placebo and in the active group. And you see that there are changes in quality of life that people have reported, but it happens as well with the placebo. Bill Gasiamis (21:58) Wow. Was the intention of the study that was funded at the very beginning in 2016 by Minister Hunt, was it to determine whether or not this was going to be an effective treatment for people in stroke and therefore to roll it out somehow in the Australian medical system for stroke survivors? What was the thinking for Minister Hunt? Do you know? Vincent Thijs (22:24) Of course, I was not involved in that lobbying to the minister or anything, but it was to bring it on a pathway towards regulatory approval. We know that Etanercept is a relatively cheap drug that you can get ⁓ and is approved already for some indications, especially in people with rheumatoid arthritis, the condition of the joints, but it’s not approved for stroke. And to be officially approved and then potentially re- reimbursed on the PBS. You need to have some trials that have been done such as PESTO. We do different trial phases. One would be a phase two trial and a phase three trial. So phase one is typically in people just to assess the safety and some dosages usually in healthy people. And then a phase two is safety amongst stroke survivors. and preliminary efficacy. And that’s where PESTO was what we call a phase two B trial. And then a phase three trial would then be a trial in many more participants based usually on the results of a phase two B trial. And then usually when you have a phase three trial and it’s convincing and the authorities may approve such a trial. Bill Gasiamis (23:46) So in this case, the phase two B trial, this PESTO trial didn’t find that it’s efficacious. And as a result, there’s not going to be a further trial. Would that be accurate? Vincent Thijs (23:56) Well, based on the findings we have in this particular type of ⁓ way of administering in this particular group of people, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to argue for a phase three trial. It may be that you could say, well, we want to focus on pain because that was more promising. Well, you’ll need to do another trial in that condition. Implications and Future Directions for Research After stroke or maybe within a year after stroke. I mean, there are other possibilities, but at the moment, current clinical practice type trials, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to move forward with that. Bill Gasiamis (24:43) What would the numbers have had to look like for the trial to conclude that there was evidence of efficacy? Vincent Thijs (24:51) Well, I think based on what we have now, you would need to design a much, much bigger trial because there was only a 5 % difference between the placebo and the active group. And actually it was in favor of the placebo. So the placebo did a little bit better, not statistically significant. So it could just be by chance, but you would need probably thousands of people. Bill Gasiamis (25:15) I see. And I imagine there’s not a lot of excitement about funding something like that by the people who fund these trials. Vincent Thijs (25:25) Yes, typically the funders will look at how good is the evidence to pursue this. And if you were a pharmaceutical company on a pathway to development for a drug, you probably would say, well, it looks safe, but it didn’t do what it intended to do. So let’s stop the development of this drug for this indication. Bill Gasiamis (25:45) I say so. I think one of the challenges with the path of administering a TANACEP to stroke survivors is that there seems to be a missing step. And the step to me is determining whether or not somebody is a candidate for a TANACEP. perhaps if we knew more about the stroke survivor, what was actually happening in their particular brain, and we were able to determine some similarities between the people who have had a positive result and we developed a method, then that would make it a lot easier. to say, well, I’m a stroke survivor. I’d like to have a TANACYPT and then go through a process of determining whether or not I was a candidate rather than just guessing whether I’m a candidate or not and then having to pay money to find out whether in fact I was a candidate. Vincent Thijs (26:33) The trial provides a little bit of answers to that. ⁓ You want to identify a marker or a subgroup of people in whom the drug will work particularly well. And so you could look at, and we looked at different things like females versus males, if you’re younger versus older, if you have very severe disability or less severe disability, if you have diabetes, are you early after your stroke or later? That one to five versus six to 15 category. And we could not identify a group in whom the the drug worked particularly well. Now there’s a caveat when you do a clinical trial, it’s really hard to look at subgroups, especially if your trial is relatively small and the PESTO trial is relatively small. So you have to take this with a grain of salt, but it was nothing really promising. that we could identify. So probably you need other markers. If you believe in Etanercept as a drug, you would possibly need to look at what are the levels of TNF alpha, the drug, the molecule that actually is targeted. Unfortunately, there’s nothing like readily available to do that. Could it be that people with a… a stroke in a particular location that would work particularly more than in others, but we don’t have any real way at the moment to do that. Bill Gasiamis (28:08) Okay, so we’re assuming that the people who experience an improvement after they’ve had an attempt to shut that the markers of TNF alpha were lower or higher or Vincent Thijs (28:21) Well, the theory is that they have a lot higher TNF-alpha. Now, as you know, the premise is Etanercept works by reducing this molecule and we have good evidence that it reduces this molecule in the blood, but we don’t have good evidence that it reduces the levels in the brain. That’s where you want it to be. And one of the difficulties and many scientists that work on the Etanercept and ⁓ have said, look, it doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. It doesn’t. go against the natural defense that we have to protect the brain against substances that could potentially be harmful for the brain or that have a large size. And the Tandacep we know has a large size would not cross the blood-brain barrier. So it doesn’t reach the brain. And many people look at it with relative skepticism that it actually enters the brain. Bill Gasiamis (29:18) ⁓ And then with regards to rheumatoid arthritis, doesn’t need to cross the blood-brain barrier. It just somehow gets to this, position or the place where inflammation is occurring. TNF-alpha is active and it can easily mitigate the impact that TNF-alpha is causing. In the brain, the brain is protected by the blood-brain barrier and it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier under normal conditions and therefore it can’t get to where the TNF-alpha is. if there’s any TNF alpha, if inflammation is the issue and it cannot resolve it one way or another. So for some people perhaps it can’t resolve it. Now, I don’t understand about Etanercept a lot. I don’t understand exactly how the molecule works, et cetera. But if it was injected into a blood vessel, is that not something that can occur? And if it was, if it can occur, would that then cross the blood brain barrier? Vincent Thijs (30:15) That wouldn’t cause a blood brain barrier, no. You would have to do what we call a lumbar puncture or put a little ⁓ injection into the ventricles and then hope that it would enter the area that is stark where the TNF alpha is elevated. Those experiments have not been done. Bill Gasiamis (30:17) Either. Okay, so a lumbar puncture is probably riskier than… Vincent Thijs (30:44) Well, it’s uncomfortable. It’s uncomfortable and we do it to administer drugs if needed. Some people with brain cancer receive it. There are other trials ongoing in certain areas of stroke where it’s done. Bill Gasiamis (30:58) Then the difficulty is, and my job here is to report back to the community how they should proceed with Etanercept going forward. Now, I don’t expect you to answer that. However, your study probably gives enough information for people to be able to make an even more informed decision than they did before. Previously, what I think was happening is people, and it still happens every day. And I’ve interviewed a lot of stroke survivors who’ve had positive results with Etanercept. The challenge is getting interviews with stroke survivors who have had negative results with Etanercept. That is something I haven’t been able to do. So if somebody happens to be watching and listening to this and they have had the Etanercept shots and they didn’t get positive results, please reach out so that we can share a balanced story of what’s happening out there in the community. Would there be a reason for the community to perhaps begin again to lobby a government or a minister of a government to look at perisponinal tenosept and study it in a different way, like administration via a lumbar puncture. Conclusions and Final Thoughts Vincent Thijs (32:08) I think we need more, probably go back to the drawing table to see whether, because we’re just taking a step back. The idea is that there is inflammation after stroke and we know that there is inflammation after stroke. We don’t, we just don’t know how long it is. We don’t have a good marker. Is it present only for weeks or months after stroke or can it persist for years? The theory is that it persists for years, but if you look at the actual experiments that have been done, it’s really hard to study in humans because we don’t have good tests. But if you look in animals, it’s also hard to do long-term studies in animals, but nobody has really proven that conclusively that there is still after the stroke causes a scar, that process is still really active. Is TNF-alpha years after a stroke still present? Yes, it’s present because we use TNF as a transmitter in the brain or a chemical in the brain, but is it still worth reducing its activity? That’s probably, I think, a bigger question that science needs to answer is to understand that all inflammation piece and the time after stroke that it persists in my Bill Gasiamis (33:35) Yeah, because it could still be the fact that the person has had brain damage. The particular part of their brain that’s damaged has, for example, taken offline one of their limbs and there is no way to recover that once it’s gone. there is no, there may also be no inflammation ⁓ there. So somebody in that situation receiving Etanercept wouldn’t get a result even if it was able to cross the blood-brain barrier because the damage is done and that’s the challenge with the brain is once it’s damaged restoring the damaged part is not possible. Vincent Thijs (34:15) Yeah, look, after this experience with the PESTA trial, I think we need to work on other avenues and I’m not as hopeful with this based on the data that I have seen. Bill Gasiamis (34:28) Yeah Well, my final question then is, are you planning on exploring inflammation and recovery after stroke with any work that you’re doing in the future? Is there any more of this type of work being done? Vincent Thijs (34:46) we’ve just launched a new study, which is not a randomized trial, but it’s trying to get at this common symptom that people have after stroke, which is fatigue and cognitive changes. And one of my post-docs, Dr. Emily Ramech, she’s a physio by background. We just launched what we call the deep phenotyping study after stroke. And we are looking at young people that have had a stroke up to age 55 and we’re taking them into the scanner. We will do a PET scan that’s looking at inflammation. We’re taking their bloods and looking at markers of inflammation and see how that relates to fatigue after stroke. This is between the first month and the sixth month after stroke. That will give us a little bit of timeline of inflammation after stroke. It will give us some information about fatigue, which is very common, but I have no plans at the moment to look at ethanocephaly. Bill Gasiamis (35:53) Fair enough. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. All right, well, that brings us back to the end of the episode with Professor Vincent Dease on the PESLO trial results. My hope is that this conversation gives you more clarity, especially if you’re felt caught between personal stories, strong opinions, and a lot of uncertainty. The goal here isn’t to tell you what to do. It’s to help you ask better questions and make decisions with your eyes open alongside a qualified healthcare professional who knows your situation. If this episode helped you, please do a couple of things. Subscribe on YouTube or follow the podcast on Spotify or Apple. Leave a review if you can. It really helps more stroke survivors find the show. And if you’ve had an experience you’re willing to share respectfully, positive, negative or mixed, add a comment. Those real-world perspectives help community feel less alone. And if you’d like to support the podcast and keep it going, my book is at recoveryafterstroke.com/book. And you can join the Patreon at patreon.com/recoveryafterstroke. Thanks for being here with me. And remember you’re not alone in this recovery journey. Importantly, we present many podcasts designed to give you an insight and understanding into the experiences of other individuals. Opinions and treatment protocols discussed during any podcast are the individual’s own experience, and we do not necessarily share the same opinion, nor do we recommend any treatment protocol discussed. All content on this website and any linked blog, podcast or video material controlled this website or content is created and produced for informational purposes only and is largely based on the personal experience of Bill Gassiamus. Content is intended to complement your medical treatment and support healing. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice and should not be relied on as health advice. The information is general and may not be suitable for your personal injuries, circumstances or health objectives. Do not use our content as a standalone resource to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease for therapeutic purposes or as a substitute for the advice of a health professional. Never delay seeking advice or disregard the advice of a medical professional, your doctor or your rehabilitator. program based on our content. you have any questions or concerns about your health or medical condition, please seek guidance from a doctor or other medical professional. If you are experiencing a health emergency or think you might be, call 000 if in Australia or your local emergency number immediately for emergency assistance or go to the nearest hospital emergency department. Medical information changes constantly. While we aim to provide current quality information in our content, we do not provide any guarantees and assume no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, currency or completeness of the content. If you choose to rely on any information within our content, you do so solely at your own risk. We are careful with links we provide. However, third-party links from our website are followed at your own risk and we are not responsible for any information you find there. The post PESTO Trial Results (Etanercept After Stroke) | Interview with Professor Vincent Thijs appeared first on Recovery After Stroke.
