Podcasts about Nathan Young

Send us a textIn this episode of we feature two bright young business students, Russell Noseworthy and Nathan Young, who are just beginning their journeys in the business world. They share their experiences, inspirations, and insights into the student-managed investment fund at Memorial University, as well as their participation and two year back to back first place wins in the prestigious Van Burkom case competition.0:00 – Introduction to Gale Force Wins Season 50:11 – Gerry discusses the podcast's origin and how this episode features two guests at the beginning of their journey.0:35 – Welcome to Russell Noseworthy and Nathan Young1:22 – Russell introduces himself and his background2:23 – Nathan introduces himself and shares his background3:01 – Nathan talks about his inspiration for studying business3:55 – Russell discusses his inspiration for choosing business over engineering4:46 – Russell reflects on his personal interests and volunteering experiences5:32 – Russell and Nathan discuss the student-managed investment fund6:11 – The growth of the fund from $150,000 to $400,0007:02 – Russell and Nathan discuss the real-world skills gained through the fund8:02 – Mentors involved with the fund8:50 – Russell and Nathan reflect on the fund's performance during volatile market conditions9:22 – Russell and Nathan talk about the importance of sticking to long-term strategies10:16 – The roles of students involved in the fund11:03 – Nathan shares how the fund has shaped his career11:37 – Russell explains his role and responsibilities as a co-portfolio manager12:03 – The role of faculty advisers and the support from Memorial University12:53 – Russell explains the growth and goals of the student-managed fund13:42 – Nathan reflects on his experience and the connections made through the fund14:11 – Russell talks about the plans for growing the fund to $1 million15:04 – Participation in the Van Berkom case competition15:53 – The annual industry trip for senior members of the fund16:05 – Russell and Nathan discuss the preparations for the case competition17:12 – The experience of preparing for the competition19:09 – Russell and Nathan talk about their first time competing in the Van Burkham case competition34:02 – Russell talks about how the team celebrated after the competition37:00 – Reflecting on their success in representing Newfoundland and Labrador and Memorial University39:31 – Nathan talks about being awarded the Frank H. Sobey Award for excellence in business41:07 – Russell shares his future plans after graduation42:13 – Nathan talks about his job offer in Toronto and plans to stay connected with Newfoundland and Labrador43:07 – Nathan and Russell reflect on the importance of business in the community44:23 – Perspectives on the future of business and sustainability in Newfoundland and LabradorGale Force Wins started out simply as an inspirational podcast releasing episodes wherever you get your podcasts every Tuesday evening. We continue to do that every Tuesday but have expanded into custom content for clients. We also have perfected a conference and trade show offering where you can receive over 20 videos edited and posted to social media at the same time the event is unfolding.For businesses and organizations we also create digital content quickly and efficiently.Visit our services page here:https://galeforcewins.com/servicesTo message Gerry visit: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerrycarew/To message Allan visit: https://www.linkedin.com/in/allanadale/

Nathan Young of The Rosselott Financial Group

Merry Murder! Our friend Nathan Young joins us for another round of mini mysteries. Special thanks to Alyssa S and CherimoyaZest for the mysteries they wrote! If you have a mystery you'd like to submit, you can post it on our Discord: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/JB7YnAHJXj⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Please also consider supporting our show by joining our Patreon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/user?u=108696384⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ We have exciting plans for the Murder Museum in the new year. Thank you for listening, and we hope you'll join us next time!

