Podcasts about Monty Hall

3 portes, 1 chance sur 3 de gagner une voiture !

La fusión nuclear es la fuente de energía de las estrellas y la energía de un futuro cada vez más cercano en nuestro planeta. El Laboratorio Nacional de Fusión del CIEMAT (LNF) es el centro de referencia español en este campo y cuenta con una de las infraestructuras más avanzadas del mundo: el reactor experimental TJ II. La IA generativa acelerará las investigaciones y acortara los plazos para que esta energía sea una realidad. Hemos entrevistado a Carlos Hidalgo Vera, director del LNF y autor del libro “Fusión nuclear para la sociedad. Sueños y belleza de la imperfección en la ciencia” (Catarata). Esther García Pastor nos ha informado de un proyecto del CSIC para la producción de envases para fresas a partir de los desperdicios de las propias fresas, con testimonios de los investigadores del CSIC Eva Maya, del Instituto de Ciencia de Materiales de Madrid, y Martín Alonso, del Instituto de Catálisis y Petroleoquímica. Jesús Pérez Gil nos ha hablado de la organización del ADN en el interior de la célula. En contra de lo que se pensaba, la estructura del núcleo está compartimentalizada lo que probablemente está relacionado con una organización mucho más eficiente de los procesos que definen la expresión génica. Lluís Montoliu nos ha contado una técnica que silencia priones en el cerebro de ratones y que podría servir para tratar enfermedades priónicas y otras patologías neurodegenerativas. Fernando Blasco ha venido con una baraja española para hablarnos de la paradoja de Monty Hall, un problema matemático de probabilidad basado en el concurso televisivo estadounidense "Let's Make a Deal" (Hagamos un trato).Escuchar audio

La fusión nuclear es la fuente de energía de las estrellas y la energía de un futuro cada vez más cercano en nuestro planeta. El Laboratorio Nacional de Fusión del CIEMAT (LNF) es el centro de referencia español en este campo y cuenta con una de las infraestructuras más avanzadas del mundo: el reactor experimental TJ II. La IA generativa acelerará las investigaciones y acortara los plazos para que esta energía sea una realidad. Hemos entrevistado a Carlos Hidalgo Vera, director del LNF y autor del libro “Fusión nuclear para la sociedad. Sueños y belleza de la imperfección en la ciencia” (Catarata). Esther García Pastor nos ha informado de un proyecto del CSIC para la producción de envases para fresas a partir de los desperdicios de las propias fresas, con testimonios de los investigadores del CSIC Eva Maya, del Instituto de Ciencia de Materiales de Madrid, y Martín Alonso, del Instituto de Catálisis y Petroleoquímica. Jesús Pérez Gil nos ha hablado de la organización del ADN en el interior de la célula. En contra de lo que se pensaba, la estructura del núcleo está compartimentalizada lo que probablemente está relacionado con una organización mucho más eficiente de los procesos que definen la expresión génica. Lluís Montoliu nos ha contado una técnica que silencia priones en el cerebro de ratones y que podría servir para tratar enfermedades priónicas y otras patologías neurodegenerativas. Fernando Blasco ha venido con una baraja española para hablarnos de la paradoja de Monty Hall, un problema matemático de probabilidad basado en el concurso televisivo estadounidense "Let's Make a Deal" (Hagamos un trato).Escuchar audio