SummaryIn this episode of the Tabletop SportCast, host James Cast reviews the top games of 2025, discussing games played throughout the year. The episode is structured into tiers based on how often games made it to the table, with a focus on both new and returning games. James shares insights on his gaming experiences, project planning, and the importance of empirical data in ranking the games. The conversation culminates in a countdown of the top 25 games, highlighting the favorites and the reasons behind their popularity.Keywordstabletop games, sports games, game reviews, top games 2025, tabletop sportcast, gaming community, board games, game rankings, tabletop gamingTakeawaysThe list of top games is based on empirical data.115 different games were played throughout the year.Games are categorized into tiers based on play frequency.New games often get fewer plays initially due to project planning.Returning games tend to have more consistent playtime.The top 25 games are those that made it to the table more than three times.Project planning is crucial for maximizing game play.Non-sport games also made it into the top rankings.History Maker Baseball remains the top game for multiple years.Future plans include refining the game list for next year.TitlesTop Games of 2025 CountdownThe Best Tabletop Games ReviewedSound bites"This tier is called I gave it a shot.""It's always gonna be in there.""That's my list for 2025."Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Top Games of 202503:04 Recap of Recent Events and Game Preparations05:29 Methodology for Ranking Games08:09 Overview of the Top Games List09:05 Tier 5: I Gave It a Shot15:45 Tier 4: Made It to the Table20:55 Tier 3: Came Back for More27:10 Tier 2: Project Worthy30:38 Exploring Superstar Pro Wrestling and Digital Gaming31:33 Top 25 Games: The Go-To List32:31 New Entries: Truckin' 76 and Aviatrix 3734:51 Real Time Pro Fishing and Breakaway Football36:56 New Game of the Year: Play at the Races38:20 Dodgeball and Second Season: Tournament Highlights40:33 Legends of Boxing and Highlight Maker Hoops42:46 Dungeons and Dragons: The Non-Sports Game of the Year44:16 Dice United and Face to the Mat: Tiebreakers Explained46:44 Soccer Blast and History Maker Golf: Sports Games in Focus49:16 Red, White and Blue Racing and Fast Drive Football52:21 Legends of Boxing and Hockey Blast: The Top Contenders55:29 Grid Zone: The Premier Fictional Sports Game56:34 History Maker Baseball: The Undisputed Champion58:24 Wrapping Up: Reflections on the Top Games of 202501:02:03 NEWCHAPTER
Hi there, welcome to Episode 756 of Recruiting Future with me, Matt Alder. Recruiting Future helps Talent Acquisition teams drive measurable impact by developing strategic capability in Foresight, Influence, Talent, and Technology. This episode is about Foresight. Making sense of talent acquisition right now feels impossible. Every week brings new technology announcements, shifting economic signals, and conflicting advice about what comes next. It's tempting to chase the latest headline or follow gut instinct, but reactive decision-making rarely ends well. Understanding key patterns helps separate signal from noise, and this is where genuine trend analysis grounded in real data becomes invaluable. So what trends are shaping TA heading into 2026, and how should leaders respond? My guest this week is Susan De La Vega, SVP Global Tech and Client Experience at Korn Ferry. Korn Ferry has just published their 12th annual TA trends report, built from interviews with over 1,600 global talent leaders, and Susan shares what the research reveals about where talent acquisition is heading. In the interview, we discuss: The biggest TA challenges we have seen this year Methodology behind Korn Ferry's TA Trends Report Changing attitudes and approaches to AI Why your next hire might not be human The importance of mapping tasks Investing in future talent Can TA get a seat at the table? Breaking the silos in the talent function Advice to TA Leaders on strategies for 2026 What does the future look like in 3 years' time? Follow this podcast on Apple Podcasts. Follow this podcast on Spotify.
I'm about to tell you something that might sting a little: you've been planning your years completely backwards. And it's costing you everything.Here's what I see every single January, and maybe you'll recognize yourself in this: You're setting bold revenue goals, mapping out launches, planning content calendars. It all looks perfect on paper. You're ambitious. You're strategic. You're ready to make things happen.But by March? You're exhausted. By June? You're behind. And by September, you're lying awake at night wondering why this business you built to give you freedom feels like it's running you instead of supporting the life you actually want to live.Sound familiar?Here's the thing: after years of doing this work myself and with hundreds of ambitious women just like you, I've discovered something radical. The problem isn't that you're not disciplined enough. It's not that you're not working hard enough. The problem is the planning methodology itself.We've been doing this backwards. We plan business first. And then we try to squeeze our lives into whatever's left over.In this episode, I'm sharing part of my framework from my Plan Your Ideal Freedom Year workshop, the methodology that's changed everything for me and the women I work with. And it starts with a simple but powerful flip: what if you built your business around your life instead of fitting your life around your business?If you're in your 40s or 50s like me, juggling aging parents, kids launching into adulthood, your own health becoming more complex, and a business that seems to demand more every single year, this isn't just a nice idea. This approach is necessary. It's how you stop optimizing and start actually living.What You'll Learn:Why everything you've been taught about business planning is backwards (and why it's leading you straight to burnout, resentment, and a business that consumes your life instead of supporting it)The 6-step reverse planning methodology I use to claim my life first, then build my business around my actual capacity, not some fantasy version where nothing goes wrongHow to choose your word for the year that becomes your North Star (mine is "golden" for 2026, and I'll tell you exactly why)The non-negotiable first step that most ambitious women skip and why skipping it is stealing your energy, creativity, and joyWhy women in their 40s and 50s must plan differently. Your energy, responsibilities, and wellbeing require a new strategic approach.The holistic life planning process I created with LifePilot to make sure your health, relationships, and personal growth don't get sacrificed on the altar of business success Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
You have likely seen the term 80-20 running: a training approach where 80% of runs are easy, and 20% are hard. But is this an infallible rule as people present it on social media, or are there times when you may run more hard workouts - or more easy runs? We discuss the nuance of training intensity distribution with sport scientist Jonah Rosner.Thank you to our sponsors:✨ Amazfit: User-friendly simple running watches with advanced features, at an affordable price point. Use link http://bit.ly/4nai73H for 10% off your purchase.✨ FlipBelt: Sleek storage options, including no-bounce running belts and shorts. Use code TLF20 at flipbelt.com for 20% off your purchase.✨ Previnex: Previnex creates clinically effective, third-party tested supplements made with high-quality ingredients, including Muscle Health Plus (creatine). Use the code treadlightly for 15% off your first order at previnex.com✨Join us on Patreon.com/treadlightlyrunning or subscribe on Apple Podcasts starting in December, when we'll be releasing special subscriber-only content!In this episode, you will learn:✅ What is 80-20 running?✅ What does 20% of your training hard actually look like?✅ Polarized vs pyramidal training✅ Why so much of your training is easy running✅ How to approach training intensity in a marathon build✅ The load differences of different training pacesWho should and should not use 80-20 trainingAbout our guest:Jonah Rosner is a sport scientist, strength coach, and running performance coach based in Brooklyn. He spent the past decade working with athletes across every major American pro sport, including serving as the Applied Sport Science Coordinator for the Houston Texans in the NFL, one of the youngest sport scientists in league history.Jonah now focuses on helping everyday runners train with the same clarity and structure used in elite environments. He partnered with Nike to run the Nike Running Performance Lab NYC, where he used advanced testing and technology to build individualized strength and marathon training programs.Today, Jonah creates some of the most widely shared science-backed running content online. His free weekly newsletter, Marathon Science, breaks down training, strength, fueling, and performance into simple takeaways runners can use immediately. Subscribers get free tools like his daily nutrition guides, carb-loading cheatsheet, and strength-for-runners resources.You can join the newsletter at: https://marathonscience.beehiiv.com/ — it's packed with practical insights grounded in real sport science.If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like:
If you've ever launched a webinar or opened your cart only to hear crickets, this episode will finally show you why. Kendra starts with a candid story about one of her early webinars—where her sales expectations were based on hope, not conversion math—and uses it to break down what actually drives sales: qualified leads, realistic numbers, and alignment between what you sell and who you sell it to.She then dives into the five reasons programs fail to sell in today's market: an unclear or overly broad niche, not having a proprietary method that differentiates you, weak offer positioning, not enough qualified leads (email list > social), and relying on posting instead of having consistent sales mechanisms. Kendra explains why organic traffic isn't enough anymore, why your program needs a clear roadmap, and how messaging needs to communicate benefits—not just features—to attract the right buyers.Finally, she shows you exactly how to diagnose your own sales gaps using these five checkpoints. Whether you're struggling to fill your program or you're ready to scale, this episode arms you with the data, strategy, and clarity you need to turn your offer into something that reliably sells.In this episode you'll learn:Common misconceptions about sales expectations and the importance of understanding actual conversion rates.The critical role of qualified leads, focusing mainly on email list subscribers as primary leads due to better communication control and reliability over social media leads.Challenges of evolving social media marketing and the rise of paid advertising necessity in current saturated markets and economic conditionsImportance of having a focused niche and the program's specificity in addressing a narrowly defined audience, especially in competitive health and coaching sectors.Necessity of a proprietary method or unique program framework to differentiate from competitors and give clients a clear step-by-step roadmap.Impact of positioning and messaging on client understanding and attraction to the offer.Leave the podcast a 5-star review: https://ratethispodcast.com/wealthy