Support the show

Support the show

Support the show

Support the show

Support the show

Support the show

Support the show

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Best Argument is not a Simple English Yud Essay, published by Jonathan Bostock on September 20, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I was encouraged to post this here, but I don't yet have enough EA forum karma to crosspost directly! Epistemic status: these are my own opinions on AI risk communication, based primarily on my own instincts on the subject and discussions with people less involved with rationality than myself. Communication is highly subjective and I have not rigorously A/B tested messaging. I am even less confident in the quality of my responses than in the correctness of my critique. If they turn out to be true, these thoughts can probably be applied to all sorts of communication beyond AI risk. Lots of work has gone into trying to explain AI risk to laypersons. Overall, I think it's been great, but there's a particular trap that I've seen people fall into a few times. I'd summarize it as simplifying and shortening the text of an argument without enough thought for the information content. It comes in three forms. One is forgetting to adapt concepts for someone with a far inferential distance; another is forgetting to filter for the important information; the third is rewording an argument so much you fail to sound like a human being at all. I'm going to critique three examples which I think typify these: Failure to Adapt Concepts I got this from the summaries of AI risk arguments written by Katja Grace and Nathan Young here. I'm making the assumption that these summaries are supposed to be accessible to laypersons, since most of them seem written that way. This one stands out as not having been optimized on the concept level. This argument was below-aveage effectiveness when tested. I expect most people's reaction to point 2 would be "I understand all those words individually, but not together". It's a huge dump of conceptual information all at once which successfully points to the concept in the mind of someone who already understands it, but is unlikely to introduce that concept to someone's mind. Here's an attempt to do better: 1. So far, humans have mostly developed technology by understanding the systems which the technology depends on. 2. AI systems developed today are instead created by machine learning. This means that the computer learns to produce certain desired outputs, but humans do not tell the system how it should produce the outputs. We often have no idea how or why an AI behaves in the way that it does. 3. Since we don't understand how or why an AI works a certain way, it could easily behave in unpredictable and unwanted ways. 4. If the AI is powerful, then the consequences of unwanted behaviour could be catastrophic. And here's Claude's just for fun: 1. Up until now, humans have created new technologies by understanding how they work. 2. The AI systems made in 2024 are different. Instead of being carefully built piece by piece, they're created by repeatedly tweaking random systems until they do what we want. This means the people who make these AIs don't fully understand how they work on the inside. 3. When we use systems that we don't fully understand, we're more likely to run into unexpected problems or side effects. 4. If these not-fully-understood AI systems become very powerful, any unexpected problems could potentially be really big and harmful. I think it gets points 1 and 3 better than me, but 2 and 4 worse. Either way, I think we can improve upon the summary. Failure to Filter Information When you condense an argument down, you make it shorter. This is obvious. What is not always as obvious is that this means you have to throw out information to make the core point clearer. Sometimes the information that gets kept is distracting. Here's an example from a poster a friend of mine made for Pause AI: When I showed this to ...