“To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.”—Adam KucharskiMy conversation with Professor Kucharski on what constitutes certainty and proof in science (and other domains), with emphasis on many of the learnings from Covid. Given the politicization of science and A.I.'s deepfakes and power for blurring of truth, it's hard to think of a topic more important right now.Audio file (Ground Truths can also be downloaded on Apple Podcasts and Spotify)Eric Topol (00:06):Hello, it's Eric Topol from Ground Truths and I am really delighted to welcome Adam Kucharski, who is the author of a new book, Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. He's a distinguished mathematician, by the way, the first mathematician we've had on Ground Truths and a person who I had the real privilege of getting to know a bit through the Covid pandemic. So welcome, Adam.Adam Kucharski (00:28):Thanks for having me.Eric Topol (00:30):Yeah, I mean, I think just to let everybody know, you're a Professor at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and also noteworthy you won the Adams Prize, which is one of the most impressive recognitions in the field of mathematics. This is the book, it's a winner, Proof and there's so much to talk about. So Adam, maybe what I'd start off is the quote in the book that captivates in the beginning, “life is full of situations that can reveal remarkably large gaps in our understanding of what is true and why it's true. This is a book about those gaps.” So what was the motivation when you undertook this very big endeavor?Adam Kucharski (01:17):I think a lot of it comes to the work I do at my day job where we have to deal with a lot of evidence under pressure, particularly if you work in outbreaks or emerging health concerns. And often it really pushes the limits, our methodology and how we converge on what's true subject to potential revision in the future. I think particularly having a background in math's, I think you kind of grow up with this idea that you can get to these concrete, almost immovable truths and then even just looking through the history, realizing that often isn't the case, that there's these kind of very human dynamics that play out around them. And it's something I think that everyone in science can reflect on that sometimes what convinces us doesn't convince other people, and particularly when you have that kind of urgency of time pressure, working out how to navigate that.Eric Topol (02:05):Yeah. Well, I mean I think these times of course have really gotten us to appreciate, particularly during Covid, the importance of understanding uncertainty. And I think one of the ways that we can dispel what people assume they know is the famous Monty Hall, which you get into a bit in the book. So I think everybody here is familiar with that show, Let's Make a Deal and maybe you can just take us through what happens with one of the doors are unveiled and how that changes the mathematics.Adam Kucharski (02:50):Yeah, sure. So I think it is a problem that's been around for a while and it's based on this game show. So you've got three doors that are closed. Behind two of the doors there is a goat and behind one of the doors is a luxury car. So obviously, you want to win the car. The host asks you to pick a door, so you point to one, maybe door number two, then the host who knows what's behind the doors opens another door to reveal a goat and then ask you, do you want to change your mind? Do you want to switch doors? And a lot of the, I think intuition people have, and certainly when I first came across this problem many years ago is well, you've got two doors left, right? You've picked one, there's another one, it's 50-50. And even some quite well-respected mathematicians.Adam Kucharski (03:27):People like Paul Erdős who was really published more papers than almost anyone else, that was their initial gut reaction. But if you work through all of the combinations, if you pick this door and then the host does this, and you switch or not switch and work through all of those options. You actually double your chances if you switch versus sticking with the door. So something that's counterintuitive, but I think one of the things that really struck me and even over the years trying to explain it is convincing myself of the answer, which was when I first came across it as a teenager, I did quite quickly is very different to convincing someone else. And even actually Paul Erdős, one of his colleagues showed him what I call proof by exhaustion. So go through every combination and that didn't really convince him. So then he started to simulate and said, well, let's do a computer simulation of the game a hundred thousand times. And again, switching was this optimal strategy, but Erdős wasn't really convinced because I accept that this is the case, but I'm not really satisfied with it. And I think that encapsulates for a lot of people, their experience of proof and evidence. It's a fact and you have to take it as given, but there's actually quite a big bridge often to really understanding why it's true and feeling convinced by it.Eric Topol (04:41):Yeah, I think it's a fabulous example because I think everyone would naturally assume it's 50-50 and it isn't. And I think that gets us to the topic at hand. What I love, there's many things I love about this book. One is that you don't just get into science and medicine, but you cut across all the domains, law, mathematics, AI. So it's a very comprehensive sweep of everything about proof and truth, and it couldn't come at a better time as we'll get into. Maybe just starting off with math, the term I love mathematical monsters. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?Adam Kucharski (05:25):Yeah, this was a fascinating situation that emerged in the late 19th century where a lot of math's, certainly in Europe had been derived from geometry because a lot of the ancient Greek influence on how we shaped things and then Newton and his work on rates of change and calculus, it was really the natural world that provided a lot of inspiration, these kind of tangible objects, tangible movements. And as mathematicians started to build out the theory around rates of change and how we tackle these kinds of situations, they sometimes took that intuition a bit too seriously. And there was some theorems that they said were intuitively obvious, some of these French mathematicians. And so, one for example is this idea of you how things change smoothly over time and how you do those calculations. But what happened was some mathematicians came along and showed that when you have things that can be infinitely small, that intuition didn't necessarily hold in the same way.Adam Kucharski (06:26):And they came up with these examples that broke a lot of these theorems and a lot of the establishments at the time called these things monsters. They called them these aberrations against common sense and this idea that if Newton had known about them, he never would've done all of his discovery because they're just nuisances and we just need to get rid of them. And there's this real tension at the core of mathematics in the late 1800s where some people just wanted to disregard this and say, look, it works for most of the time, that's good enough. And then others really weren't happy with this quite vague logic. They wanted to put it on much sturdier ground. And what was remarkable actually is if you trace this then into the 20th century, a lot of these monsters and these particularly in some cases functions which could almost move constantly, this constant motion rather than our intuitive concept of movement as something that's smooth, if you drop an apple, it accelerates at a very smooth rate, would become foundational in our understanding of things like probability, Einstein's work on atomic theory. A lot of these concepts where geometry breaks down would be really important in relativity. So actually, these things that we thought were monsters actually were all around us all the time, and science couldn't advance without them. So I think it's just this remarkable example of this tension within a field that supposedly concrete and the things that were going to be shunned actually turn out to be quite important.Eric Topol (07:53):It's great how you convey how nature isn't so neat and tidy and things like Brownian motion, understanding that, I mean, just so many things that I think fit into that general category. In the legal, we won't get into too much because that's not so much the audience of Ground Truths, but the classic things about innocent and until proven guilty and proof beyond reasonable doubt, I mean these are obviously really important parts of that overall sense of proof and truth. We're going to get into one thing I'm fascinated about related to that subsequently and then in science. So before we get into the different types of proof, obviously the pandemic is still fresh in our minds and we're an endemic with Covid now, and there are so many things we got wrong along the way of uncertainty and didn't convey that science isn't always evolving search for what is the truth. There's plenty no shortage of uncertainty at any moment. So can you recap some of the, you did so much work during the pandemic and obviously some of it's in the book. What were some of the major things that you took out of proof and truth from the pandemic?Adam Kucharski (09:14):I think it was almost this story of two hearts because on the one hand, science was the thing that got us where we are today. The reason that so much normality could resume and so much risk was reduced was development of vaccines and the understanding of treatments and the understanding of variants as they came to their characteristics. So it was kind of this amazing opportunity to see this happen faster than it ever happened in history. And I think ever in science, it certainly shifted a lot of my thinking about what's possible and even how we should think about these kinds of problems. But also on the other hand, I think where people might have been more familiar with seeing science progress a bit more slowly and reach consensus around some of these health issues, having that emerge very rapidly can present challenges even we found with some of the work we did on Alpha and then the Delta variants, and it was the early quantification of these.Adam Kucharski (10:08):So really the big question is, is this thing more transmissible? Because at the time countries were thinking about control measures, thinking about relaxing things, and you've got this just enormous social economic health decision-making based around essentially is it a lot more spreadable or is it not? And you only had these fragments of evidence. So I think for me, that was really an illustration of the sharp end. And I think what we ended up doing with some of those was rather than arguing over a precise number, something like Delta, instead we kind of looked at, well, what's the range that matters? So in the sense of arguing over whether it's 40% or 50% or 30% more transmissible is perhaps less important than being, it's substantially more transmissible and it's going to start going up. Is it going to go up extremely fast or just very fast?Adam Kucharski (10:59):That's still a very useful conclusion. I think what often created some of the more challenges, I think the things that on reflection people looking back pick up on are where there was probably overstated certainty. We saw that around some of the airborne spread, for example, stated as a fact by in some cases some organizations, I think in some situations as well, governments had a constraint and presented it as scientific. So the UK, for example, would say testing isn't useful. And what was happening at the time was there wasn't enough tests. So it was more a case of they can't test at that volume. But I think blowing between what the science was saying and what the decision-making, and I think also one thing we found in the UK was we made a lot of the epidemiological evidence available. I think that was really, I think something that was important.Adam Kucharski (11:51):I found it a lot easier to communicate if talking to the media to be able to say, look, this is the paper that's out, this is what it means, this is the evidence. I always found it quite uncomfortable having to communicate things where you knew there were reports behind the scenes, but you couldn't actually articulate. But I think what that did is it created this impression that particularly epidemiology was driving the decision-making a lot more than it perhaps was in reality because so much of that was being made public and a lot more of the evidence around education or economics was being done behind the scenes. I think that created this kind of asymmetry in public perception about how that was feeding in. And so, I think there was always that, and it happens, it is really hard as well as a scientist when you've got journalists asking you how to run the country to work out those steps of am I describing the evidence behind what we're seeing? Am I describing the evidence about different interventions or am I proposing to some extent my value system on what we do? And I think all of that in very intense times can be very easy to get blurred together in public communication. I think we saw a few examples of that where things were being the follow the science on policy type angle where actually once you get into what you're prioritizing within a society, quite rightly, you've got other things beyond just the epidemiology driving that.Eric Topol (13:09):Yeah, I mean that term that you just use follow the science is such an important term because it tells us about the dynamic aspect. It isn't just a snapshot, it's constantly being revised. But during the pandemic we had things like the six-foot rule that was never supported by data, but yet still today, if I walk around my hospital and there's still the footprints of the six-foot rule and not paying attention to the fact that this was airborne and took years before some of these things were accepted. The flatten the curve stuff with lockdowns, which I never was supportive of that, but perhaps at the worst point, the idea that hospitals would get overrun was an issue, but it got carried away with school shutdowns for prolonged periods and in some parts of the world, especially very stringent lockdowns. But anyway, we learned a lot.Eric Topol (14:10):But perhaps one of the greatest lessons is that people's expectations about science is that it's absolute and somehow you have this truth that's not there. I mean, it's getting revised. It's kind of on the job training, it's on this case on the pandemic revision. But very interesting. And that gets us to, I think the next topic, which I think is a fundamental part of the book distributed throughout the book, which is the different types of proof in biomedicine and of course across all these domains. And so, you take us through things like randomized trials, p-values, 95 percent confidence intervals, counterfactuals, causation and correlation, peer review, the works, which is great because a lot of people have misconceptions of these things. So for example, randomized trials, which is the temple of the randomized trials, they're not as great as a lot of people think, yes, they can help us establish cause and effect, but they're skewed because of the people who come into the trial. So they may not at all be a representative sample. What are your thoughts about over deference to randomized trials?Adam Kucharski (15:31):Yeah, I think that the story of how we rank evidence in medicines a fascinating one. I mean even just how long it took for people to think about these elements of randomization. Fundamentally, what we're trying to do when we have evidence here in medicine or science is prevent ourselves from confusing randomness for a signal. I mean, that's fundamentally, we don't want to mistake something, we think it's going on and it's not. And the challenge, particularly with any intervention is you only get to see one version of reality. You can't give someone a drug, follow them, rewind history, not give them the drug and then follow them again. So one of the things that essentially randomization allows us to do is, if you have two groups, one that's been randomized, one that hasn't on average, the difference in outcomes between those groups is going to be down to the treatment effect.Adam Kucharski (16:20):So it doesn't necessarily mean in reality that'd be the case, but on average that's the expectation that you'd have. And it's kind of interesting actually that the first modern randomized control trial (RCT) in medicine in 1947, this is for TB and streptomycin. The randomization element actually, it wasn't so much statistical as behavioral, that if you have people coming to hospital, you could to some extent just say, we'll just alternate. We're not going to randomize. We're just going to first patient we'll say is a control, second patient a treatment. But what they found in a lot of previous studies was doctors have bias. Maybe that patient looks a little bit ill or that one maybe is on borderline for eligibility. And often you got these quite striking imbalances when you allowed it for human judgment. So it was really about shielding against those behavioral elements. But I think there's a few situations, it's a really powerful tool for a lot of these questions, but as you mentioned, one is this issue of you have the population you study on and then perhaps in reality how that translates elsewhere.Adam Kucharski (17:17):And we see, I mean things like flu vaccines are a good example, which are very dependent on immunity and evolution and what goes on in different populations. Sometimes you've had a result on a vaccine in one place and then the effectiveness doesn't translate in the same way to somewhere else. I think the other really important thing to bear in mind is, as I said, it's the averaging that you're getting an average effect between two different groups. And I think we see certainly a lot of development around things like personalized medicine where actually you're much more interested in the outcome for the individual. And so, what a trial can give you evidence is on average across a group, this is the effect that I can expect this intervention to have. But we've now seen more of the emergence things like N=1 studies where you can actually over the same individual, particularly for chronic conditions, look at those kind of interventions.Adam Kucharski (18:05):And also there's just these extreme examples where you're ethically not going to run a trial, there's never been a trial of whether it's a good idea to have intensive care units in hospitals or there's a lot of these kind of historical treatments which are just so overwhelmingly effective that we're not going to run trial. So almost this hierarchy over time, you can see it getting shifted because actually you do have these situations where other forms of evidence can get you either closer to what you need or just more feasibly an answer where it's just not ethical or practical to do an RCT.Eric Topol (18:37):And that brings us to the natural experiments I just wrote about recently, the one with shingles, which there's two big natural experiments to suggest that shingles vaccine might reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, an added benefit beyond the shingles that was not anticipated. Your thoughts about natural experiments, because here you're getting a much different type of population assessment, again, not at the individual level, but not necessarily restricted by some potentially skewed enrollment criteria.Adam Kucharski (19:14):I think this is as emerged as a really valuable tool. It's kind of interesting, in the book you're talking to economists like Josh Angrist, that a lot of these ideas emerge in epidemiology, but I think were really then taken up by economists, particularly as they wanted to add more credibility to a lot of these policy questions. And ultimately, it comes down to this issue that for a lot of problems, we can't necessarily intervene and randomize, but there might be a situation that's done it to some extent for us, so the classic example is the Vietnam draft where it was kind of random birthdays with drawn out of lottery. And so, there's been a lot of studies subsequently about the effect of serving in the military on different subsequent lifetime outcomes because broadly those people have been randomized. It was for a different reason. But you've got that element of randomization driving that.Adam Kucharski (20:02):And so again, with some of the recent shingles data and other studies, you might have a situation for example, where there's been an intervention that's somewhat arbitrary in terms of time. It's a cutoff on a birth date, for example. And under certain assumptions you could think, well, actually there's no real reason for the person on this day and this day to be fundamentally different. I mean, perhaps there might be effects of cohorts if it's school years or this sort of thing. But generally, this isn't the same as having people who are very, very different ages and very different characteristics. It's just nature, or in this case, just a policy intervention for a different reason has given you that randomization, which allows you or pseudo randomization, which allows you to then look at something about the effect of an intervention that you wouldn't as reliably if you were just digging into the data of yes, no who's received a vaccine.Eric Topol (20:52):Yeah, no, I think it's really valuable. And now I think increasingly given priority, if you can find these natural experiments and they're not always so abundant to use to extrapolate from, but when they are, they're phenomenal. The causation correlation is so big. The issue there, I mean Judea Pearl's, the Book of Why, and you give so many great examples throughout the book in Proof. I wonder if you could comment that on that a bit more because this is where associations are confused somehow or other with a direct effect. And we unfortunately make these jumps all too frequently. Perhaps it's the most common problem that's occurring in the way we interpret medical research data.Adam Kucharski (21:52):Yeah, I think it's an issue that I think a lot of people get drilled into in their training just because a correlation between things doesn't mean that that thing causes this thing. But it really struck me as I talked to people, researching the book, in practice in research, there's actually a bit more to it in how it's played out. So first of all, if there's a correlation between things, it doesn't tell you much generally that's useful for intervention. If two things are correlated, it doesn't mean that changing that thing's going