In this episode of the Dementia Researcher podcast we look at how dementia clinical trials reach far beyond medicines. Host Dr Annalise Rahman Filipiak speaks with Dr Elizabeth Rhodus, Dr Inga Antonsdottir, and Dr Elisa França Resende about entering the field, working with behavioural and community based interventions, and learning the skills needed to deliver rigorous, reproducible studies that still respect the individual needs of participants. The guests discuss their routes into trials, what surprised them, what they wish they had known earlier, and how mentorship and collaboration shaped their progress. They touch on trial design, regulatory processes, cultural considerations, and the value of early career networks that support researchers across different countries. -- Topics covered
Momentum is building behind New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) that offer stronger human relevance than traditional animal testing. The FDA issued on December 2 a draft guidance outlining specific product types for which the agency believes six-month non-human primate toxicity testing can be eliminated or reduced. The guidance followed a proposed agency template for NAMs in April. There is also an initiative called the Validation and Qualification Network, with dozens of partners from regulators, like the FDA and European Commission, to Big Pharmas and CROs, such as Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, GSK and Charles River Laboratories, that had a July meeting. In addition, Reuters reported in September that AI-driven drug discovery picks up as FDA pushes to reduce animal testing.In this episode of Denatured, Jennifer C. Smith-Parker speaks to Stacey Adam, PhD, Vice President of Science Partnerships at the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health and Patrick Smith, Senior Vice President, Translational Science at Certara, to discuss the latest regulatory news and the future for NAMs development.HostJennifer Smith-Parker, Director of Insights, BioSpaceGuestsPatrick Smith, Senior Vice President, Translational Science, CertaraStacey Adam, PhD, Vice President of Science Partnerships, Foundation for the National Institutes of HealthDisclaimer: The views expressed in this discussion by guests are their own and do not represent those of their organizations.
Send us a textIn this episode, Scott Kuhlman and Chasity Owens kick off an exciting new series diving deep into NFPA 921—starting with one of the most critical chapters in the entire guide: Chapter 4, Basic Methodology. This episode blends expert-level fire investigation insight with the podcast's signature humor, storytelling, and real-world case experience. Scott and Chasity introduce their brand-new segment, “Investigation Interrogation,” where they challenge each other—and the audience—with key questions every fire investigator should know before stepping into a courtroom or writing a report.Listeners will learn how NFPA 921 now officially classifies fire investigation as a forensic science discipline, why Chapter 4 underpins everything from origin determination to negative corpus debates, and how the scientific method, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, bias reduction, and certainty levels shape reliable fire investigation results. They also unpack the three NFPA-recognized types of report reviews—administrative, technical, and peer review—and explain why a proper technical review is one of the strongest safeguards against confirmation bias and courtroom challenges.The hosts share listener fan-mail wins, discuss real-world examples involving candles, combustibles, appliances, and the limits of testing hypotheses, and even touch on holiday fire safety—from Christmas trees to oven light bulbs. As always, the episode is packed with practical, courtroom-ready insights, investigator mindset training, and memorable teaching moments… all wrapped in humor, banter, and a blues-style “Water Your Tree” holiday PSA.Whether you're a seasoned investigator, a trainee, or someone preparing for expert testimony, this episode delivers serious value and relatable, real-world fire investigation education—NFPA 921 made understandable, memorable, and actually fun.
Will bitcoin dip below $65K? Bitcoin exited November down 17.5% in one of its largest monthly declines in three years. Traders are worried about potential MSCI methodology changes that could affect firms collectively holding more than $137 billion in digital assets. Will bitcoin continue to dip and test the $64,000 technical target? CoinDesk's Jennifer Sanasie hosts "CoinDesk Daily." - Break the cycle of exploitation. Break down the barriers to truth. Break into the next generation of privacy. Break Free. Free to scroll without being monetized. Free from censorship. Freedom without fear. We deserve more when it comes to privacy. Experience the next generation of blockchain that is private and inclusive by design. Break free with Midnight, visit midnight.network/break-free - Need liquidity without selling your crypto? Take out a Figure Crypto-Backed Loan, allowing you to borrow against your BTC, ETH, or SOL with 12-month terms and no prepayment penalties. They have the lowest rates in the industry at 8.91%, allowing you to access instant cash or buy more Bitcoin without triggering a tax event. Unlock your crypto's potential today at Figure! https://figuremarkets.co/coindesk - This episode was hosted by Jennifer Sanasie. “CoinDesk Daily” is produced by Jennifer Sanasie and edited by Victor Chen.
In this episode of Sales Is King, host Dan Sixsmith sits down with Jon Addison, Chief Revenue Officer at Okta, to unpack how identity is becoming mission-critical in a world of AI agents, distributed work, and rising security expectations. Jon shares how Okta is evolving from product to platform, why identity is central to securing AI, and what it really takes to lead large, global go-to-market organizations today. The conversation ranges from AI ROI and agent security to sales leadership, relationship selling in a post‑pandemic world, and Jon's unconventional path from door‑to‑door sales and technical roles into the CRO seat.Key TopicsOkta's mission and why identity sits at the center of security and AI. The early, messy phase of AI and agents and why standardization and consolidation are coming. How Okta thinks about securing AI agents for 20,000+ customers through policy, platform, and design. Moving from “product company” to “platform company” and what that means for GTM, partners, and customers. Jon's view of the CRO role: being a change agent, driving parallel transformations, and balancing data with instinct. The “Formula to Win” (Focus, Compete, Lead) and the decision to specialize across Okta and Auth0 buying personas. Why enterprise selling is going “back to relationships” in an era of hyper‑informed, AI‑enabled buyers. Skill vs. art in sales: practice, rehearsal, and the X‑factor of human connection and courage. Methodologies, MEDDIC, and how frameworks and creativity can and should coexist. Jon's career path: door‑to‑door sales, technical consulting, product management, Oracle, LinkedIn, and now Okta. How to think about talent, instincts, and building high‑performing, international sales teams. Jon's definition of success: growth, unlocking potential in reps, and meaningful customer outcomes. HighlightsAI and agent deployments are still in early, fragmented stages, and most enterprises are experimenting without yet seeing consistent ROI—creating a big opening for vendors who can standardize and secure these environments. Okta sees AI agents much like cloud apps in the early days: scattered pilots that will eventually need centralized identity, policy, and governance—an area where its platforms are already embedded. The CRO role is fundamentally about being an empowered change agent: driving multiple transformation streams at once, building trust across functions, and having the courage to move fast without creating “one‑way doors.” Specialization across platforms (Okta vs. Auth0) and buying personas is unlocking deeper expertise, better customer conversations, and sharper competitive positioning. Enterprise sellers will increasingly face highly educated buyers who have already self‑researched with AI, which shifts the seller's value from information transfer to relationship, insight, orchestration, and outcome design. World‑class sellers treat sales like a craft: they rehearse, review call recordings, seek coaching, and study both customers and industries the way elite athletes study film. Strong sales cultures blend a clear methodology and shared language with individual creativity, ambition, and “brave” outreach that truly differentiates the experience for customers. Guest Bio – Jon AddisonJon Addison is the Chief Revenue Officer at Okta, where he leads the global field organization and is responsible for driving worldwide growth. He brings over 20 years of sales leadership experience from roles at LinkedIn, Oracle, and other global technology firms, and is focused on building high‑performing teams, scaling platform‑led go‑to‑market motions, and helping customers modernize and secure identity in the age of AI.Connect with Jon and OktaJon on Okta's leadership page: https://www.okta.com/company/leadership/jon-addison/ Okta newsroom and updates: https://www.okta.com/newsroom/ Connect with Dan Sixsmith & Sales Is KingDan Sixsmith on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dansixsmith/
story-centredThis Black Friday, we're doing something different.Something deeper.Something ours.Instead of buying more, we're learning more.Instead of consuming, we're growing.Instead of chasing sales, we're chasing alignment, healing, and legacy.In this special series, Beyond the Story Podcast reclaims Black Friday as a day of investment — soul-first, story-centered, and community-built. Rooted in the Soul–Mind Continuum, Methodology, we break open the truth about Black Friday's history, its economic impact, and the ways it has shaped (and stolen from) Black communities. Each episode unpacks a letter from our B.L.A.C.K. framework:B — Break CyclesL — Learn YourselfA — Align Your StoryC — Choose Conscious ConnectionsK — Keep Blooming
In this episode, Lauren and Heewone are joined by Professor Anton Strezhnev, a new faculty member in the Department of Political Science, to discuss his background at Harvard, NYU, and the University of Chicago, his work in the field of political methodology, his experience teaching PS-170 - Research Methods in Political Science, and more!