In this riveting episode of "Schmidt List," host Kurt Schmidt sits down with Nathan Young, fractional COO, founder, and author of "How to Be Second." Together, they delve deep into the concept of personal and professional growth, emphasizing the value of the support role in leadership. Nathan shares his unique journey and the realizations that led him to embrace his role as an integrator, rather than a traditional entrepreneur.Key topics include:Main Character Concept: Exploring how seeing oneself as the main character can foster a victim mentality.Personal Growth: The importance of exposing oneself to diverse perspectives and situations for genuine growth.Facing Fears: Kurt shares a personal anecdote about overcoming his fear of guns through education and practice.Work-Life Balance: Discussing the different attitudes towards work and the impact on personal identity.Guest Spotlight: Nathan introduces his book, "How to Be Second," and a new matchmaking service for leaders and supporters.Networking and Mentorship: The necessity of building a sustainable network and the transformative power of mentorship.Productivity Techniques: Insights into time blocking, changing work environments, and maintaining focus.Role Specialization: The importance of clear role definitions and the emotional journey of embracing the "second" role.Listen in as Kurt and Nathan offer valuable advice on intentional networking, professional accountability, and the multifaceted nature of leadership roles. Whether you're a solo entrepreneur or a seasoned leader, this episode is packed with insights to help you navigate your professional journey with clarity and confidence.Resources and Links:- Nathan Young's book, "How to Be Second," is available now from major publishers, including an audiobook version.- Visit http://howtobesecond.com for more information on Nathan's work and to join his community. https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathan-s-young- Subscribe to Nathan's newsletter for updates and more leadership insights.- Check out Kurt's "The Little Book of Networking" for a solid framework on intentional networking.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/schmidt-list-inspiring-leaders--2664825/support.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Best Lay Argument is not a Simple English Yud Essay, published by J Bostock on September 10, 2024 on LessWrong. Epistemic status: these are my own opinions on AI risk communication, based primarily on my own instincts on the subject and discussions with people less involved with rationality than myself. Communication is highly subjective and I have not rigorously A/B tested messaging. I am even less confident in the quality of my responses than in the correctness of my critique. If they turn out to be true, these thoughts can probably be applied to all sorts of communication beyond AI risk. Lots of work has gone into trying to explain AI risk to laypersons. Overall, I think it's been great, but there's a particular trap that I've seen people fall into a few times. I'd summarize it as simplifying and shortening the text of an argument without enough thought for the information content. It comes in three forms. One is forgetting to adapt concepts for someone with a far inferential distance; another is forgetting to filter for the important information; the third is rewording an argument so much you fail to sound like a human being at all. I'm going to critique three examples which I think typify these: Failure to Adapt Concepts I got this from the summaries of AI risk arguments written by Katja Grace and Nathan Young here. I'm making the assumption that these summaries are supposed to be accessible to laypersons, since most of them seem written that way. This one stands out as not having been optimized on the concept level. This argument was below-aveage effectiveness when tested. I expect most people's reaction to point 2 would be "I understand all those words individually, but not together". It's a huge dump of conceptual information all at once which successfully points to the concept in the mind of someone who already understands it, but is unlikely to introduce that concept to someone's mind. Here's an attempt to do better: 1. So far, humans have mostly developed technology by understanding the systems which the technology depends on. 2. AI systems developed today are instead created by machine learning. This means that the computer learns to produce certain desired outputs, but humans do not tell the system how it should produce the outputs. We often have no idea how or why an AI behaves in the way that it does. 3. Since we don't understand how or why an AI works a certain way, it could easily behave in unpredictable and unwanted ways. 4. If the AI is powerful, then the consequences of unwanted behaviour could be catastrophic. And here's Claude's just for fun: 1. Up until now, humans have created new technologies by understanding how they work. 2. The AI systems made in 2024 are different. Instead of being carefully built piece by piece, they're created by repeatedly tweaking random systems until they do what we want. This means the people who make these AIs don't fully understand how they work on the inside. 3. When we use systems that we don't fully understand, we're more likely to run into unexpected problems or side effects. 4. If these not-fully-understood AI systems become very powerful, any unexpected problems could potentially be really big and harmful. I think it gets points 1 and 3 better than me, but 2 and 4 worse. Either way, I think we can improve upon the summary. Failure to Filter Information When you condense an argument down, you make it shorter. This is obvious. What is not always as obvious is that this means you have to throw out information to make the core point clearer. Sometimes the information that gets kept is distracting. Here's an example from a poster a friend of mine made for Pause AI: When I showed this to my partner, they said "This is very confusing, it makes it look like an AGI is an AI which makes a chess AI". Making more AI...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Best Lay Argument is not a Simple English Yud Essay, published by J Bostock on September 10, 2024 on LessWrong. Epistemic status: these are my own opinions on AI risk communication, based primarily on my own instincts on the subject and discussions with people less involved with rationality than myself. Communication is highly subjective and I have not rigorously A/B tested messaging. I am even less confident in the quality of my responses than in the correctness of my critique. If they turn out to be true, these thoughts can probably be applied to all sorts of communication beyond AI risk. Lots of work has gone into trying to explain AI risk to laypersons. Overall, I think it's been great, but there's a particular trap that I've seen people fall into a few times. I'd summarize it as simplifying and shortening the text of an argument without enough thought for the information content. It comes in three forms. One is forgetting to adapt concepts for someone with a far inferential distance; another is forgetting to filter for the important information; the third is rewording an argument so much you fail to sound like a human being at all. I'm going to critique three examples which I think typify these: Failure to Adapt Concepts I got this from the summaries of AI risk arguments written by Katja Grace and Nathan Young here. I'm making the assumption that these summaries are supposed to be accessible to laypersons, since most of them seem written that way. This one stands out as not having been optimized on the concept level. This argument was below-aveage effectiveness when tested. I expect most people's reaction to point 2 would be "I understand all those words individually, but not together". It's a huge dump of conceptual information all at once which successfully points to the concept in the mind of someone who already understands it, but is unlikely to introduce that concept to someone's mind. Here's an attempt to do better: 1. So far, humans have mostly developed technology by understanding the systems which the technology depends on. 2. AI systems developed today are instead created by machine learning. This means that the computer learns to produce certain desired outputs, but humans do not tell the system how it should produce the outputs. We often have no idea how or why an AI behaves in the way that it does. 3. Since we don't understand how or why an AI works a certain way, it could easily behave in unpredictable and unwanted ways. 4. If the AI is powerful, then the consequences of unwanted behaviour could be catastrophic. And here's Claude's just for fun: 1. Up until now, humans have created new technologies by understanding how they work. 2. The AI systems made in 2024 are different. Instead of being carefully built piece by piece, they're created by repeatedly tweaking random systems until they do what we want. This means the people who make these AIs don't fully understand how they work on the inside. 3. When we use systems that we don't fully understand, we're more likely to run into unexpected problems or side effects. 4. If these not-fully-understood AI systems become very powerful, any unexpected problems could potentially be really big and harmful. I think it gets points 1 and 3 better than me, but 2 and 4 worse. Either way, I think we can improve upon the summary. Failure to Filter Information When you condense an argument down, you make it shorter. This is obvious. What is not always as obvious is that this means you have to throw out information to make the core point clearer. Sometimes the information that gets kept is distracting. Here's an example from a poster a friend of mine made for Pause AI: When I showed this to my partner, they said "This is very confusing, it makes it look like an AGI is an AI which makes a chess AI". Making more AI...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What happens if you present 500 people with an argument that AI is risky?, published by KatjaGrace on September 4, 2024 on LessWrong. Recently, Nathan Young and I wrote about arguments for AI risk and put them on the AI Impacts wiki. In the process, we ran a casual little survey of the American public regarding how they feel about the arguments, initially (if I recall) just because we were curious whether the arguments we found least compelling would also fail to compel a wide variety of people. The results were very confusing, so we ended up thinking more about this than initially intended and running four iterations total. This is still a small and scrappy poll to satisfy our own understanding, and doesn't involve careful analysis or error checking. But I'd like to share a few interesting things we found. Perhaps someone else wants to look at our data more carefully, or run more careful surveys about parts of it. In total we surveyed around 570 people across 4 different polls, with 500 in the main one. The basic structure was: 1. p(doom): "If humanity develops very advanced AI technology, how likely do you think it is that this causes humanity to go extinct or be substantially disempowered?" Responses had to be given in a text box, a slider, or with buttons showing ranges 2. (Present them with one of eleven arguments, one a 'control') 3. "Do you understand this argument?" 4. "What did you think of this argument?" 5. "How compelling did you find this argument, on a scale of 1-5?" 6. p(doom) again 7. Do you have any further thoughts about this that you'd like to share? Interesting things: In the first survey, participants were much more likely to move their probabilities downward than upward, often while saying they found the argument fairly compelling. This is a big part of what initially confused us. We now think this is because each argument had counterarguments listed under it. Evidence in support of this: in the second and fourth rounds we cut the counterarguments and probabilities went overall upward. When included, three times as many participants moved their probabilities downward as upward (21 vs 7, with 12 unmoved). In the big round (without counterarguments), arguments pushed people upward slightly more: 20% move upward and 15% move downward overall (and 65% say the same). On average, p(doom) increased by about 1.3% (for non-control arguments, treating button inputs as something like the geometric mean of their ranges). But the input type seemed to make a big difference to how people moved! It makes sense to me that people move a lot more in both directions with a slider, because it's hard to hit the same number again if you don't remember it. It's surprising to me that they moved with similar frequency with buttons and open response, because the buttons covered relatively chunky ranges (e.g. 5-25%) so need larger shifts to be caught. Input type also made a big difference to the probabilities people gave to doom before seeing any arguments. People seem to give substantially lower answers when presented with buttons (Nathan proposes this is because there was was a