to have an effect on that thing. There might be something that's influencing both of them. If you have more ice cream sales, it will lead to more heat stroke cases. It doesn't mean that changing ice cream sales is going to have that effect, but it does allow you to make predictions potentially because if you can identify consistent patterns, you can say, okay, if this thing going up, I'm going to make a prediction that this thing's going up.Adam Kucharski (22:37):So one thing I found quite striking, actually talking to research in different fields is how many fields choose to focus on prediction because it kind of avoids having to deal with this cause and effect problem. And even in fields like psychology, it was kind of interesting that there's a lot of focus on predicting things like relationship outcomes, but actually for people, you don't want a prediction about your relationship. You want to know, well, how can I do something about it? You don't just want someone to sell you your relationship's going to go downhill. So there's almost part of the challenge is people just got stuck on prediction because it's an easier field of work, whereas actually some of those problems will involve intervention. I think the other thing that really stood out for me is in epidemiology and a lot of other fields, rightly, people are very cautious to not get that mixed up.Adam Kucharski (23:24):They don't want to mix up correlations or associations with causation, but you've kind of got this weird situation where a lot of papers go out of their way to not use causal language and say it's an association, it's just an association. It's just an association. You can't say anything about causality. And then the end of the paper, they'll say, well, we should think about introducing more of this thing or restricting this thing. So really the whole paper and its purpose is framed around a causal intervention, but it's extremely careful throughout the paper to not frame it as a causal claim. So I think we almost by skirting that too much, we actually avoid the problems that people sometimes care about. And I think a lot of the nice work that's been going on in causal inference is trying to get people to confront this more head on rather than say, okay, you can just stay in this prediction world and that's fine. And then just later maybe make a policy suggestion off the back of it.Eric Topol (24:20):Yeah, I think this is cause and effect is a very alluring concept to support proof as you so nicely go through in the book. But of course, one of the things that we use to help us is the biological mechanism. So here you have, let's say for example, you're trying to get a new drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the request is, well, we want two trials, randomized trials, independent. We want to have p-values that are significant, and we want to know the biological mechanism ideally with the dose response of the drug. But there are many drugs as you review that have no biological mechanism established. And even when the tobacco problems were mounting, the actual mechanism of how tobacco use caused cancer wasn't known. So how important is the biological mechanism, especially now that we're well into the AI world where explainability is demanded. And so, we don't know the mechanism, but we also don't know the mechanism and lots of things in medicine too, like anesthetics and even things as simple as aspirin, how it works and many others. So how do we deal with this quest for the biological mechanism?Adam Kucharski (25:42):I think that's a really good point. It shows almost a lot of the transition I think we're going through currently. I think particularly for things like smoking cancer where it's very hard to run a trial. You can't make people randomly take up smoking. Having those additional pieces of evidence, whether it's an analogy with a similar carcinogen, whether it's a biological mechanism, can help almost give you more supports for that argument that there's a cause and effect going on. But I think what I found quite striking, and I realized actually that it's something that had kind of bothered me a bit and I'd be interested to hear whether it bothers you, but with the emergence of AI, it's almost a bit of the loss of scientific satisfaction. I think you grow up with learning about how the world works and why this is doing what it's doing.Adam Kucharski (26:26):And I talked for example of some of the people involved with AlphaFold and some of the subsequent work in installing those predictions about structures. And they'd almost made peace with it, which I found interesting because I think they started off being a bit uncomfortable with like, yeah, you've got these remarkable AI models making these predictions, but we don't understand still biologically what's happening here. But I think they're just settled in saying, well, biology is really complex on some of these problems, and if we can have a tool that can give us this extremely valuable information, maybe that's okay. And it was just interesting that they'd really kind of gone through that kind process, which I think a lot of people are still grappling with and that almost that discomfort of using AI and what's going to convince you that that's a useful reliable prediction whether it's something like predicting protein folding or getting in a self-driving car. What's the evidence you need to convince you that's reliable?Eric Topol (27:26):Yeah, no, I'm so glad you brought that up because when Demis Hassabis and John Jumper won the Nobel Prize, the point I made was maybe there should be an asterisk with AI because they don't know how it works. I mean, they had all the rich data from the protein data bank, and they got the transformer model to do it for 200 million protein structure prediction, but they still to this day don't fully understand how the model really was working. So it reinforces what you're just saying. And of course, it cuts across so many types of AI. It's just that we tend to hold different standards in medicine not realizing that there's lots of lack of explainability for routine medical treatments today. Now one of the things that I found fascinating in your book, because there's different levels of proof, different types of proof, but solid logical systems.Eric Topol (28:26):And on page 60 of the book, especially pertinent to the US right now, there is a bit about Kurt Gödel and what he did there was he basically, there was a question about dictatorship in the US could it ever occur? And Gödel says, “oh, yes, I can prove it.” And he's using the constitution itself to prove it, which I found fascinating because of course we're seeing that emerge right now. Can you give us a little bit more about this, because this is fascinating about the Fifth Amendment, and I mean I never thought that the Constitution would allow for a dictatorship to emerge.Adam Kucharski (29:23):And this was a fascinating story, Kurt Gödel who is one of the greatest logical minds of the 20th century and did a lot of work, particularly in the early 20th century around system of rules, particularly things like mathematics and whether they can ever be really fully satisfying. So particularly in mathematics, he showed that there were this problem that is very hard to have a set of rules for something like arithmetic that was both complete and covered every situation, but also had no contradictions. And I think a lot of countries, if you go back, things like Napoleonic code and these attempts to almost write down every possible legal situation that could be imaginable, always just ascended into either they needed amendments or they had contradictions. I think Gödel's work really summed it up, and there's a story, this is in the late forties when he had his citizenship interview and Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern went along as witnesses for him.Adam Kucharski (30:17):And it's always told as kind of a lighthearted story as this logical mind, this academic just saying something silly in front of the judge. And actually, to my own admission, I've in the past given talks and mentioned it in this slightly kind of lighthearted way, but for the book I got talking to a few people who'd taken it more seriously. I realized actually he's this extremely logically focused mind at the time, and maybe there should have been something more to it. And people who have kind of dug more into possibilities was saying, well, what could he have spotted that bothered him? And a lot of his work that he did about consistency in mass was around particularly self-referential statements. So if I say this sentence is false, it's self-referential and if it is false, then it's true, but if it's true, then it's false and you get this kind of weird self-referential contradictions.Adam Kucharski (31:13):And so, one of the theories about Gödel was that in the Constitution, it wasn't that there was a kind of rule for someone can become a dictator, but rather people can use the mechanisms within the Constitution to make it easier to make further amendments. And he kind of downward cycle of amendment that he had seen happening in Europe and the run up to the war, and again, because this is never fully documented exactly what he thought, but it's one of the theories that it wouldn't just be outright that it would just be this cycle process of weakening and weakening and weakening and making it easier to add. And actually, when I wrote that, it was all the earlier bits of the book that I drafted, I did sort of debate whether including it I thought, is this actually just a bit in the weeds of American history? And here we are. Yeah, it's remarkable.Eric Topol (32:00):Yeah, yeah. No, I mean I found, it struck me when I was reading this because here back in 1947, there was somebody predicting that this could happen based on some, if you want to call it loopholes if you will, or the ability to change things, even though you would've thought otherwise that there wasn't any possible capability for that to happen. Now, one of the things I thought was a bit contradictory is two parts here. One is from Angus Deaton, he wrote, “Gold standard thinking is magical thinking.” And then the other is what you basically are concluding in many respects. “To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.” So here you have on the one hand your search for the truth, proof, which I think that little paragraph says it all. In many respects, it sums up somewhat to the work that you review here and on the other you have this Nobel laureate saying, you don't have to go to extremes here. The enemy of good is perfect, perhaps. I mean, how do you reconcile this sense that you shouldn't go so far? Don't search for absolute perfection of proof.Adam Kucharski (33:58):Yeah, I think that encapsulates a lot of what the book is about, is that search for certainty and how far do you have to go. I think one of the things, there's a lot of interesting discussion, some fascinating papers around at what point do you use these studies? What are their flaws? But I think one of the things that does stand out is across fields, across science, medicine, even if you going to cover law, AI, having these kind of cookie cutter, this is the definitive way of doing it. And if you just follow this simple rule, if you do your p-value, you'll get there and you'll be fine. And I think that's where a lot of the danger is. And I think that's what we've seen over time. Certain science people chasing certain targets and all the behaviors that come around that or in certain situations disregarding valuable evidence because you've got this kind of gold standard and nothing else will do.Adam Kucharski (34:56):And I think particularly in a crisis, it's very dangerous to have that because you might have a low level of evidence that demands a certain action and you almost bias yourself towards inaction if you have these kind of very simple thresholds. So I think for me, across all of these stories and across the whole book, I mean William Gosset who did a lot of pioneering work on statistical experiments at Guinness in the early 20th century, he had this nice question he sort of framed is, how much do we lose? And if we're thinking about the problems, there's always more studies we can do, there's always more confidence we can have, but whether it's a patient we want to treat or crisis we need to deal with, we need to work out actually getting that level of proof that's really appropriate for where we are currently.Eric Topol (35:49):I think exceptionally important that there's this kind of spectrum or continuum in following science and search for truth and that distinction, I think really nails it. Now, one of the things that's unique in the book is you don't just go through all the different types of how you would get to proof, but you also talk about how the evidence is acted on. And for example, you quote, “they spent a lot of time misinforming themselves.” This is the whole idea of taking data and torturing it or using it, dredging it however way you want to support either conspiracy theories or alternative facts. Basically, manipulating sometimes even emasculating what evidence and data we have. And one of the sentences, or I guess this is from Sir Francis Bacon, “truth is a daughter of time”, but the added part is not authority. So here we have our president here that repeats things that are wrong, fabricated or wrong, and he keeps repeating to the point that people believe it's true. But on the other hand, you could say truth is a daughter of time because you like to not accept any truth immediately. You like to see it get replicated and further supported, backed up. So in that one sentence, truth is a daughter of time not authority, there's the whole ball of wax here. Can you take us through that? Because I just think that people don't understand that truth being tested over time, but also manipulated by its repetition. This is a part of the big problem that we live in right now.Adam Kucharski (37:51):And I think it's something that writing the book and actually just reflecting on it subsequently has made me think about a lot in just how people approach these kinds of problems. I think that there's an idea that conspiracy theorists are just lazy and have maybe just fallen for a random thing, but talking to people, you really think about these things a lot more in the field. And actually, the more I've ended up engaging with people who believe things that are just outright unevidenced around vaccines, around health issues, they often have this mountain of papers and data to hand and a lot of it, often they will be peer reviewed papers. It won't necessarily be supporting the point that they think it's supports.Adam Kucharski (38:35):But it's not something that you can just say everything you're saying is false, that there's actually often a lot of things that have been put together and it's just that leap to that conclusion. I think you also see a lot of scientific language borrowed. So I gave a talker early this year and it got posted on YouTube. It had conspiracy theories it, and there was a lot of conspiracy theory supporters who piled in the comments and one of the points they made is skepticism is good. It's the kind of law society, take no one's word for it, you need this. We are the ones that are kind of doing science and people who just assume that science is settled are in the wrong. And again, you also mentioned that repetition. There's this phenomenon, it's the illusory truth problem that if you repeatedly tell someone someone's something's false, it'll increase their belief in it even if it's something quite outrageous.Adam Kucharski (39:27):And that mimics that scientific repetition because people kind of say, okay, well if I've heard it again and again, it's almost like if you tweak these as mini experiments, I'm just accumulating evidence that this thing is true. So it made me think a lot about how you've got essentially a lot of mimicry of the scientific method, amount of data and how you present it and this kind of skepticism being good, but I think a lot of it comes down to as well as just looking at theological flaws, but also ability to be wrong in not actually seeking out things that confirm. I think all of us, it's something that I've certainly tried to do a lot working on emergencies, and one of the scientific advisory groups that I worked on almost it became a catchphrase whenever someone presented something, they finished by saying, tell me why I'm wrong.Adam Kucharski (40:14):And if you've got a variant that's more transmissible, I don't want to be right about that really. And it is something that is quite hard to do and I found it is particularly for something that's quite high pressure, trying to get a policymaker or someone to write even just non-publicly by themselves, write down what you think's going to happen or write down what would convince you that you are wrong about something. I think particularly on contentious issues where someone's got perhaps a lot of public persona wrapped up in something that's really hard to do, but I think it's those kind of elements that distinguish between getting sucked into a conspiracy theory and really seeking out evidence that supports it and trying to just get your theory stronger and stronger and actually seeking out things that might overturn your belief about the world. And it's often those things that we don't want overturned. I think those are the views that we all have politically or in other ways, and that's often where the problems lie.Eric Topol (41:11):Yeah, I think this is perhaps one of, if not the most essential part here is that to try to deal with the different views. We have biases as you emphasized throughout, but if you can use these different types of proof to have a sound discussion, conversation, refutation whereby you don't summarily dismiss another view which may be skewed and maybe spurious or just absolutely wrong, maybe fabricated whatever, but did you can engage and say, here's why these are my proof points, or this is why there's some extent of certainty you can have regarding this view of the data. I think this is so fundamental because unfortunately as we saw during the pandemic, the strident minority, which were the anti-science, anti-vaxxers, they were summarily dismissed as being kooks and adopting conspiracy theories without the right engagement and the right debates. And I think this might've helped along the way, no less the fact that a lot of scientists didn't really want to engage in the first place and adopt this methodical proof that you've advocated in the book so many different ways to support a hypothesis or an assertion. Now, we've covered a lot here, Adam. Have I missed some central parts of the book and the effort because it's really quite extraordinary. I know it's your third book, but it's certainly a standout and it certainly it's a standout not just for your books, but books on this topic.Adam Kucharski (43:13):Thanks. And it's much appreciated. It was not an easy book to write. I think at times, I kind of wondered if I should have taken on the topic and I think a core thing, your last point speaks to that. I think a core thing is that gap often between what convinces us and what convinces someone else. I think it's often very tempting as a scientist to say the evidence is clear or the science has proved this. But even on something like the vaccines, you do get the loud minority who perhaps think they're putting microchips in people and outlandish views, but you actually get a lot more people who might just have some skepticism of pharmaceutical companies or they might have, my wife was pregnant actually at the time during Covid and we waited up because there wasn't much data on pregnancy and the vaccine. And I think it's just finding what is convincing. Is it having more studies from other countries? Is it understanding more about the biology? Is it understanding how you evaluate some of those safety signals? And I think that's just really important to not just think what convinces us and it's going to be obvious to other people, but actually think where are they coming from? Because ultimately having proof isn't that good unless it leads to the action that can make lives better.Eric Topol (44:24):Yeah. Well, look, you've inculcated my mind with this book, Adam, called Proof. Anytime I think of the word proof, I'm going to be thinking about you. So thank you. Thanks for taking the time to have a conversation about your book, your work, and I know we're going to count on you for the astute mathematics and analysis of outbreaks in the future, which we will see unfortunately. We are seeing now, in fact already in this country with measles and whatnot. So thank you and we'll continue to follow your great work.**************************************Thanks for listening, watching or reading this Ground Truths podcast/post.If you found this interesting please share it!That makes the work involved in putting these together especially worthwhile.I'm also appreciative for your subscribing to Ground Truths. All content —its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts—is free, open-access. I'm fortunate to get help from my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff for audio/video tech support to pull these podcasts together for Scripps Research.Paid subscriptions are voluntary and all proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. They do allow for posting comments and questions, which I do my best to respond to. Please don't hesitate to post comments and give me feedback. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years.A bit of an update on SUPER AGERSMy book has been selected as a Next Big Idea Club winner for Season 26 by Adam Grant, Malcolm Gladwell, Susan Cain, and Daniel Pink. This club has spotlighted the most groundbreaking nonfiction books for over a decade. As a winning title, my book will be shipped to thousands of thoughtful readers like you, featured alongside a reading guide, a "Book Bite," Next Big Idea Podcast episode as well as a live virtual Q&A with me in the club's vibrant online community. If you're interested in joining the club, here's a promo code SEASON26 for 20% off at the website. SUPER AGERS reached #3 for all books on Amazon this week. This was in part related to the segment on the book on the TODAY SHOW which you can see here. Also at Amazon there is a remarkable sale on the hardcover book for $10.l0 at the moment for up to 4 copies. Not sure how long it will last or what prompted it.The journalist Paul von Zielbauer has a Substack “Aging With Strength” and did an extensive interview with me on the biology of aging and how we can prevent the major age-related diseases. Here's the link. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