In this episode of the Dementia Researcher - Xxplored Women's Brain Health podcast, host Dr Laura Stankeviciute speaks with Professor Claudia Barth from Charite University and Dr Gillian Coughlan from Harvard Medical School to examine the midlife transition, menopause and its significance for women's brain health. Together they outline what the menopause truly involves across the early, late, and post stages, and explain how hormonal change affects brain structure, energy use, mood, and cognition. They also explore why this period may coincide with greater vulnerability to later Alzheimer's disease and discuss the role of early or surgical menopause, symptom severity, and gaps in existing research cohorts. The episode highlights the need for richer reproductive data, real time biomarker studies, and closer collaboration with digital health tools to better capture women's lived experiences. It reflects a growing wave of research and public interest aimed at improving understanding, support, and evidence based care during this important life stage. -- Takeaways ● Menopause is a long transition shaped by fluctuating hormones. ● Cognitive and mood symptoms reflect changes in brain networks. ● Earlier menopause is linked with increased later Alzheimer's risk. ● Major research cohorts lack detailed reproductive data. ● New real time studies are beginning to track symptoms and biomarkers. ● Digital tools will be key for future research. ● Better global representation is needed across studies. ● Momentum is building to close long standing gaps in women's health. -- Find bios on all our speakers, a full transcript of the show and more on our website at https://www.dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk - Follow us on social media: https://www.instagram.com/dementia_researcher/ https://www.facebook.com/Dementia.Researcher/ https://www.twitter.com/demrescommunity https://www.linkedin.com/company/dementia-researcher https://www.bsky.app/profile/dementiare…archer.bsky.social -- Download and Register with our Community App: https://www.onelink.to/dementiaresearcher -- Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Menopause and Research Focus 07:25 Understanding Menopause: Definitions and Stages 16:27 Menopause and Alzheimer's Disease: A Critical Connection 22:43 Understanding Menopause and Brain Health 25:21 Historical Blind Spots in Alzheimer's Research 26:38 The Importance of Reproductive Variables 31:46 Biomarkers and Methodologies in Women's Health Research 35:28 Industry Collaboration in Research 39:00 Personal Reflections on Women's Brain Health
In this engaging conversation, Heath Shearon and Alex Rodov explore the vibrant culture of Toronto, the evolution of technology and quality assurance, and the critical role of testing in the insurance industry. Alex shares his journey from humble beginnings to becoming a leader in the tech space, emphasizing the importance of methodology and the pressures faced in quality assurance. They discuss the challenges of trusting technology, the significance of consumer education, and the future of QA technology, including Alex's new book on testing.TakeawaysGrowing up in Toronto inspired Alex's passion for technology.Quality assurance has evolved significantly over the years.Pressure in QA is a constant, especially in critical industries.Methodology is essential for effective software testing.Consumer education is vital for understanding technology's reliability.The insurance industry heavily relies on quality assurance processes.Alex's book aims to educate consumers about testing.Investing in QA technology is crucial for future advancements.Chapters00:00 Exploring Toronto: A Cultural Hub06:03 The Evolution of Quality Assurance in Tech13:48 The Importance of Methodology in QA22:02 The Role of QA in the Insurance Industry30:12 Investing in the Future of QA TechnologySponsors:Smart Choice- the fastest growing agency network hands down Canopy Connect- your 1 click solution for all things dec pages, intake platforms etc MAV- the AI-powered insurance expert that engages unlimited leads with text messaging
In this electrifying episode of The MisFitNation, Host Rich LaMonica welcomes Cauveé—TEDx speaker, strategist, coach, and The Inspiration Engineer®. With unstoppable energy and wisdom, Cauveé blends strategy, instruction, and programming (S.I.P.®) to ignite personal growth and business acceleration like never before. Known for his signature MotivationMusic™, Cauveé fuses entertainment with empowerment to help clients build legacy-driven brands, optimize performance, and awaken their inner greatness. Featured in Forbes, Influencive, HuffPost, Spotify, Thrive Global, and more, Cauveé's impact reaches entrepreneurs, dreamers, and visionaries around the world.
Long time lurker, first time poster - be nice please! :) I was searching for summary data of EA funding trends, but couldn't find anything more recent than Tyler's post from 2022. So I decided to update it. If this analysis is done properly anywhere, please let me know. The spreadsheet is here (some things might look weird due to importing from Excel to sheets) Observations EA grantmaking appears on a steady downward trend since 2022 / FTX. The squeeze on GH funding to support AI / other longtermist priorities appears to be really taking effect this year (though 2025 is a rough estimate and has significant uncertainty.) I am really interested in particular about the apparent drop in GW grants this year. I suspect that it is wrong or at least misleading - the metrics report suggests they are raising ~$300m p.a. from non OP donors. Not sure if I have made an error (missing direct to charity donations?) or if they are just sitting on funding with the ongoing USAID disruption. Methodology I compiled the latest grants databases from EA Funds, GiveWell, OpenPhilanthropy, and SFF. I added summary level data from ACE. To remove [...] ---Outline:(00:41) Observations(01:26) Methodology(02:12) Notes --- First published: November 14th, 2025 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NWHb4nsnXRxDDFGLy/historical-ea-funding-data-2025-update --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.
Ag employers took a big sigh of relief last month after the Department of Labor revised the methodology for determining the H-2A program's Adverse Effect Wage Rate.
Have any questions, insights, or feedback? Send me a text!Length: 1 hour 27 minutesSynopsis: This morning (11/14/25), in our Friday morning Machshavah Lab series for women, we continued learning through the prologue of Iyov (1:1 - 3:1). We began with a question of Iyov Methodology: Which commentaries would I recommend? This led to another important tangent (the second in three sessions!) about the ikkarim (fundamentals of Judaism). I'm particularly interested in what people think about what was said. We then read through Iyov 1:6-12 at a more leisurely pace than our quick overview last time, and we concluded by reading the Malbim's and Rambam's prefaces, explaining why I will NOT be decoding the allegory of the satan until a few months from now. The plan for next time is to go over the peshat of the remainder of the prologue, which we'll analyze in the session after that.-----מקורות:איוב א:א-יברמב"ם - משנה תורה: ספר המדע, הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגוים ב:א-גרמב"ם - משנה תורה: ספר המדע, הלכות יסודי התורה ב:ו-זמלבי"ם - איוב א:ארש"י - איוב א:ארמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:כב-----This week's Torah content is sponsored by Joey and Estee Lichter in commemoration of the yahrzeits of Joey's mother, Faiga bas Yehuda, and Estee's father, Yisroel ben R' Moshe.-----If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.-----Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/YU Torah: yutorah.org/teachers/Rabbi-Matt-SchneeweissPatreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweissYouTube Channel: youtube.com/rabbischneeweissInstagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.comOld Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/WhatsApp Content Hub (where I post all my content and announce my public classes): https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0HAmazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel
As part of the Tradition Today Summit, held on November 9, 2025, convened by Yeshiva University's Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Studies and TRADITION's publisher the Rabbinical Council of America, we hosted a community wide public Keynote Address by Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter on “Historical Realities and Educational Methodologies: Then and Now.” This was the capstone to a daylong closed conference exploring “Educating Our Children to Be Ovdei Hashem in a Modern World: Challenges and Opportunities.” Evening Keynote Address Program Greetings: R. Jeffrey Saks, Editor, TRADITION R. Chaim Strauchler, Rinat Yisrael & TRADITION R. Menachem Penner, Executive Vice-President, RCA Lecture: R. Dr. Jacob J. Schacter, Yeshiva University Respondents: R. Dr. Michael Berger, Dean, Azrieli Graduate School Ms. Miriam Krupka Berger, Associate Principal, Ramaz Upper School Rabbi Dr. Jeffrey Kobrin, Rosh Yeshiva & Head of School, North Shore Hebrew Academy View the lecture's accompanying source packet. The Tradition Today Summit was hosted at Congregation Rinat Yisrael, in Teaneck, NJ, and supported by Henry and Golda Reena Rothman The post Historical Realities and Educational Methodologies first appeared on Tradition Online.