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What happens if you present 500 people with an argument that AI is risky?, published by KatjaGrace on September 4, 2024 on LessWrong. Recently, Nathan Young and I wrote about arguments for AI risk and put them on the AI Impacts wiki. In the process, we ran a casual little survey of the American public regarding how they feel about the arguments, initially (if I recall) just because we were curious whether the arguments we found least compelling would also fail to compel a wide variety of people. The results were very confusing, so we ended up thinking more about this than initially intended and running four iterations total. This is still a small and scrappy poll to satisfy our own understanding, and doesn't involve careful analysis or error checking. But I'd like to share a few interesting things we found. Perhaps someone else wants to look at our data more carefully, or run more careful surveys about parts of it. In total we surveyed around 570 people across 4 different polls, with 500 in the main one. The basic structure was: 1. p(doom): "If humanity develops very advanced AI technology, how likely do you think it is that this causes humanity to go extinct or be substantially disempowered?" Responses had to be given in a text box, a slider, or with buttons showing ranges 2. (Present them with one of eleven arguments, one a 'control') 3. "Do you understand this argument?" 4. "What did you think of this argument?" 5. "How compelling did you find this argument, on a scale of 1-5?" 6. p(doom) again 7. Do you have any further thoughts about this that you'd like to share? Interesting things: In the first survey, participants were much more likely to move their probabilities downward than upward, often while saying they found the argument fairly compelling. This is a big part of what initially confused us. We now think this is because each argument had counterarguments listed under it. Evidence in support of this: in the second and fourth rounds we cut the counterarguments and probabilities went overall upward. When included, three times as many participants moved their probabilities downward as upward (21 vs 7, with 12 unmoved). In the big round (without counterarguments), arguments pushed people upward slightly more: 20% move upward and 15% move downward overall (and 65% say the same). On average, p(doom) increased by about 1.3% (for non-control arguments, treating button inputs as something like the geometric mean of their ranges). But the input type seemed to make a big difference to how people moved! It makes sense to me that people move a lot more in both directions with a slider, because it's hard to hit the same number again if you don't remember it. It's surprising to me that they moved with similar frequency with buttons and open response, because the buttons covered relatively chunky ranges (e.g. 5-25%) so need larger shifts to be caught. Input type also made a big difference to the probabilities people gave to doom before seeing any arguments. People seem to give substantially lower answers when presented with buttons (Nathan proposes this is because there was was a

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: In the last 2 years, what surprising ideas has EA championed or how has the movement changed its mind?, published by Nathan Young on July 30, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. In the last 2 years: What ideas that were considered wrong[1]/low status have been championed here? What has the movement acknowledged it was wrong about previously? What new, effective organisations have been started? This isn't to claim that this is the only work that matters, but it feels like a chunk of what matters. Someone asked me and I realised I didn't have good answers. 1. ^ Changed in response to comment from @JWS Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