Dan Brocklebank – UK Director, Orbis Investments SAfm Market Update - Podcasts and live stream

This evening we look at the markets with FNB Wealth and Investments, we speak to Absa and Attacq about their respective results, Old Mutual gives us some predictions for this week's revised budget speech, Orbis explains what a Monty Hall market is and how to navigate it – and in this week's Agri Focus feature we speak to the curator of Future Africa Gardens, Richard Hay, about a project to reintroduce thousands of critically endangered Magaliesberg aloe into the wild. SAfm Market Update - Podcasts and live stream

The Impossible Man is back to give the Surfer an attitude adjustment while Brian and Al try to pick out all the easter eggs in his transformations! So far we got Monty Hall and Henny Youngman!   Bluesky Cammi Capes & Lunatics: Sidekicks Coffee & Comics Comics.org Dan da dan Facebook JSApril Make 'em Laugh Marvel Marvel Fandom- Silver Surfer #36 Pao Mai The Restoration Revenge of the Living Monoloth Speed Buggy X Opening Music- Lino Rise “Intro Pompeii” https://www.yummy-sounds.com Licensed Under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0   Closing Music- Sound Design Provided by Jason Donnelly http://www.djpuzzle.com All Rights Reserved

Sinds de jaren '60 bestaat er in de VS een populaire tv-show, Let's Make a Deal. In die show liet de presentator, Monty Hall, een speler kiezen uit 3 deuren. Achter één deur stond een superchique sportwagen. Dit simpele spelletje noemen wiskundigen het driedeurenprobleem. Intrigerend, want... wie zijn buikgevoel volgt, heeft 1 kans op 3 om te winnen, wie statistiek gebruikt, wint in tweederde van de gevallen. VUB-wiskundige Doryan Temmerman legt uit hoe je hier beter tegen je gevoel in gaat.Gastspreker: Doryan TemmermanRedactie: Alexander Van VlierbergheEindredactie: Katleen BrackeMontage: Alexander Van VlierbergheDeze podcast is mogelijk dankzij de medewerking van KU Leuven, UAntwerpen, UGent, UHasselt, VUB en de Jonge Academie en komt tot stand met de steun van VRT, de Nationale Loterij en de Vlaamse overheid.