Fancy Scientist: A Material Girl Living in a Sustainable World
It's well known that careers in wildlife, conservation, and the environment are incredibly competitive. In fact, it's not uncommon for a job to have hundreds of applicants. So you might be surprised to hear that there are jobs that are difficult for employers to fill. Yes, difficult! (insert mind blown emoji here). To be honest, I was surprised too. Today's episode of the Fancy Scientist podcast is inspired by this recent insight, and it came about through a new connection on LinkedIn. Dr. Patrick Raney, the Director of Conservation Programs in the Great Lakes Atlantic region of Ducks Unlimited, and I were messaging each other about conservation jobs, and he mentioned that it had actually been difficult for him to find qualified applicants to fill certain positions Given that so many people are struggling to get jobs, I immediately thought that this was wonderful news and that I needed to have him on the podcast to learn more and help those in need.As the Director of Conservation Programs in the Great Lakes Atlantic region of Ducks Unlimited, Patrick leads wetland restoration and mitigation efforts to restore habitat, protect biodiversity, and ensure that long-term conservation wins for both wildlife and communities. In this episode, you'll learn about Patrick's winding career path to Ducks Unlimited and early interest in conservation. We also talk a lot about what I am now calling “wildlife adjacent careers,” that is, careers that are related to wildlife work, but are not necessarily directly involved in research. This includes fields that you might not think of when it comes to helping wildlife, in this case, careers in engineering that rebuild wetland habitats. Patrick initially trained as a plant biologist and started his journey at the early age of 16 with a summer camp job that he demanded (yes, demanded!). It's a great story that you won't want to miss. In it, he demonstrates his unstoppable attitude towards going after your wildlife career, which is CRITICAL in this field. We also follow his career progression through various roles in environmental science and research.We talk in-depth about Patrick's work at Ducks Unlimited, how he uses different strategies to support wetland species, and especially ducks. You'll learn how Ducks Unlimited approaches wetland conservation, working with stakeholders, and achieving results that are a win-win for wildlife and partners. Throughout the conversation, Patrick offers a lot of valuable advice for early professionals in wildlife careers. We cover the importance of volunteering and building experience, and that a little goes a long way, as well as the value of transferable skills from non-wildlife jobs in environmental careers. Patrick shares advice on the importance of networking and even making proactive job applications. He mentions that he occasionally hires candidates who reach out directly, even if there are no immediate positions available! Given that we met each other over LinkedIn, we also go into the importance of this platform, which I have become obsessed with recently. Ever since I took some training and developed my own LinkedIn for Wildlife Careers Masterclass, I have been using and loving LinkedIn. He talks about how he believes it is a powerful career tool, and uses it for job recruitment offering you tips on how you can use LinkedIn to your advantage.If you're interested in wildlife careers, you're going to get a lot of specific and concrete advice on how to approach your career, as well as creative ideas to think differently than others to set yourself apart. And if you're not on a wildlife career track, you're going to learn about important conservation practices that work and successful wetland restoration efforts.Specifically, we go over:What wildlife adjacent jobs are and how to think about careers in conservation Patrick's work at Ducks Unlimited and what they do as an organization to protect wildlife How Patrick got started in wildlife work and the unexpected turns his career took How you can get started in wildlife, conservation, and environmental careers The importance of volunteering and how to make it work for you, even with limited time and resources How Ducks Unlimited works with various stakeholders to achieve conservation success What jobs are in demand for wildlife careers Creative ways to set yourself apart from others to secure experience, jobs, and more Making LinkedIn an asset to network, connect with others, and share your professional achievements And MORE!Dream of being a wildlife biologist, zoologist, conservation biologist, or ecologist? Ready to turn your love of animals into a thriving career?
In this conversation, Dr. Sanda Moldovan and Laura Frontiero discuss the challenges many face with chronic health issues despite following a healthy lifestyle. They explore the transition from traditional to functional medicine, the importance of gut health, and the role of toxins in chronic conditions. Laura shares her methodology for healing, success stories from her clients, and emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to health that includes detoxification and addressing underlying issues. The conversation concludes with an invitation to Laura's upcoming masterclass aimed at helping individuals break the midlife symptom cycle and regain their health. Want to see more of The Holistic Dentistry Show? Watch our episodes on YouTube! Do you have a mouth- or body-related question for Dr. Sanda? Send her a message on Instagram! Remember, you're not healthy until your mouth is healthy. So take care of it in the most natural way. Key Takeaways: (00:00) Introduction to Health Challenges (04:44)Transitioning from Traditional to Functional Medicine (06:56) Understanding the Methodology of Healing (09:41) Success Stories and Transformations (11:51) The Role of Toxins in Chronic Conditions (12:54) The Importance of Gut Health (16:30) Detoxification: Myths and Realities (18:41) Identifying Symptoms of Toxicity (22:45) Addressing Persistent Health Issues (25:03) Upcoming Masterclass on Midlife Health (26:57) Final Thoughts and Messages of Hope Guest Info: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/laura.frontiero/?hl=en Live Master Class: Break the Midlife Symptom Cycle! Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 4pm PT / 7pm ET Sign Up Below! https://breakthemidlifesymptomcycle.com/registration?am_id=sanda8574 Connect With Us: AskDrSanda | YouTube BeverlyHillsDentalHealth.com | Instagram DrSandaMoldovan.com | Instagram Orasana.com | Instagram
This audio comes from one of RENEW.org's National Gatherings. Interested in joining one of our events? Check out upcoming events here: https://renew.org/resources/events/ Get early access to all of the 2025 RENEW Gathering Breakout Tracks: https://reallifetheologypodcast.supercast.com/ Visit RENEW.org for great resources on Disciple Making and Theology: https://renew.org/ The Power of Relational Discipleship: A Call to Follow Jesus' Model In this compelling talk, Jim Putman emphasizes the importance of relational discipleship, insisting that making disciples isn't just about imparting teachings – it's about forming transformative relationships. By examining Jesus' approach to disciple-making, which included personal relationships and modeling behavior, the speaker argues for a restoration of the church's methodology to align with that of Jesus. The script underscores that true discipleship embodies love and relationship, challenging modern churches to adopt a more hands-on, relational approach to cultivate spiritually mature disciples who can change the world. Key Takeaways 00:00 Introduction and Purpose 00:46 The Core Mission of the Church 01:51 Jesus as the Ultimate Disciple Maker 02:17 The Importance of Relational Discipleship 03:38 Defining Spiritual Maturity 04:36 The Greatest Commandment: Love and Relationship 06:04 The Role of the Church in Building Relationships 09:07 Jesus' Methodology vs. Modern Church Practices 14:33 The Wrestling Analogy for Discipleship 19:46 Conclusion: Building a Winning Team
Today we delve into the intricate world of AI assessment, review and audit methodologies, focusing on international frameworks and regulatory approaches. The discussion features experts from the City Bar Presidential Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies, including Azish Filabi (American College McGuire Center for Ethics and Financial Services), Rim Belaoud (Forensic Risk Analysis), Nikhil Aggarwal (Deloitte Anti Money-Laundering), Lenka Molins (Deloitte AI and Internet Regulation) and Jerome Walker (Task Force Co-Chair). They explore the definitions, methodologies, and challenges of AI audits across different jurisdictions such as the US, EU, Canada, and the UK, providing perspectives on issues related to methodologies, bias, transparency, and accountability. The episode also covers practical approaches for organizations to review AI models and highlights the importance of robust AI governance in various sectors, including financial services, A-ML, CFT, fraud, and export controls. 00:00 Introduction to the Podcast 00:50 Overview of AI Assessments, Reviews, and Audits 02:20 Key Definitions and Concepts in AI 05:44 Panelist Introductions 08:39 Discussion on Responsible and Trustworthy AI 18:33 Training AI Models and Explainability 22:33 Challenges in AI Assessments and Reviews 27:09 Global Perspectives on AI Audits 39:10 Practical Approaches for AI Model Reviews 53:57 Key Skills for AI Model Audits 59:27 Introduction and Areas of Practice 01:01:31 AI in Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing 01:07:36 AI Models in Fraud Detection 01:14:41 Export Control on AI Models 01:21:35 International AI Audit Methodologies 01:27:42 Challenges in AI Audits 01:42:10 Accountability in AI Audits 01:46:13 Conclusion and Final Thoughts
Former LA Clippers and UTA CTO Charles Sims, known as The Hurricane CTO, joins Joe Pardavila to share how chaos, pressure, and persistence led to the creation of his Hurricane Methodology—a framework designed to help startups move from idea to execution.Drawing from decades of experience in both corporate tech and venture investing, Charles explains how founders can close the gap between capability and performance, avoid tech sprawl, and build modular systems that scale. He also reveals how AI and empathy are reshaping what it means to lead in the modern startup world.If you're a founder, investor, or operator tired of analysis paralysis, this episode will help you reframe how you think about progress, execution, and value creation.