BBC Scotland political reporter Ian Hamilton joins Emma Tracey on this week's podcast. Both of them are blind and they discuss why they and other blind people can't confidently vote in secret.They talk about the pitfalls of tactile voting templates and share their experiences of polling station staff. They also consider whether technology might offer a solution in the future. Also on the show: Britain's fastest deaf swimmer, 25-year-old Nathan Young, on his 1,000 day campaign to persuade politicians to fund his bid to compete in next year's Deaflympics.Presented by Emma Tracey Production by Daniel Gordon and Alex Collins Recorded and mixed by Dave O'Neill The editor was Farhana HaiderIs there is an election issue affecting disabled people you think we should be talking about? Get in touch, we really want to hear from you. You can email us mailto:accessall@bbc.co.uk or message @bbcaccessall on Twitter/X or Instagram. Our WhatsApp number is 0330 123 9480, please begin your message with the word ACCESS.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Questions are usually too cheap, published by Nathan Young on May 12, 2024 on LessWrong. It is easier to ask than to answer. That's my whole point. It is much cheaper to ask questions than answer them so beware of situations where it is implied that asking and answering are equal. Here are some examples: Let's say there is a maths game. I get a minute to ask questions. You get a minute to answer them. If you answer them all correctly, you win, if not, I do. Who will win? Preregister your answer. Okay, let's try. These questions took me roughly a minute to come up with. What's 56,789 * 45,387? What's the integral from -6 to 5π of sin(x cos^2(x))/tan(x^9) dx? What's the prime factorisation of 91435293173907507525437560876902107167279548147799415693153? Good luck. If I understand correctly, that last one's gonna take you at least an hour1 (or however long it takes to threaten me). Perhaps you hate maths. Let's do word problems then. Define the following words "antidisestablishmentarianism", "equatorial", "sanguine", "sanguinary", "escapology", "eschatology", "antideluvian", "cripuscular", "red", "meter", all the meanings of "do", and "fish". I don't think anyone could do this without assistance. I tried it with Claude, which plausibly still failed2 the "fish" question, though we'll return to that. I could do this for almost anything: Questions on any topic Certain types of procedural puzzles Asking for complicated explanations (we'll revisit later) Forecasting questions This is the centre of my argument I see many situations where questions and answers are treated as symmetric. This is rarely the case. Instead, it is much more expensive to answer than to ask. Let's try and find some counter examples. A calculator can solve allowable questions faster than you can type them in. A dictionary can provide allowable definitions faster than you can look them up. An LLM can sometimes answer some types of questions more cheaply in terms of inference costs than your time was worth in coming up with them. But then I just have to ask different questions. Calculators and dictionaries are often limited. And even the best calculation programs can't solve prime factorisation questions more cheaply than I can write them. Likewise I could create LLM prompts that are very expensive for the best LLMs to answer well, eg "write a 10,000 word story about an [animal] who experiences [emotion] in a [location]." How this plays out Let's go back to our game. Imagine you are sitting around and I turn up and demand to play the "answering game". Perhaps I reference on your reputation. You call yourself a 'person who knows things', surely you can answer my questions? No? Are you a coward? Looks like you are wrong! And now you either have to spend your time answering or suffer some kind of social cost and allow me to say "I asked him questions but he never answered". And whatever happens, you are distracted from what you were doing. Whether you were setting up an organisation or making a speech or just trying to have a nice day, now you have to focus on me. That's costly. This seems like a common bad feature of discourse - someone asking questions cheaply and implying that the person answering them (or who is unable to) should do so just as cheaply and so it is fair. Here are some examples of this: Internet debates are weaponised cheap questions. Whoever speaks first in many debates often gets to frame the discussion and ask a load of questions and then when inevitably they aren't answered, the implication is that the first speaker is right3. I don't follow American school debate closely, but I sense it is even more of this, with people literally learning to speak faster so their opponents can't process their points quickly enough to respond to them. Emails. Normally they exist within a framework of f...