Nick and Kyle recap the week in Heathcliff! We also discuss Shirley Temples, vacuum cleaners, and the Monty Hall problem! Send us feedback on twitter @HeathcliffRecap or send us an email at HeathcliffRecap@gmail.com! Our theme song is Heathcliff's Meat Song by Louie Zong! Check him out at louiezong.com. Comics featured in the episode: January 25, 2025: https://www.gocomics.com/heathcliff/2025/01/25 January 26, 2025: https://www.gocomics.com/heathcliff/2025/01/26 January 27, 2025: https://www.gocomics.com/heathcliff/2025/01/27 January 28, 2025: https://www.gocomics.com/heathcliff/2025/01/28 January 29, 2025: https://www.gocomics.com/heathcliff/2025/01/29

In this episode of the I Can't Sleep Podcast, relax and drift off while unraveling the mystery of the Monty Hall Problem. This fascinating probability puzzle has puzzled and intrigued people for decades. What would you do—stick with your choice or switch doors? Dive into the logic and math behind this mind-bending scenario as you settle in for a night of restful sleep. Happy sleeping! Got a topic you're dying to hear? Skip the line of nearly 400 requests and get yours bumped to the top. Head to my website, throw in your suggestion, and make it official. Your idea could be the star of the next episode. Happy suggesting! Ad-Free Episodes Want an ad-free experience? Follow this link to support the podcast and get episodes with no ads: https://icantsleep.supportingcast.fm/ Lume Deodorant Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code [ICANTSLEEP] at LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod GhostBed Visit GhostBed.com/sleep and use promo code SLEEP for 50% off. ProLon Get 15% off Prolon's 5-day nutrition program at ProlonLife.com/ICANTSLEEP. Factor Head to FACTORMEALS.com/icantsleep50 and use code icantsleep50 to get 50% off. DoorDash Get 50% off up to $20 and zero delivery fees on your first order when you download the DoorDash app and enter code ICANTSLEEP. BetterHelp Visit BetterHelp.com/icantsleep today to get 10% off your first month HelloFresh Go to HelloFresh.com/50icantsleep and use code 50icantsleep for 50% off plus 15% off the next 2 months. SleepPhones Follow this affiliate link to purchase headphones you can fall asleep with: https://www.sleepphones.com/?aff=793 then enter the code ICANTSLEEP10 at checkout to receive a discount. This content is derived from the Wikipedia article Monty Hall Problem, available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license. The article can be accessed at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Catch every episode of The Dumb Zone by subscribing to DumbZone.com or Patreon.com/TheDumbZoneWe welcome in comedian, Lawrence Rosales, to hang for the whole show and he entertains us with stories about running from the cops and the loss of the Taco Bell dog. Seems like the Cowboys coaching candidates have been whittled down to two names: Deion Sanders or Jason Witten. The Mavs lose in a terrible way and we debut a new segment titled: Gummy Thoughts (00:00) - Open: With Lawrence Rosales (14:12) - Today in Twitter: Eagles fan follow-up (31:22) - Cowboys: It's either Deion or Witten (53:22) - Big Thursday Viewer Mail bag (01:20:17) - Mavs: Obvious goaltending (01:36:38) - Gummy thoughts: Monty Hall problem (01:55:11) - News: Bonnie Blue says hold my beer (02:25:28) - VM birthdays/Today in History ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Classic Glue this week with no guest, but Olga wants to know what Baathism is and also to explain the film 21 with Kevin Spacey.  Get the Patron-exclusive second part of this episode on Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/ep-32-monty-hall-119021410 Follow us online to get Glue-related clips and updates: TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@glue.factory.pod Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/gluefactorypodcast BSky: https://bsky.app/profile/gluefactorypod.bsky.social Twitter: https://twitter.com/gluepodcast

Klown - "Loin Cloth" - WFMU - Live at Monty Hall CD 2025 Fundraiser Giveaway Klown - "I Locked You Out" - WFMU - Live at Monty Hall Bonus Tracks Sampler https://www.wfmu.org/playlists/shows/146684

Common sense? Ain't nothing common about it. Populists - like Donald Trump - love to appeal to  'common sense', while pushing ideas as contentious as they come.  But what does  Trump get right about how he talks to people about big ideas - and what can everyone else learn from it?   And what does all this mean for how to talk about something as complex and polarised as climate change? In this episode I'm joined by Dr Dannagal Young, Professor of Communication and Political Science at the University of Delaware. Danna is the author of 'Wrong:  how Media, Politics, and Identity Drive Our Appetite for Misinformation'.   We talk about her amazing work on the psychological underpinnings of political tribes, including how much any of us actually like to think about complicated things at all. These new-format episodes take a long time to record, script, and edit. If you like it - that'll make me happy. Let me know your thoughts on the show - hello@yourbrainonclimate.com. Please rate, review and subscribe, and share the show on socials. Please consider chucking this humble indie podcaster a few quid at www.patreon.com/yourbrainonclimate. Owl noises = references: 07:15 - Here's a paper by Danna about lay epistemology.10:45 - Sophia Rosenfeld's book, Common Sense: A Political History 12:17 - Wikipedia entry on Thomas Paine's Common Sense.24:27 - Alex Bellos sets puzzles every week in the Guardian. 25:58 - Want to measure your own need for closure? Check out the Kruglanski scale.  44:25 - Awful lot of stuff written about using fear in climate messaging. Here's a decent piece from Scientists for Global Responsibility. 47:28 - If you've liked this episode and you haven't read Kahneman's seminal Thinking Fast and Slow, you better get on it.  52:09 - Numberphile2 on YouTube explains the Monty Hall problem (with visuals, which really helps). Your Brain on Climate is a podcast about human psychology vs the climate crisis. Contact the show:  @brainclimate on Twitter, or hello@yourbrainonclimate.com. Support the show on Patreon: www.patreon.com/yourbrainonclimate. The show is hosted and produced by me, Dave Powell, who you can find @powellds on Bluesky and X/Twitter, although I don't use the latter any more. YBOC theme music and iterations thereof, by me.  Lots of other lovely bed music in this episode by Rockot.  Show logo by Arthur Stovell at www.designbymondial.com. 

The conversation explores various themes including the decline in NBA ratings, the growth of the WNBA, and the implications of the Monty Hall problem in probability theory. The hosts discuss the Dallas Wings' draft lottery win and the potential impact of star players on the league. They also delve into gender dynamics in education, particularly in mathematics, and how historical context affects perceptions of intelligence. The discussion culminates in a debate about the Monty Hall problem, emphasizing the importance of understanding probabilities in decision-making. In this segment, the conversation delves into various themes including the struggles of math education, the dynamics of NBA teams, the legacy of James Harden, the impact of player health on team success, the expectations surrounding the Ball brothers, and a ranking of top NBA players.

OK, we did not get to this on opening weekend, but there seems to be enough interest to sustain the theatrical run for a couple of weeks. 'For The Rest Of Your Lives, There Will Be Before You Listen And There Will Be After. Lambs, Verbally Acknowledge Please.' Heretic is the A24 Psychological Horror film starring Hugh Grant, cast against type as an intellectually curious potential convert to the Mormon faith. We have two sisters and two elders joining the show this week in the spirit of the Later Day Saints which comes in for examination.Lisa Leaheey loves her horror movies, will she love this one? Nicole Ayers is not a horror fan, will she choose door number 2? James Wilson is also not a horror fan, but he may be susceptible to Mr. Reed's lecture. Howard Casner is a skeptic of everything, and we will find out if he is too jaded to enjoy the film. We do a little criticism of casting against type in other films and suggest some non-traditional casting of our own. So as Monty Hall might ask, which door do you choose?