In this episode, China scholar David C. Kang joins Ray Powell and Jim Carouso to discuss his recent Foreign Affairs article, “What China Doesn't Want”, which argues that Beijing's geostrategic ambitions are much more limited than Washington's foreign policy establishment believes. Kang challenges the prevailing consensus that China seeks regional hegemony and global primacy, arguing instead that China's aims are narrower, more domestic, and more status quo than commonly assumed.A contrarian perspective on China's intentions: Kang and his co-authors analyzed approximately 12,000 Chinese articles and hundreds of Xi Jinping speeches, concluding that systematic analysis reveals China's priorities are internal stability and Taiwan, not global domination or territorial conquest of neighboring states.The debate over regional threat perceptions: While Kang argues that countries like Vietnam, South Korea, and Japan view China more pragmatically than Washington does, the hosts push back with examples of regional maritime tensions, arguing that frontline states see China as a more serious threat than Kang credits.Taiwan as the central flashpoint: All three agree China prefers a "boa constrictor" strategy of gradual pressure over military invasion, but disagree on how to interpret low-probability war risks and whether recent U.S.-Taiwan moves constitute status quo changes.Gray-zone success and maritime expansion: Powell argues China is the 21st century's most successful maritime expansionist power, achieving objectives through gray-zone and political warfare in the South China Sea, East China Sea, and Yellow Sea without conventional war.The South China Sea disputes: The conversation explores China's aggressive island-building and exclusion zones around Scarborough Shoal, with Kang acknowledging these as serious issues but distinguishing them from existential threats that would trigger regional wars.Regional balancing vs. living with China: Kang contends Southeast Asian nations focus on "how to live with China" rather than preparing for war or joining containment coalitions, while the hosts draw on their experiences in diplomatic posts to argue that these countries privately seek American presence as a critical counterbalance.Methodology matters: Kang defends his systematic analysis of Chinese rhetoric against accusations of cherry-picking, arguing that scholars must distinguish between propaganda, sincere statements, and observed behavior—and that critics often cherry-pick quotes themselves.War probabilities and deterrence: Even if China's intention to fight over Taiwan is low, the hosts emphasize that even 10-20% odds of catastrophic war demand serious deterrence planning and military readiness.
Learn how to finally turn the tables on the narcissist in your life using the most powerful tool — leverage. In this eye-opening conversation, Rebecca Zung and Judge Lynn Toler reveal how to outsmart manipulation, regain control, and win — both in court and in life. Discover the S.L.A.Y. Methodology and insider strategies to protect yourself, negotiate powerfully, and stop being controlled by a narcissist's lies and tactics. FULL DESCRIPTION: Discover the #1 most powerful tool you can use against a narcissist — leverage — and how to build it ethically and effectively. Learn the S.L.A.Y. framework: Strategy, Leverage, Anticipate, and focus on You. Understand the difference between diamond-level supply (status, image, reputation) and coal-level supply (chaos, control, and conflict). Hear real-life insights from Judge Lynn Toler on handling narcissists in court and separating emotion from strategy. Learn how to stop defending yourself, set boundaries, and communicate from strength. Discover how to use narcissists' own behavior — lies, contradictions, and ego — as leverage. Explore Rebecca's M.A.T.T.E.R. Framework for negotiation success. Find out how to prepare mentally, emotionally, and legally when a narcissist tries to destroy your peace or reputation. Gain clarity on how leverage is not manipulation — it's your power to create incentive for fair outcomes. Transform fear into confidence and finally shift from victim to victor. Perfect for: anyone navigating narcissistic abuse, divorce, custody battles, or high-conflict negotiations.
Adam Keen, host of the Keen on Yoga Podcast, returns to the show to revisit a conversation they started years ago about the role of teachers and teachings. They discuss recent scandals in the Ashtanga community, teaching styles and somatic dominance, origins of Ashtanga, tradition and market competition, implications of the "active series," homogenization of Mysore rooms, adjustments, hip replacement surgery, showing fallibility, and holding ourselves to account so we can provide something of meaning and purpose. To subscribe and support the show… GET PREMIUM. Say thank you - buy J a coffee. Check out J's other podcast… J. BROWN YOGA THOUGHTS.
In this episode, James, Gray, and Marinus continue their series reading and discussing Herman Bavinck's Philosophy of Revelation. This week, they discuss the fifth chapter on “Revelation and History.”Read along with us as we walk through the chapters of this significant work.Works mentioned:Herman Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation: A New Annotated Edition Adapted and Expanded from the 1908 Stone Lectures: Presented at Princeton Theological Seminary, A new annotated edition, ed. Cory Brock and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, with Princeton Theological Seminary (Hendrickson Publishers, 2018).https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Revelation-Annotated-Herman-Bavinck/dp/1683071360Cameron Clausing, Theology and History in the Methodology of Herman Bavinck: Revelation, Confession, and Christian Consciousness, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology Series (Oxford University Press, 2024). Carlos M. N. Eire, They Flew: A History of the Impossible (Yale University Press, 2025).The Rest is History Podcast: https://therestishistory.supportingcast.fm/Reach us at graceincommonpodcast@gmail.com. If you want to make a donation, please visit https://donorbox.org/graceincommonOur theme music is Molly Molly by Blue Dot Sessions (www.sessions.blue) CC BY-NC 4.0
Episode 145: In this episode of Critical Thinking - Bug Bounty Podcast Brandyn lets us in on some of his notetaking tips, including his Templates, Threat Modeling, and ways he uses notes to help with collaboration.Follow us on twitter at: https://x.com/ctbbpodcastGot any ideas and suggestions? Feel free to send us any feedback here: info@criticalthinkingpodcast.ioShoutout to YTCracker for the awesome intro music!====== Links ======Follow your hosts Rhynorater, Rez0, & gr3pme on Twitter:https://x.com/Rhynoraterhttps://x.com/rez0__https://x.com/gr3pme====== Ways to Support CTBBPodcast ======Hop on the CTBB Discord at https://ctbb.show/discord!We also do Discord subs at $25, $10, and $5 - premium subscribers get access to private masterclasses, exploits, tools, scripts, un-redacted bug reports, etc.You can also find some hacker swag at https://ctbb.show/merch!Today's Sponsor: ThreatLocker. Check out ThreatLocker Network Controlhttps://www.criticalthinkingpodcast.io/tl-nc====== This Week in Bug Bounty ======The minefield between syntaxeshttps://www.yeswehack.com/learn-bug-bounty/syntax-confusion-ambiguous-parsing-exploits====== Resources ======Brandyn's Notion Templatehttps://terrific-dart-70e.notion.site/Example-Target-CTBB-294f4ca0f42481cca0b0ca6ac0a7c81d====== Timestamps ======(00:00:00) Introduction(00:07:25) Templates, Target, and Tech Stack(00:13:33) Threat Modeling and Attack Vectors
Quick recap: The program began with a focus on Neil Armstrong's academic background and connections to USC, including his completed coursework and potential master's degree, as well as his compensation as a NASA civil servant. The discussion concluded with an examination of space engineering education and industry practices, including the balance between government oversight and contractor responsibility, and the challenges of returning to the moon and planning future space missions. We were joined by Marshall Martin, Phil Swan, John Hunt and Dr. Ajay Kothari.I hosted this Space Show program featuring Dr. Mike Gruntman, who discussed his latest book about Neil Armstrong's connection to USC. Gruntman revealed that Armstrong, while serving in the Navy during the Korean War, took courses at USC from 1955-1962, eventually completing all coursework for a master's degree in aeronautics except for his thesis, which he never completed due to his NASA commitments. I also announced upcoming programs with Phil Swan, and Bill Gowan as well as a special day Halloween show featuring Dr. Sharma from Cedars-Sinai discussing their 3D printing of cardiac tissue and new space medical lab research unit.Mike discussed the history of the Apollo program, focusing on Neil Armstrong's involvement with Purdue University. He detailed Armstrong's earned Master of Science degree and shared insights from his personal archives, including his grades and the content of his lecture at USC on the moon landing. Mike also highlighted the significant workforce reduction following the Apollo program and the practice of bringing in top industrial talent to lead NASA projects, which he suggested could be relevant for future space missions. He drew a link to workforce reductions planned for NASA at this time.I informed Mike and the audience about Roger Launius upcoming appearance as a guest on their space show program on November 7th. Mike shared interesting findings about Neil Armstrong's compensation as a NASA civil servant in 1969, which was significantly higher than Michael Collins's salary as the latter was still in the military. They discussed Armstrong's academic background and his desire to become a professor, as well as his contributions to NASA and his subsequent career as a university professor. Marshall commented on the astronauts' reputation for being “rock-hard” test pilots, and Mike explained NASA's development of a lunar lander research vehicle and simulator for training astronauts to land on the moon.Mike discussed the unique space engineering department at USC, highlighting its success and the contributions of its students. He mentioned that Buzz Aldrin visited the campus several times, inspiring students. Mike also shared insights into the history of the Apollo program and the impact it had on the aerospace industry. David inquired about the current mood regarding the Artemis program at USC, to which Mike responded that faculty opinions vary, with most not having detailed knowledge of the program.Mike discussed the evolution of space engineering education and industry practices, highlighting the shift from performance-driven government programs to financially-driven commercial space initiatives. He explained that while commercial space has grown to be six times larger than government space worldwide, government programs remain crucial for technological advancement and fundamental research. Mike emphasized that both approaches are necessary, as government programs provide the performance-driven environment needed for technological innovation, while commercial space drives cost efficiency and rapid development.Mike discussed the balance between government oversight and contractor responsibility in space exploration, drawing on Apollo-era practices where NASA maintained discipline while granting significant autonomy to contractors like Grumman. He noted that today's government centers have varying levels of expertise, with some being effective while others are ossified, making it challenging to remove ineffective parts without harming the whole. Mike also compared Soviet space programs' heavy bureaucratic oversight with the U.S. approach, suggesting that while Soviet control could prevent fraud, it often stifled innovation. He concluded that while there are no easy solutions, NASA needs to make clear decisions about lunar exploration and contractor roles, particularly given SpaceX's current delays in meeting launch schedules.Mike discussed the challenges and considerations for returning to the moon, emphasizing the need for a strategic plan that could include a lunar gateway for long-term infrastructure. He highlighted the importance of strong leadership and the influence of politics on space programs, noting that NASA should provide a feasibility assessment for any mission. Mike expressed optimism about long-term lunar exploration but expressed concerns about the lack of investment in technologies like artificial gravity and nuclear reactors, which are crucial for sustained human presence on the moon and future Mars missions. He suggested prioritizing a return to the moon before attempting a direct trip to Mars, as it could serve as a stepping stone for future exploration.The discussion focused on space exploration and the challenges of congressional oversight. Dr. Gruntman, a space expert, explained how SpaceX's approach to rapid development and testing, reminiscent of NASA's George Mueller's strategy in the 1960s, differs from traditional government methods. They discussed the importance of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous strategy in enabling the moon landing. John raised concerns about potential delays in Elon Musk's Mars colonization plans due to on-orbit refueling challenges. The group also discussed the need for better congressional oversight of space programs, with David questioning how to educate lawmakers on space issues. Mike noted that professional societies could play a role but have become politicized. The conversation concluded with a brief discussion about the Mars Society presentation scheduled for Friday by Phil Swan who participated in this program today.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4450 ZOOM Phil Swan | Friday 24 Oct 2025 930AM PTGuests: Phil SwanZoom: Phil talks about going to Mars with kinetic energyBroadcast 4451 Zoom OPEN LINES | Saturday 25 Oct 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Dr. David Livingston, The Space Show Zoom Team & Zoom callersZOOM Open Lines discussion Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
In this episode of 'One in Ten', host Teresa Huizar speaks with researcher Scarlet Cho, a doctoral student at the University of California Irvine, about the reluctance of trafficked youth to disclose their experiences to authorities. They explore the unique challenges these youth face, including complex relationships with their exploiters, mistrust of police and legal systems, and the adversarial nature of initial police interactions. Scarlet shares insights from her research on forensic interviews and court testimonies, highlighting the need for better rapport-building strategies and trauma-informed approaches to improve the disclosure process and support for these vulnerable adolescents. Time Stamps: Time Topic 00:00 Introduction to the Episode 00:59 Understanding Reluctance in Trafficked Youth 01:46 Scarlet Chip's Research Journey 03:33 Developing a Coding Scheme for Reluctance 04:44 Unique Challenges of Interviewing Trafficked Adolescents 09:04 Study Hypotheses and Methodology 12:09 Key Findings and Surprising Insights 19:53 Implications for Practitioners 30:12 Future Directions and Final Thoughts Resources:Identifying novel forms of reluctance in commercially sexually exploited adolescents - PubMedSupport the showDid you like this episode? Please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts.