Send us a Text Message.Anberlin, the alternative rock band that emerged from Winter Haven, Florida, in 2002, has etched its name into the annals of rock history with its distinctive sound and evocative lyrics. Comprising Matty (vocals), Joseph Milligan (guitar), Deon Rexroat (bass), Nathan Young (drums), and Christian McAlhaney (guitar), Anberlin captured the hearts of listeners with their seamless blend of emotive melodies, electrifying instrumentals, and introspective lyricism.From their debut album, "Blueprints for the Black Market" (2003), to their later releases like "Cities" (2007), "New Surrender" (2008), and "Vital" (2012), Anberlin consistently delivered music that resonated deeply with audiences. Their sound, characterized by dynamic guitar riffs, pulsating rhythms, and Christian's impassioned vocals, defied easy categorization, blending elements of alternative rock, emo, and post-hardcore.One of Anberlin's greatest strengths lay in their ability to craft songs that were both emotionally raw and musically captivating. Tracks like "Feel Good Drag," "Paperthin Hymn," and "Godspeed" exemplify this balance, infusing anthemic choruses with lyrics that explore themes of love, loss, faith, and self-discovery. Christian's introspective songwriting, coupled with the band's infectious energy, created an emotional resonance that reverberated with listeners worldwide.Beyond their studio albums, Anberlin's live performances further cemented their reputation as a powerhouse in the alternative rock scene. Known for their electrifying stage presence and tight musicianship, the band's concerts became immersive experiences, where fans could lose themselves in the music and feel a profound connection with the performers.Anberlin's influence extended beyond their music, as they actively engaged with their fanbase and used their platform to address social and political issues. Whether through benefit concerts, charity work, or speaking out on important causes, the band demonstrated a commitment to making a positive impact on the world around them.In 2014, Anberlin announced their decision to disband, much to the dismay of their loyal fanbase. However, their legacy endures through their discography, which continues to inspire new generations of listeners, and through the memories of their unforgettable live performances.They have since reformed and will be touring this summer. In the years since their farewell, the members of Anberlin have pursued various solo projects and collaborations, each carving out their own musical paths while carrying forward the spirit of creativity and passion that defined the band.As fans revisit Anberlin's discography or discover their music for the first time, they are reminded of the band's ability to capture the complexities of the human experience in three-minute bursts of sonic brilliance. Anberlin remains not just a band, but a testament to the enduring power of music to touch hearts, uplift spirits, and forge connections that transcend time and space.www.betterhelp.com/TheBarnhttp://www.betterhelp.com/TheBarn www.BetterHelp.com/TheBarnhttp://www.betterhelp.com/TheBarn http://www.betterhelp.com/TheBarnThis episode is sponsored by www.betterhelp.com/TheBarn and presented to you by The Barn Media Group.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: This is Water by David Foster Wallace, published by Nathan Young on April 25, 2024 on LessWrong. Note: It seems like great essays should go here and be fed through the standard LessWrong algorithm. There is possibly a copyright issue here, but we aren't making any money off it either. What follows is a full copy of "This is Water" by David Foster Wallace his 2005 commencement speech to the graduating class at Kenyon College. Greetings parents and congratulations to Kenyon's graduating class of 2005. There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?" This is a standard requirement of US commencement speeches, the deployment of didactic little parable-ish stories. The story thing turns out to be one of the better, less bullshitty conventions of the genre, but if you're worried that I plan to present myself here as the wise, older fish explaining what water is to you younger fish, please don't be. I am not the wise old fish. The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about. Stated as an English sentence, of course, this is just a banal platitude, but the fact is that in the day to day trenches of adult existence, banal platitudes can have a life or death importance, or so I wish to suggest to you on this dry and lovely morning. Of course the main requirement of speeches like this is that I'm supposed to talk about your liberal arts education's meaning, to try to explain why the degree you are about to receive has actual human value instead of just a material payoff. So let's talk about the single most pervasive cliché in the commencement speech genre, which is that a liberal arts education is not so much about filling you up with knowledge as it is about "teaching you how to think." If you're like me as a student, you've never liked hearing this, and you tend to feel a bit insulted by the claim that you needed anybody to teach you how to think, since the fact that you even got admitted to a college this good seems like proof that you already know how to think. But I'm going to posit to you that the liberal arts cliché turns out not to be insulting at all, because the really significant education in thinking that we're supposed to get in a place like this isn't really about the capacity to think, but rather about the choice of what to think about. If your total freedom of choice regarding what to think about seems too obvious to waste time discussing, I'd ask you to think about fish and water, and to bracket for just a few minutes your scepticism about the value of the totally obvious. Here's another didactic little story. There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says: "Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in God. It's not like I haven't ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn't see a thing, and it was 50 below, and so I tried it: I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out 'Oh, God, if there is a God, I'm lost in this blizzard, and I'm gonna die if you don't help me.'" And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. "Well then you must believe now," he says, "After all, here you are, alive." The atheist just rolls his eyes. "No, ...