Hall of Fame Broadcaster Chuck Kaiton shares memories from his 39 seasons as the voice of the Hartford Whalers/Carolina Hurricanes, great times with former Whaler players Gordie Howe/Bobby Hull/Dave Keon, his epic call to cap the Hurricanes' game 7 Stanley Cup championship victory in 2006, his interactions with Nick Kypreos/Chris Pronger/Ron Francis/the Kaberle family/Pierre McGuire/Dick Irvin, his ongoing duties as President of the NHL Broadcasters' Association, and the NHL trivia about Let's Make a Deal host Monty Hall that he shared with a disbelieving Dave Keon! TORONTO LEGENDS is hosted by Andrew Applebaum at andrew.applebaum@gmail.com All episodes available at https://www.torontolegends.ca/episodes/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week Cecile and Katia look back on a very busy Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show during the last days of a long and hot US presidential campaign, from creative marketing by yacht King Benji to the press conferences there, including the introduction by Sunseeker of the company's two new owners, the launch of a new Riva Residenze on Fort Lauderdale Beach and an unusual and much noticed boat show visitor, a Maine Coone cat named Romeo. Katia tells us why is looking forward to the upcoming Yacht Explorer Summit kicking off November 13 at the Monaco yacht club and highlights two speakers, TV personality Monty Hall and REV CEO Nina Jensen. The two also reveal their yacht brokerage picks of the week and review some of the week's international yachting news. https://www.boatinternational.com/luxury-yacht-events/explorer-yachts-summit/everything-you-need-to-know-2024 https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/editorial-features/dunya-yachts-king-benji-superyacht https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/fort-lauderdale-international-boat-show https://www.boatinternational.com/boat-pro/news/sunseeker-yachts-sold-orienta-lionheart  https://www.boatinternational.com/boat-pro/news/ferretti-riva-residendenze-project-flibs-2024 https://www.boatinternational.com/yacht-market-intelligence/brokerage-sales-news/pendennis-sailing-catamaran-hemisphere-for-sale https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/editorial-features/benetti-37m-byond-hybrid-yacht

Next up in our scheduled rereleases, we're bring back our episode on Variance and Consistency. We talk about the capricious nature of card games, how Flesh and Blood creates consistency (and variance) in unique ways, and the unending struggle against variance. We also spend a good four minutes trying to explain the Monty Hall problem because probabilities are dumb. Custom Card Google Drive Link: ⁠https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1er_iMTuTqkf7BRHP0xt6SLksLl536Jnx?usp=sharing⁠ You can follow us at the following socials: Twitter: @PitchItToMePod Instagram: @pitchittomepodcast Youtube: @PitchItToMePodcast Timestamps: 00:00 Re-release Intro 00:53 Introduction 01:54 Turn Zero 03:33 Red Pitch (Clark): The Omnipresent Chaos of Card Games 22:46 Yellow Pitch (Fuzzy): How Flesh and Blood Reduces Variance 37:53 Blue Pitch (Joel): How to Improve Consistency and Variance 53:48 Arsenal Zone 1:02:48 Credits (And the Monty Hall problem) Credits: Host #2 -- Fuzzy Delp Host #2 -- Joel Recinos Host #2 -- Clark Moore Executive Producer -- Talon Stradley Music -- Dillon Hulse Logo -- Han Vi Mix -- Christopher Moore Audio Editor -- Fuzzy Delp Video Editor -- Clark Moore Thank you to Legend Story Studios for allowing the use of their card art through their Content Creator policies and for making the game of Flesh and Blood.

François Chollet discusses the limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) and proposes a new approach to advancing artificial intelligence. He argues that current AI systems excel at pattern recognition but struggle with logical reasoning and true generalization. This was Chollet's keynote talk at AGI-24, filmed in high-quality. We will be releasing a full interview with him shortly. A teaser clip from that is played in the intro! Chollet introduces the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) as a benchmark for measuring AI progress towards human-like intelligence. He explains the concept of abstraction in AI systems and proposes combining deep learning with program synthesis to overcome current limitations. Chollet suggests that breakthroughs in AI might come from outside major tech labs and encourages researchers to explore new ideas in the pursuit of artificial general intelligence. TOC 1. LLM Limitations and Intelligence Concepts [00:00:00] 1.1 LLM Limitations and Composition [00:12:05] 1.2 Intelligence as Process vs. Skill [00:17:15] 1.3 Generalization as Key to AI Progress 2. ARC-AGI Benchmark and LLM Performance [00:19:59] 2.1 Introduction to ARC-AGI Benchmark [00:20:05] 2.2 Introduction to ARC-AGI and the ARC Prize [00:23:35] 2.3 Performance of LLMs and Humans on ARC-AGI 3. Abstraction in AI Systems [00:26:10] 3.1 The Kaleidoscope Hypothesis and Abstraction Spectrum [00:30:05] 3.2 LLM Capabilities and Limitations in Abstraction [00:32:10] 3.3 Value-Centric vs Program-Centric Abstraction [00:33:25] 3.4 Types of Abstraction in AI Systems 4. Advancing AI: Combining Deep Learning and Program Synthesis [00:34:05] 4.1 Limitations of Transformers and Need for Program Synthesis [00:36:45] 4.2 Combining Deep Learning and Program Synthesis [00:39:59] 4.3 Applying Combined Approaches to ARC Tasks [00:44:20] 4.4 State-of-the-Art Solutions for ARC Shownotes (new!): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i7nsyoahuei6np95lbjxw/CholletKeynote.pdf?rlkey=t3502kbov5exsdxhderq70b9i&st=1ca91ewz&dl=0 [0:01:15] Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC): AI benchmark (François Chollet) https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547 [0:05:30] Monty Hall problem: Probability puzzle (Steve Selvin) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.1975.10479121 [0:06:20] LLM training dynamics analysis (Tirumala et al.) https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10770 [0:10:20] Transformer limitations on compositionality (Dziri et al.) https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18654 [0:10:25] Reversal Curse in LLMs (Berglund et al.) https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12288 [0:19:25] Measure of intelligence using algorithmic information theory (François Chollet) https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547 [0:20:10] ARC-AGI: GitHub repository (François Chollet) https://github.com/fchollet/ARC-AGI [0:22:15] ARC Prize: $1,000,000+ competition (François Chollet) https://arcprize.org/ [0:33:30] System 1 and System 2 thinking (Daniel Kahneman) https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555 [0:34:00] Core knowledge in infants (Elizabeth Spelke) https://www.harvardlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/SpelkeKinzler07-1.pdf [0:34:30] Embedding interpretive spaces in ML (Tennenholtz et al.) https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04475 [0:44:20] Hypothesis Search with LLMs for ARC (Wang et al.) https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.05660 [0:44:50] Ryan Greenblatt's high score on ARC public leaderboard https://arcprize.org/

Nick and Kyle are joined by comedian Hayden Hartrick to recap the week in Heathcliff! We also discuss gyms, puppetry and (once again) the Monty Hall problem! Send us feedback on twitter @HeathcliffRecap or send us an email at HeathcliffRecap@gmail.com! Our theme song is Heathcliff's Meat Song by Louie Zong! Check him out at louiezong.com. Comics featured in the episode: October 4, 2024: https://www.gocomics.com/heathcliff/2024/10/04 October 5, 2024: https://www.gocomics.com/heathcliff/2024/10/05 October 7, 2024: https://www.gocomics.com/heathcliff/2024/10/07 October 8, 2024: https://www.gocomics.com/heathcliff/2024/10/08 October 9, 2024: https://www.gocomics.com/heathcliff/2024/10/09 October 10, 2024: https://www.gocomics.com/heathcliff/2024/10/10

Alan Kreisel is in the new contestant's seat this week to see how he does vs. our reigning champion. Listen in and play along! CARD 1 CLUE: Below the Belt CATEGORY: South American Countries ANSWERS: Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Ecuador CARD 2 CLUE: Candy is Dandy CATEGORY: Types of Liquor ANSWERS: Rum, Vodka, Tequila, Brandy, Gin, Scotch, Cognac CARD 3 CLUE: Don't Look at Me CATEGORY: Game Show Hosts ANSWERS: Bob Barker, Monty Hall, Dick Clark, Alex Trebek, Drew Carey, Richard Dawson, Bob Eubanks CARD 4 CLUE: Shake It Up CATEGORY: Things Associated with an Earthquake ANSWERS: California, Crack, Fault, Ground, Doorway, Crater, Plate CARD 5 CLUE: Pennsylvania's Finest CATEGORY: Hersey Brands ANSWERS: Kit Kat, Twizzlers, Jolly Rancher, Pay Day, Reese's, Heath, Whoppers CARD 6 CLUE: The Left Side CATEGORY: Things Associated with California ANSWERS: Golden Gate Bridge, Hollywood, Disneyland, Coachella, Surfing, Wine, Silicon Valley

In this episode of the podKast, Kieran explains why people who use Apple Music are weird, Craig rants about the price of the PS5 Pro, we both get confused of the Monty Hall problem and we go through a list of things to decide wether it's a cult or not. ENJOY!Subscribe if you're a legend!Follow us on our socials!Craig:YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@TheCraigNotCreg TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@thecraignotcregInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/itscraignotcreg/Kieran:TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@kieranwitha.kInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/kieran.withak/Discord - https://discord.com/invite/F7uC3dZWMvChannel art provided by - https://www.instagram.com/eleven95_design/IS IT A CULT? | PodKast: With a K - Episode 51 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week's challenge: play the New York Times games.You can hear the Aftershow and support Do By Friday on Patreon!——Produced and Edited by Alex Cox——Show LinksSchroedinger's Gift | Do By FridayCardboard cutting ASMRAmazon returns: What really happens to them?Monty Hall problem - WikipediaxScope • Measure. Inspect. Test.Kash Patel Will Do Anything for Trump - The Atlantic'SNL' Star James Austin Johnson Reprises Trump Impression After TrialShane Gillis's Best Trump Impressions - YouTubeCliff Hickinson (@CliffHickinson@mastodon.social) - MastodonWho is paying $30 for 'gamer girl' Belle Delphine's bath water? | Life and style | The GuardianTrump CardsCharlie Kirk Gets Into Altercation at DNC - NewsweekDemocratic National Convention: The Best and Most WTF MomentsMike Lindell Humiliated by 12-Year-Old at DNC; Trump Whines About Obama "Size" Jab: A Closer Look - YouTube'Weird' Times in American Politics: The New Democratic PlaybookReliquary - WikipediaTechnology | Us/technology | The GuardianGames | The New York Times CompanyLex's Games by Lex FriedmanToday's PuzzmoWordle Is a Love Story - The New York TimesEggplant: The Secret Lives of Games: 126: Building Your Own Platform with Zach Gage (Puzzmo)Recorded Wednesday, Wednesday, August 28th, 2024Next week's challenge: make a lil' movie.