In this episode of the Predictable Revenue Podcast, host Collin Stewart speaks with George Coudounaris and Adem Manderovic, co-founders of CRO School, about innovative approaches to sales and marketing. They discuss the challenges of scaling companies, the limitations of traditional sales playbooks, and the importance of building relationships first. The conversation delves into the concept of closed-circuit selling, market validation, and the need for alignment between sales and marketing teams. They also explore the future of outbound sales and the significance of understanding market dynamics. Highlights include: Understanding Closed Circuit Selling (03:17), Qualifying Opportunities Through Discovery (07:01), The Evolution of Cold Calling (09:55), The Pillars of Effective Selling (15:07), Aligning Sales and Marketing (19:27), Impact of Methodology on Client Success (27:02), And more... Stay updated with our podcast and the latest insights on Outbound Sales and Go-to-Market Strategies!
We Need Your Support!
Have you ever thought about publishing a report in your niche? A “state of the industry” piece that delivers fresh data, insights, and analysis to your audience.Original research can position you as an authority while sparking conversation, attracting media coverage, and opening new opportunities.But gathering and reporting data is both art and science, and common mistakes can quickly undermine your work.Fortunately, we're joined by Tom Webster of Sounds Profitable, one of the most trusted voices in podcast research. With more than 30 years of experience, Tom shares practical advice on audience research and presenting original data. Whether you are planning a full industry report or simply running an audience survey, this conversation will help you avoid common pitfalls and prepare for success before writing your first question.Here are some of Tom's key insights from our chat:Research Fuels Creativity“It's always bothered me that people viewed the research and data side of things as not creative, when actually what it gives you is constraints. And constraints are really the key ultimately to creativity.”Far from being dry or restrictive, data gives you the boundaries that spark innovative thinking. By knowing how your audience reacts, you can sharpen your message, test new angles, and create with greater confidence.Ask Better Questions“Writing a question is one of those things that everybody thinks they can do and almost nobody does it well, because it requires a really bizarre way of thinking.”Good research starts with good questions, but survey design is a skill in itself. A poorly phrased question can confuse your audience or skew your results beyond usefulness.“Don't start writing any questions until you've had conversations with listeners. Those chats don't give you the final answers, but they show you what you should ask about.”Begin with real conversations - virtual coffees, quick calls, or informal chats. Use your audience's own words to shape your survey options, ensuring the language resonates with them rather than sounding like a form filled out by a stranger.“If you ask a question and you don't know what you would do with the result of any of the answers, don't ask the question. Don't waste people's time.”This is the ultimate filter. Every question in your survey should serve a purpose. If you don't know how you'll act on the response, cut it.Research to Know vs. Research to Show"Broadly, there's two kinds of research in anything. There's research to show and there's research to know. And I like to specialize in research to know."So what's the difference?“I would often be asked by people, I want to do a survey that shows this. I want to do a survey that shows that this product approach that our company uses is actually the best. That's research to show. And I always tell people, be prepared not to get the answers you like.”True authority comes from being curious, not from trying to validate a pre-set agenda. If your findings surprise you, lean into that."If the research comes back credible, without obvious flaws, and it contradicts your original hypothesis, the best thing you can do is document it honestly. Share the story: explain what you expected, why you thought the outcome would be different, and then walk people through the actual findings. Reflect on what surprised you and what might have made the difference. That's the essence of thought leadership."Audiences and peers will respect you far more if you publish results that challenge assumptions, even your own.“…if you can't tell a story with a particular data slide, then don't include it. And that's not necessarily cherry picking, that's just this did not come back as an interesting finding.”Not every data point belongs in your final report. Great reporting is about focus: highlight what tells a meaningful story, and don't overload your audience with filler.Be Transparent“The magic word is respondents. You can't say ‘audiences say this,' but you can say ‘53% of respondents said this.' You're never going to go wrong there.”Every survey has its limitations. Maybe your responses came from a mailing list, or from people who clicked a link in your podcast notes. That's fine - just be clear about it. Transparency builds trust, while over-claiming erodes credibility."You don't have to denigrate your approach. You don't have to talk yourself down. I'm just a big fan of just being very clear about what you did. Just tell them what you did."A simple "Methodology" paragraph in your report will do the trick. No need to get granular with the details, but what were the places, platforms or methods you focused on to collect responses?“…if you have a study that has 500 respondents, I think it's just fine to say men say this and women say that. I think it's probably just fine to say that 55 plus says this and 18 to 34 says that. But actually look at the number of men 18 to 34 in your study… you're in the low double digits, right? And that's where you want to be very, very careful.”In other words, don't slice your sample so thin that the numbers stop being meaningful. Sometimes it's better to give raw counts than percentages when subgroups are small.And... Iterate!“…one of the things that it's really difficult to do in a single survey is report a correlation… I think what you can say is this sample did this and this. And here's the key, if you're a curious person and you want to get better, is you iterate. The next time you do a survey, you ask about that correlation specifically, you make it specific and then you see, okay, that hypothesis was right. It's a scientific method.”Don't try to force causation out of one dataset. Treat each survey as a stepping stone in a longer journey of discovery. If you can build on your data, you'll begin to spot interesting patterns and trends.A huge thanks to Tom for sharing his insights and experience. SoundsProfitable.com is the main hub for keeping up with his work in the podcasting space!Also MentionedAlitu: The Podcast MakerThe Audience is Listening - Tom's BookScoreApp
Democratic backsliding, culture wars and partisan politics in the past two decades has seen the regression of human rights protections in the courts and across societies. However, having made incremental gains in constitutional courts, LGBTQ+ rights operate as somewhat of a paradox. In this pivotal work, Professor Rehan Abeyratne makes an argument that the progress made in LGBTQ+ rights protection obscures an increased shift towards authoritarian legality in the courts and beyond. Case studies of three apex courts - the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of India, and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal - provide insight into the erosion of democracy and the rule of law across these jurisdictions. Courts and LGBTQ+ Rights in an Age of Judicial Retrenchment (Oxford UP, 2025) is an important work and should serve as a warning sign to constitutional lawyers, human rights scholars and anybody interested in the values that underpin liberal democracy as to the the limited ability of constitutional courts to protect rights in the current climate. Professor Rehan Abeyratne is is Professor and Associate Dean (Higher Degree Research) at Western Sydney University School of Law, where he teaches Government and Public Law, Legal Research and Methodology, and Comparative Law: Legal Systems of the World. He also coordinates the School of Law's Honours Program. Professor Abeyratne holds a PhD from Monash University, a JD from Harvard Law School, and a BA (Hons.) in Political Science from Brown University. He researches comparative constitutional law and has published several books and articles in world leading journals. Most of Prof. Abeyratne's research can be freely accessed on SSRN, Academia, and Google Scholar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies
Democratic backsliding, culture wars and partisan politics in the past two decades has seen the regression of human rights protections in the courts and across societies. However, having made incremental gains in constitutional courts, LGBTQ+ rights operate as somewhat of a paradox. In this pivotal work, Professor Rehan Abeyratne makes an argument that the progress made in LGBTQ+ rights protection obscures an increased shift towards authoritarian legality in the courts and beyond. Case studies of three apex courts - the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of India, and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal - provide insight into the erosion of democracy and the rule of law across these jurisdictions. Courts and LGBTQ+ Rights in an Age of Judicial Retrenchment (Oxford UP, 2025) is an important work and should serve as a warning sign to constitutional lawyers, human rights scholars and anybody interested in the values that underpin liberal democracy as to the the limited ability of constitutional courts to protect rights in the current climate. Professor Rehan Abeyratne is is Professor and Associate Dean (Higher Degree Research) at Western Sydney University School of Law, where he teaches Government and Public Law, Legal Research and Methodology, and Comparative Law: Legal Systems of the World. He also coordinates the School of Law's Honours Program. Professor Abeyratne holds a PhD from Monash University, a JD from Harvard Law School, and a BA (Hons.) in Political Science from Brown University. He researches comparative constitutional law and has published several books and articles in world leading journals. Most of Prof. Abeyratne's research can be freely accessed on SSRN, Academia, and Google Scholar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