Learn tips, tricks, and insights from the best and brightest business owners and entrepreneurs in the martial arts community, so you can successfully build and grow your martial arts business while living your life “at your best.” - In this episode Dave Kovar meets with Sensei Nathan Young to talk about humble beginnings, keeping egos in check and talking your martial arts business from part-time hobby to full time career. - For information on Kovar Systems: www.kovarsystems.com To buy your 2024 ProMAC International Conference tickets now, visit: promacconference.com

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Be More Katja, published by Nathan Young on March 12, 2024 on LessWrong. Katja is widely respected amongst the rationalists and, according to Hive, she is one of the most followed/respected EA accounts[1]. But she doesn't give off the same vibe as many impact olympians. She doesn't have iron self-will, nor does she manage a huge team. She's hasn't got all the facts at her fingertips. But she has got something, I'm confident of that. How can I be more like her? To understand her impact, let's consider the top things she's done: She ran surveys on AI researchers well before they were needed and has continued to run them She wrote an early blog on how we could slow down AI. This blog, I've heard, played a part in encouraging the Musk AI letter, which in turn inspired the "Existential Risks" AI letter. She thought about AI long before it was vogue, since about 2010 She has a large track record of predictions These actions seem impactful to me. And I guess someone should have paid $10mn in hindsight for the first 2, maybe more. To me, Katja has a very low tolerance for incomplete stories. When she sees something that she doesn't quite understand or that seems a bit off she struggles to pretend otherwise, so she says "how does that work?". She doesn't accept handwaving when discussing something, whether it be the simulation argument, how efficient flight is or the plot of Dune, part 2[2]. She wants an unbroken chain of arguments she can repeat[3]. She also doesn't mind admitting she doesn't know the answer. In her living room she will turn to her friend Joe Carlsmith and ask "Wait, why are we worried about AI, again?" even though she's been thinking about this for 15 years. Because at that moment it doesn't fit for her and she has a high tolerance for embarrassed[4] when it comes to truth. There is an deep resolve here - she doesn't get it, so she will ask until she does. She works on the most important thing, slowly. If you are Elon Musk, maybe you can just work all the time. But I am not. And much as I love her, neither is Katja. She does not get an abnormal amount of work done per day. Instead, month in, month out, Katja works on what she thinks is most important. And eventually she gets the survey done, years ahead of when it's needed. There are lessons we can take from this. Just as we often talk about learning to code, or task management, I can become better at saying "wait that doesn't work". Here are some strategies that let me be more like Katja: Write it down - it's harder to fool myself into thinking something makes sense if I have to read it rather than speak it "What is the best thing? How do I do that?" - this is hard to put into practice but an underrated prompt Give more examples - one feature of Katja's writing is she loves to list things. I think more people should list every example in favour of their argument and every counterexample they can think of. Spend 5 minutes on each. Can I make a forecast of that? - I find fatebook.io useful for this. As I forecast more I learn how poor my judgement is. And I think it's improving. Know when I am not capable - Katja is good at knowing when something is beyond her. When she hasn't thought about something or when it's a quantitative problem and she hasn't worked on it carefully enough. She doesn't always like the hard work but she knows when it needs to be done. If you have the right answer you can afford to be slow - in a world of often lurching acceleration, it's easy to forget that if I just knew the right thing, then I could probably take years over it. More output is (usually) more better, but so is more accuracy. Have a distinction between what you currently understand and what you'd bet on - If Peter Wildeford and I disagree, he's probably right, but that doesn't mean I now understand. It is worth tracking...

Saul Munn is one of the world's leading experts on building the forecasting community. He is the Co-Founder of Optic Forecasting and the Lead Organizer of the Manifest conference. In Part 1, Saul joins the show to discuss which communities comprise the emerging forecasting community. In Part 2, Brian Darling, former counsel to Senator Rand Paul, returns to assess the Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn's odds of becoming Trump's VP pick. In Part 3, Nathan Young returns to the show to advise on how to short AI hype in betting markets. 0:00: Pratik introduces the segment with Saul Munn 1:24: Saul's disclaimer on conflicts of interest 1:56: Manifest Conference 2024 3:26: Intro for Brian Darling segment on the GOP VP nominee market 4:16: How to trade on the GOP VP nomination 5:08: Intro to interview with Nathan Young 9:03: Interview with Saul begins 9:26: The importance of community in the political betting space 11:00: Optic forecasting clubs 12:44: How Saul became interested in the forecasting community 13:25: Manifest Conference 13:46: Diversity in the forecasting community 14:32: Who is in the broader forecasting community? 14:56: Destiny's role in the forecasting community 16:57: The types of people who are interested in forecasting 19:44: Differences between Washington politics and the forecasting community 20:40: Differences between the political betting community and the forecasting community 21:18: Communities interested in forecasting 21:47: Communities that could be interested in forecasting 24:34: Why some communities resist forecasting 28:20: Segment with Brian Darling begins 28:27: Kim Reynolds's VP odds 29:06: Marsha Blackburn's VP odds 30:05: Swing state VP contenders 31:26: Segment with Nathan Young begins 31:59: Taxing bad predictions 33:46: Shorting AI enthusiasm in political betting markets 34:47: Irrational pricing in Time Person of the Year markets  40:12: Hedge funds and AI