Cue the rim-shot, because Jack Carter is in the house. Best known as the purveyor of rapid fire jokes in the best Vegas tradition, Jack was also a fine singer, dancer, and actor with numerous stage and screen credits to his name. Early on he claimed a bit of television history as an early host of both the Texaco Star Theater and the Cavalcade of Stars. Those gigs earned him his own show on NBC which was the lead in to Sid Caesar and Imogene Coca's Your Show of Shows. A tireless performer, Jack was a mainstay at the Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts and on game shows (Password, The Match Game), as well as continuing with stand up appearances well in to his 80s. A comedy historian once referred to Jack's style as 'slick, fast, and furious" -- an apt description and one worthy of a 21 rim shot salute! As always, find extra clips below and thanks for sharing our shows. Want more Carter? This is a treat -- Jack's full routine on the Ed Sullivan Show from back in the days when television was in glorious black and white. This is a good intro to Jack's style. https://dai.ly/x2w04mb With a rapid fire style, it's no wonder that Jack was a favorite at the Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts -- here he ostensibly roasts Monty Hall, but it's the other panelists who take most of the fire, https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1kx411e7aK/ Jack was a television pioneer and for a while his own variety show was the lead in to Sid Caesar and Imogene Coca's legendary "Your Show of Shows". At a school reunion Jack was called on for some memories those times and he sure delivered. https://youtu.be/DqIbXfTF708?si=Oprzg0A0MBN-D6ke

Dave Hackel joined me to discuss growing up in Delaware, Ohio; being kept busy by TV; working in radio at 14; doing everything for a cable channel in Columbus for three years; moving to LA and getting a job that supplied prizes for game shows; Turtle wax; writing in the same building as game show writers; getting first break, on Fish; working with Abe Vigoda; getting staff jobs on Shirley, a Shirley Jones sitcom; writing the made-for-TV movie, The Great American Traffic Jam; writing a Love Boat; Harper Valley PTA; 9 to 5 and meeting with April Kelley; doing Webster and working with Bruce Johnson; problems on the set; Alex Karras & Susan Clark vs. Emmanuel Lewis & producers; Out of this World; writing for Dear John; an episode he writes wins Cleavon Little an Emmy; Bill Asher (Bewitched) was a fan of Becker; being a consultant on Frasier; writing #2 Wings fan favorite "Stand Up Kind of Guy"; the story behind it; Wings being a show the meant something to him professionally and personally; working with Al Franken on Lateline; Becker having come from a previous pilot; making him a doctor and casting Ted Danson; test pilot script read; Ian Gurvitz's contributions; trying to make Becker dramatic and showcase issues and still be funny; retirement; travelling the US with his wife, Peter Casey and his wife; Detroit; Motown Museum; Kansas City; Minneapolis; becoming a Padres fan late in life; game show writers; Markie Post; Monty Hall; guests over 90; meeting Carl Reiner; Shawnee Smith; teaching in NYC; teenage political apathy; April Kelly's memory and not knowing who the hosts and musical guests on SNL anymore.

The spirit of Monty Hall is alive and well this week in college athletics.  The man who was one of… The post Let's Make A Deal – NCAA Settlement version appeared first on SwampSwamiSports.com.

During the Nights quiz, when eliminating one of the three options, we encountered the classic Monty Hall problem. If given the opportunity, should you switch your choice? 

To achieve the wealth, influence, and admiration you aspire to, simply customizing your car won't cut it; you must enhance all aspects of your life. Following Ken's advice is crucial unless you've witnessed Ray Charles guiding Stevie Wonder. His guidelines will impact you profoundly, akin to AT&T's outreach, and bring positive changes, reminiscent of GE. Embrace this transformation, become the leader with exceptional flair who attains everything, just like Monty Hall. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/nalasden88/message

What would it be like to direct the Academy Awards?Jeff has done it 8 times-Plus, The Emmy Awards, American Music Awards, and multiple live television events… His new book is entitled “Live in 5”Jeff talks:-Academy Awards working with actors -What happens behind the scenes -David Letterman as his host-Monty Hall his Uncle-The Michael Jackson HBO Special that NEVER aired      Jeff's Book "We're Live in 5"  To subscribe to The Pete McMurray Show Podcast just click here

In this week's episode, Patrick and Greg play with some of the basics of probability in the context of some classic, fun, and often counterintuitive examples.  Along the way they also discuss arguments with relatives, a feel for the roulette wheel, Xeroxing your butt, “The coin has spoken.”, Quantitude BooqQlub, the Bellagio Fountains, Clooney and Pitt look-alikes, the Flippier, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Monty Hall, Ferraris and goats, the birthday problem, how to carve an elephant, and pick-6 lotteries. Stay in contact with Quantitude! Twitter: @quantitudepod Web page: quantitudepod.org Merch: redbubble.com

James Lott Jr chats with Jeff about his long career and his new juicy book, We're Live at 5! Aside from directing the Oscars 8x, Jeff has directed the SAG Awards, Primetime and Daytime Emmys, and over 150 award shows, specials, and variety series.His uncle Monty Hall gave him his start - working on the Smothers Brothers show as a cue card guy. Then, he used his Bar Mitzvah money to start his own path into Hollywood! Jeff has worked with everyone - Cher, Dolly, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Barbra, Sinatra, Celine, Carol Burnett, Oprah - you name 'em. 

On Celebrity Jobber with Jeff Zito this week, Director/Producer Jeff Margolis. What would have been if Jeff wasn't introduced to show business by his uncle, gameshow legend Monty Hall? What type of work would he be doing if he wasn't one of the most successful live TV event and variety special directors of all time? Many celebrities will tell you that if not for that one lucky break or meeting, they would be selling condos on the beach or pouring concrete somewhere. They may have been just a jobber. Thanks for listening, please rate, review, and subscribe to the Celebrity Jobber with Jeff Zito wherever you pod.

Doktorúr fiának felvételije, nejlonharisnya meleg-e, kaptunk-e már hangüzenetet, legyen könyvajánló, VHK jó, OOTT jó, milyen számláló legyen az emberek felett, plasztika vagy pszichológus, vakolták-e a várak kőfalait, baj-e, ha nem dagaszt a macska, hová lett a vízállásjelentés, le tudnák-e nyúlni a bankkártya-adataimmal a pénzemet az online boltok, mit kell tenni egy híres emberrel az utcán, miért borotválják le az ortodox zsidó feleségek haját, milyen undorító dolgot kell kipróbálni, hogyan kell kilépni 13 évesen a pornófüggőségből, miért ismeretlen tettes ellen tesznek feljelentést, hogyan kell túlélni egy szakítást, mi történik, ha WD40-nel fújunk be egy féktárcsát, melyik az öt nyertes szám, mi az a Monty Hall paradoxon, milyen sporttal lehet a legjobban fogyni, mit gondoljunk a Novák Katalin ügyről, ki áldozza fel magát az emberiségért, mit kéne tenni a klímaváltozás ellen, hogyan lehet bizonyítani a deepfake fake-ségét, mi köze van Pogány Indulónak József Attilához, milyen néptáncok varázsolnak el, lehet-e hamisan dobolni, miért lila a nénik haja? Zenék: Lajkó Félix és Bandája játszik a palicsi erdőben. A kivételesen mindenki számára elérhető Patreon-adás linkje: https://www.patreon.com/posts/hirado-98517242 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/csunyarosszmajom/message

We all occasionally fall victim to fallacies—assumptions or beliefs that just aren't true.  Consider a deceptively simple logic puzzle known as the Monty Hall problem: You're presented with three doors, behind one of which is a prize, and you have to guess the door. Before revealing the answer, the game show host makes your life easier by eliminating one of the wrong answers and asks you if you want to change your guess. Should you change it? Most people shrug and say, “At that point, it's 50/50, so I'd just keep my guess the same.” This is the wrong answer: You should switch your guess because the other door has two-thirds odds of being correct.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's episode in on variance and consistency. We talk about the capricious nature of card games, how Flesh and Blood creates consistency (and variance) in unique ways, and the unending struggle against variance. We also spend a good four minutes trying to explain the Monty Hall problem because probabilities are dumb. Custom Card Google Drive Link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1er_iMTuTqkf7BRHP0xt6SLksLl536Jnx?usp=sharing You can follow us at the following socials: Twitter: @PitchItToMePod Instagram: @pitchittomepodcast Youtube: @PitchItToMePodcast Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 01:01 Turn Zero 02:40 Red Pitch (Clark): The Omnipresent Chaos of Card Games 21:53 Yellow Pitch (Fuzzy): How Flesh and Blood Reduces Variance 37:00 Blue Pitch (Joel): How to Improve Consistency and Variance 52:55 Arsenal Zone 1:01:55 Credits Credits: Host #2 -- Fuzzy Delp Host #2 -- Joel Recinos Host #2 -- Clark Moore Executive Producer -- Talon Stradley Logistics Coordinator -- John Farkas Music -- Dillon Hulse Logo -- Han Vi Mix -- Christopher Moore Audio Editor -- Fuzzy Delp Video Editor -- Clark Moore Thank you to Legend Story Studios for allowing the use of their card art through their Content Creator policies and for making the game of Flesh and Blood.

What if you could tap into the fascinating world of probability and statistics to make better informed health decisions? This week's MedEvidence Monday Minute, we unravel the intriguing Monty Hall paradox and its surprising implications on medical decision-making. Just as Monty Hall guided contestants towards the best odds without predetermining outcomes, our physicians too lead us towards the most favorable probabilities. Armed with data and statistics, they advise us on the best options without predicting exact results. It's a look into the mind-boggling world of probabilities and how it shapes our everyday health choices. So, gear up for a thrilling ride through the labyrinth of medical research, no lab coat required!Be a part of advancing science by participating in clinical researchShare with a friend. Rate, Review, and Subscribe to the MedEvidence! podcast to be notified when new episodes are released.Follow us on Social Media:FacebookInstagramTwitterLinkedIn Powered by ENCORE Research GroupMusic: Storyblocks - Corporate InspiredThank you for listening!