Democratic backsliding, culture wars and partisan politics in the past two decades has seen the regression of human rights protections in the courts and across societies. However, having made incremental gains in constitutional courts, LGBTQ+ rights operate as somewhat of a paradox. In this pivotal work, Professor Rehan Abeyratne makes an argument that the progress made in LGBTQ+ rights protection obscures an increased shift towards authoritarian legality in the courts and beyond. Case studies of three apex courts - the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of India, and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal - provide insight into the erosion of democracy and the rule of law across these jurisdictions. Courts and LGBTQ+ Rights in an Age of Judicial Retrenchment (Oxford UP, 2025) is an important work and should serve as a warning sign to constitutional lawyers, human rights scholars and anybody interested in the values that underpin liberal democracy as to the the limited ability of constitutional courts to protect rights in the current climate. Professor Rehan Abeyratne is is Professor and Associate Dean (Higher Degree Research) at Western Sydney University School of Law, where he teaches Government and Public Law, Legal Research and Methodology, and Comparative Law: Legal Systems of the World. He also coordinates the School of Law's Honours Program. Professor Abeyratne holds a PhD from Monash University, a JD from Harvard Law School, and a BA (Hons.) in Political Science from Brown University. He researches comparative constitutional law and has published several books and articles in world leading journals. Most of Prof. Abeyratne's research can be freely accessed on SSRN, Academia, and Google Scholar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies
Fancy Scientist: A Material Girl Living in a Sustainable World
In this special episode of the Fancy Scientist podcast, you'll gain access to my free training series, Becoming a Wildlife Professional Training. This 3 part series teaching you the 3 essential factors you need to secure a permanent job in wildlife biology, ecology, zoology, or conservation biology careers so that you can do what you love and make a difference is available only until October 23rd until midnight. In Training 1, you'll discover the ineffective patterns and outside influences that are causing you to spin your wheels in your wildlife career…leaving you frazzled, drained, and feeling hopeless. Take the first steps towards creating an effective plan that remains resilient through turbulent times so that no matter what happens in your wildlife career, you'll know how to push through and get results. You'll learn why the advice you've been given by professors, job websites, and wildlife groups on the Internet is not working for you, that it's not your fault, and what to do instead. We will set the groundwork for building your wildlife career that leads to results - meaning PAID jobs.Dream of being a wildlife biologist, zoologist, conservation biologist, or ecologist? Ready to turn your love of animals into a thriving career?
Welcome to another insightful episode of Build a Better Agency! This week, host Drew McLellan sits down with Ana Laskey, an experienced market researcher and strategist, to tackle one of the industry's hot-button issues: the art and business of agency strategy. As the marketing landscape gets more crowded with freelance talent and AI tools, Drew and Ana dig deep into what truly differentiates agencies—our ability to develop meaningful, insight-driven strategies that help clients succeed. Ana brings her expertise to the table, sharing how pairing robust market research with a well-defined strategic methodology can help agencies deliver smarter, more profitable work. Together, they explore the dangers of gathering too little or too much information, the weaknesses of relying solely on AI for insights, and the necessity for agencies to develop consistent and niche-focused processes for strategy development. Ana emphasizes that strategy isn't just about information abundance—it's about refining the right data to create actionable plans that are rooted in genuine client needs and market realities. You'll come away with actionable advice on how to standardize your strategic process, build a reliable methodology for insight gathering, and confidently present your findings to clients—even when they push back. Ana and Drew also discuss the economics of strategy work, how to integrate research costs into your agency's proposals, and ways to communicate the value of this work to clients who may hesitate to invest. If you're grappling with how to make your agency's strategic offerings stand out and drive meaningful results, this episode is packed with practical tips, real-world examples, and a clear call to rethink your approach to strategy. Don't miss it—you'll finish the hour ready to lead your team through a smarter, more streamlined strategy process that delights your clients and protects your bottom line. A big thank you to our podcast's presenting sponsor, White Label IQ. They're an amazing resource for agencies who want to outsource their design, dev, or PPC work at wholesale prices. Check out their special offer (10 free hours!) for podcast listeners here. What You Will Learn in This Episode: Why having a defined methodology is essential for effective agency strategy The critical role of niche focus in building strategic expertise How to gather and validate the right data for client strategy Differentiating assumptions from facts in strategic recommendations The impact of new research tools, including AI, on accessing insights Communicating the value and cost of strategic work to clients The importance of confident, insight-driven storytelling to win client trust
In this collaboration episode, host israa' is joined with Jordan and Prince from The Dugout Podcast and Dr. Mohamed Abdou. We got together to talk about Malcolm X, his evolution over time, his commitment to the below, and the role and impact of Islam on his journey towards collective liberation. Along the way, we talk about Malcolm's impact on our lives and our politics and share insights on how we think Malcolm would be showing up today. 00:00 Introduction and Host Introductions01:45 Personal Connections to Malcolm X04:52 Malcolm X's Influence and Evolution08:48 Reflections on Malcolm X's Teachings11:31 Malcolm X's Legacy and Modern Relevance19:39 Organizational Structures and Revolutionary Responsibility29:19 Global Impact and Pan-Africanism46:17 Evolving Governance and Lessons from the Zapatistas48:08 Exploring Malcolm X's Intersectional Analysis48:47 Malcolm X and James Baldwin: A Shared Journey50:45 Decolonization and Internationalism52:30 Contextualizing Malcolm X's Strategies54:34 Malcolm X's Methodology and Ethics58:38 Malcolm X's Legacy and Modern Implications01:18:09 The Role of Spirituality and Self-Critique01:29:20 Final Reflections on Malcolm X's InfluenceMohamed :Dr. Mohamed Abdou is a Muslim anarchist scholar and organizer. He's a student of the muqawama (the resistance) and author of Islam and Anarchism: Relationships and Resonances (Pluto Press, 2022). His work centers on Palestinian, Indigenous, Black, and people of colour liberation, and draws on the Indigenous Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico, as well as his participation in the Egyptian uprisings of 2011. substack: https://drmohamedabdou.substack.com/website: mabdou.net. Twitter: @minuetinGmajor Instagram: @slightlydriftingisraa' :israa' (they/them) is an activist scholar in a committed relationship with collective liberation. They are part of From the Periphery Media collective where they are hosts of The Mutual Aid Podcast, The Fire of these Times, and From the Periphery Podcast. They're working towards building a world where all worlds fit through their activism and scholarship.israa' is on Bluesky and IGDugoutThe Dugout is a Black anarchist podcast rooted in political education, decolonial thought/praxis, and deep community study. We tell stories, break down systems, and honor the voices of those building liberation from below. From interviews with Black Panthers and movement elders to media critiques and abolitionist strategy, each episode is a living contribution to Black radical traditions.Stay connected with The Dugout! Follow us for updates, exclusive content, and more:
Check out TetraBrazil below: https://www.tetrabrazil.com/ Gary is joined by Gabriel Bussinger (Vasco da Gama) to explore their unique approach to elite player development. Gabriel explains the following: ✨ What it means to be player-centered vs. game-centered ✨ Balancing chaos and organization in development ✨ Why methodology should grow from practice to theory—not the other way around Standout quotes:
Charlie Kirk knew the key to winning a generation to conservatism meant addressing the root cause of America's political problems: a cultural decay that has trapped young people in “prolonged adolescence.” His solution was to champion cultural and economic values that are congruent with the founding principles of this nation and a flourishing society. On today's episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Hanson explains how Kirk urged a generation to grow out of “prolonged adolescence,” rediscover marriage and family, and demand policies that make owning a home and raising children possible again—and why his legacy will be felt for years to come. “ We turned to common sense in half the country, but he was going as an emissary into hostile territory and telling people: ‘There is a reason why you're leaving in the millions. … We have to champion the idea that a two-parent family is not aberrant. It was the historical norm for 2,500 years. It's a good thing to have two or three children. It's a good thing to be a young person and wanna buy a house in your 20s and not in your 40s, or to have a child in your 20s and not in your late 30s.' Nothing wrong with the latter, but he was trying to offer a different paradigm that had proved successful.”
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