This week on The Bedtime Podcast Syd and Noah get scammed by a major Hollywood game show. The couple gets very confused over taxes and eventually figured it out. Also discussed: the chief of heat.Our patreon right here  Youtube Page here youtube Clips Page here  spotify here apple podcasts hereTiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebedtimepodcast Noah's IGNoah's x Syd on IGSyd's substack

The series premiere of SPLIT SECOND can be seen Monday, April 17 at 7:30 p.m. ET on Game Show Network and air weekdays. This is John Michael Higgins' second show on Game Show Network. He previously hosted America Says, running for five seasons and over 500 episodes to date. Based on a format from game show legend Monty Hall, Spilt Second asks three contestants to decide in a split second which of three general interest trivia questions they can answer. The first player to buzz in gets the first pick, and the last player is left to answer whatever is left, which is often the most difficult. The player with the fastest response time and the highest success rate answering questions over the first three rounds advances to the bonus game where their ability to answer a rapid-fire series of questions could win them $10,000. Split Second is produced by Game Show Enterprises Studios with Michael Binkow as executive producer. Nancy Glass, Marcus Lemonis, and Sharon Hall also serve as executive producers for Marcus/Glass Productions. John Michael Higgins serves as host and executive producer.

Even if you have never watched a classic game show, my guess is that you have heard of Monty Hall.  He is best known for his multi-decades work on “Let's Make a Deal”, but was also a game show creator, actor, author, and record setting philanthropist.  This week I induct Adam Nedeff into the “Two […]

Even if you have never watched a classic game show, my guess is that you have heard of Monty Hall.  He is best known for his multi-decades work on “Let's Make a Deal”, but was also a game show creator, actor, author, and record setting philanthropist.  This week I induct Adam Nedeff into the “Two […]

Today I talked to Ellin Bessner about her book Double Threat: Canadian Jews, the Military, and World War II (New Jewish Press, 2018). "He died so Jewry should suffer no more." These words on a Canadian Jewish soldier's tombstone in Normandy inspired the author to explore the role of Canadian Jews in the war effort. As PM Mackenzie King wrote in 1947, Jewish servicemen faced a "double threat" - they were not only fighting against Fascism but for Jewish survival. At the same time, they encountered widespread antisemitism and the danger of being identified as Jews if captured. Bessner conducted hundreds of interviews and extensive archival research to paint a complex picture of the 17,000 Canadian Jews - about 10 per cent of the Jewish population in wartime Canada - who chose to enlist, including future Cabinet minister Barney Danson, future game-show host Monty Hall, and comedians Wayne and Shuster. Added to this fascinating account are Jews who were among the so-called "Zombies" - Canadians who were drafted, but chose to serve at home - the various perspectives of the Jewish community, and the participation of Canadian Jewish women. Mel Rosenberg is a professor emeritus of microbiology (Tel Aviv University, emeritus) who fell in love with children's books as a small child and now writes his own. He is co-founder of Ourboox, a web platform with some 240,000 ebooks that allows anyone to create and share flipbooks comprising text, pictures and videos. 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

Today I talked to Ellin Bessner about her book Double Threat: Canadian Jews, the Military, and World War II (New Jewish Press, 2018). "He died so Jewry should suffer no more." These words on a Canadian Jewish soldier's tombstone in Normandy inspired the author to explore the role of Canadian Jews in the war effort. As PM Mackenzie King wrote in 1947, Jewish servicemen faced a "double threat" - they were not only fighting against Fascism but for Jewish survival. At the same time, they encountered widespread antisemitism and the danger of being identified as Jews if captured. Bessner conducted hundreds of interviews and extensive archival research to paint a complex picture of the 17,000 Canadian Jews - about 10 per cent of the Jewish population in wartime Canada - who chose to enlist, including future Cabinet minister Barney Danson, future game-show host Monty Hall, and comedians Wayne and Shuster. Added to this fascinating account are Jews who were among the so-called "Zombies" - Canadians who were drafted, but chose to serve at home - the various perspectives of the Jewish community, and the participation of Canadian Jewish women. Mel Rosenberg is a professor emeritus of microbiology (Tel Aviv University, emeritus) who fell in love with children's books as a small child and now writes his own. He is co-founder of Ourboox, a web platform with some 240,000 ebooks that allows anyone to create and share flipbooks comprising text, pictures and videos. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Today I talked to Ellin Bessner about her book Double Threat: Canadian Jews, the Military, and World War II (New Jewish Press, 2018). "He died so Jewry should suffer no more." These words on a Canadian Jewish soldier's tombstone in Normandy inspired the author to explore the role of Canadian Jews in the war effort. As PM Mackenzie King wrote in 1947, Jewish servicemen faced a "double threat" - they were not only fighting against Fascism but for Jewish survival. At the same time, they encountered widespread antisemitism and the danger of being identified as Jews if captured. Bessner conducted hundreds of interviews and extensive archival research to paint a complex picture of the 17,000 Canadian Jews - about 10 per cent of the Jewish population in wartime Canada - who chose to enlist, including future Cabinet minister Barney Danson, future game-show host Monty Hall, and comedians Wayne and Shuster. Added to this fascinating account are Jews who were among the so-called "Zombies" - Canadians who were drafted, but chose to serve at home - the various perspectives of the Jewish community, and the participation of Canadian Jewish women. Mel Rosenberg is a professor emeritus of microbiology (Tel Aviv University, emeritus) who fell in love with children's books as a small child and now writes his own. He is co-founder of Ourboox, a web platform with some 240,000 ebooks that allows anyone to create and share flipbooks comprising text, pictures and videos. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

Today I talked to Ellin Bessner about her book Double Threat: Canadian Jews, the Military, and World War II (New Jewish Press, 2018). "He died so Jewry should suffer no more." These words on a Canadian Jewish soldier's tombstone in Normandy inspired the author to explore the role of Canadian Jews in the war effort. As PM Mackenzie King wrote in 1947, Jewish servicemen faced a "double threat" - they were not only fighting against Fascism but for Jewish survival. At the same time, they encountered widespread antisemitism and the danger of being identified as Jews if captured. Bessner conducted hundreds of interviews and extensive archival research to paint a complex picture of the 17,000 Canadian Jews - about 10 per cent of the Jewish population in wartime Canada - who chose to enlist, including future Cabinet minister Barney Danson, future game-show host Monty Hall, and comedians Wayne and Shuster. Added to this fascinating account are Jews who were among the so-called "Zombies" - Canadians who were drafted, but chose to serve at home - the various perspectives of the Jewish community, and the participation of Canadian Jewish women. Mel Rosenberg is a professor emeritus of microbiology (Tel Aviv University, emeritus) who fell in love with children's books as a small child and now writes his own. He is co-founder of Ourboox, a web platform with some 240,000 ebooks that allows anyone to create and share flipbooks comprising text, pictures and videos. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

Mike and Kyle explore the parallels between gay and gambling by talking about religious views, the DSM-5 on gambling disorders, the conflicting studies, and Gamblers Anonymous. We also get into Jason Somerville, the only openly gay competitor in the World Series of Poker, and Brian Christopher, the most popular slot machine YouTuber. In this episode: News- 2:03 || Main Topic (Gambling)- 16:45 || Gayest & Straightest- 1:22:01 Join our National Coming Out virtual happy hour on Tuesday, Oct. 11 @ 6pm Pacific / 9pm Eastern. RSVP at https://www.facebook.com/events/1516749878739194. In the Patreon bonus segment, can Kyle get the Monty Hall problem right? Can you? Support us by joining Patreon at www.patreon.com/gayishpodcast.

Whoa! Everything Is Real! In today's episode, we're talking about dreams that predict reality, ontology, the history of questioning reality, why you can't trust your eyes, materialism, idealism, Descartes, Monty Hall, Einstein, simulation theory, monks who dream, and what happens outside of the present moment.Everything Is Real is brought to you by Garbage Brain University (obviously.) Subscribe if you want to hear future episodes which are available for paying members only! Five bucks gets you access to the entire GBU archive (150 episodes that aren't available until you join) and access to all paid episodes in the future, as well as our community Discord.• natalie & drew This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.garbagebrainuniversity.com/subscribe

John and Craig discuss the confusing phenomenon of post-scriptum depression. They explain why even a good experience can feel like loss and offer tips for how to move on. We also cover the difficulty of balancing timelines in parallel storylines. Follow up this week includes a fuller explanation of the Monty Hall and a passionate defense of short films. In our bonus segment for premium members, we discuss our favorite party game: Codenames. Links: WGA Animation Pledge Scriptnotes Seasons 9 & 10, subscribe for all episodes and premium perks here Download Highland 2 for free if you're a university student! Article Option Services The Optionist and Story Scout Check out the Interesting Newsletter on Shorts John's short film God WGA Offers Trans Health Coverage The Rehearsal Nathan Fielder's new show on HBO Max Kevin Wald's Con Cryptics write in to ask@johnaugust.com if you can figure it out! Codenames Game, Codenames with Pictures, and more in the Codenames Universe! Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt! Check out the Inneresting Newsletter Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription! Craig Mazin on Twitter John August on Twitter John on Instagram Outro by Adam Pineless (send us yours!) Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Email us at ask@johnaugust.com You can download the episode here.