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Grief is a fire sale, published by Nathan Young on March 4, 2024 on LessWrong. For me, grief is often about the future. It isn't about the loss of past times, since those were already gone. It is the loss of hope. It's missing the last train to a friends wedding or never being able to hear another of my grandfathers sarcastic quips. In the moment of grief, it is the feeling of disorientation between a previous expected future and what the future looks like now. I can still feel anticipation for that set of worlds, but it is almost worthless. And it is agony, a phantom limb. One of my closest friends and I no longer talk. I don't want to get into why, but we were friends for about 10 years and now we don't talk. This is one of the echoing sadnesses of my life, that the decades ahead of us are gone. The jokes, the hangouts, the closeness, they won't happen. It's a bit like a death. Loss comes in waves. Many times I grieved that the world I expected wasn't going to take place. The neurons that fire to tell me to pass on an in-joke are useless, vestigial. I'll never see their siblings again. We won't talk about work. There was no single moment but at some point signals build and I notice how drastically the situation has shifted, that the things I've invested in are gone. Grief is like a fire sale. It is the realisation that sacred goods have taken a severe price cut. And perhaps selling isn't the right analogy here but it's close. I was expecting to retire on that joy. But now it's gone. The subprime mortgage crisis of the soul. Eventually I have to offload my grief. To acknowledge reality. Sometimes I don't want to hear that Last year, I had a large fake money position that Sam Bankman Fried would plead guilty in his trial. I thought this because the vast majority of fraud cases end in a guilty plea. And several people I normally defer to had pointed this out. On base rates it seemed the market was too low (around 30%-50%) rather than where it ought to be (perhaps at 60% - 70%) taking into account SBF's idiosyncratic nature, . The goods were too cheap, so I amassed a large holding of "SBF PLEAD". But later on I got to thinking, was I really looking at representative data. The data I had looked at was about all fraud cases. Was it true of the largest fraud cases? I began to research. This was a much muddier picture. To my recollection about half those cases didn't plead and those that did pleaded well before the trial. Suddenly it looked like the chance of SBF pleading was perhaps 20% or less. And the market was still at approximately 50%. I wasn't holding the golden goose. I was holding a pile of crap. This was a good decision, but I felt stupid That was a grief moment for me. A small moment of fear and humiliation. I had to get rid of those shares and I hoped the market didn't tank before I did. The world as I saw it had changed and the shares I held due to my previous understanding were now worth much. And in this case it implied some sad things about my intelligence and my forecasting ability. Even in fake money, it was tough to take. It was similar when FTX fell. I was, for me, a big SBF stan. I once said that he'd be in my top choices for king of the world (offhandedly). I wasn't utterly blind - I had heard some bad rumours and looked into them pretty extensively, I even made a market about it. But as the crash happened, I couldn't believe he would have defrauded the public on any scale near to the truth. I argued as much at length, to my shame1. The day of the crash was, then, another fire sale. Near certainty to horror to fascination to grim determination. I updated hard and fast. I sold my ideological position. I wrote a piece which, early on, said FTX had likely behaved badly and was likely worth far less than before (the link shows an updated version). The re...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The World in 2029, published by Nathan Young on March 2, 2024 on LessWrong. I open my eyes. It's nearly midday. I drink my morning Huel. How do I feel? My life feels pretty good. AI progress is faster than ever, but I've gotten used to the upward slope by now. There has perhaps recently been a huge recession, but I prepared for that. If not, the West feels more stable than it did in 2024. The culture wars rage on, inflamed by AI, though personally I don't pay much attention. Either Trump or Biden won the 2024 election (85%). If Biden, his term was probably steady growth and good, boring decision making (70%). If Trump there is more chance of global instability (70%) due to pulling back from NATO (40%), lack of support for Ukraine (60%), incompetence in handling the Middle East (30%). Under both administrations there is a moderate chance of a global recession (30%), slightly more under Trump. I intend to earn a bit more and prep for that, but I can imagine that the median person might feel worse off if they get used to the gains in between. AI progress has continued. For a couple of years it has been possible possible for anyone to type a prompt for a simple web app and receive an entire interactive website (60%). AI autocomplete exists in most apps (80%), AI images and video are ubiquitous (80%). Perhaps an AI has escaped containment (45%). Some simple job roles have been fully automated (60%). For the last 5 years the sense of velocity we felt in 2023 onwards hasn't abated (80%). OpenAI has made significant progress on automating AI engineers (70%). And yet we haven't hit the singularity yet (90%), in fact, it feels only a bit closer than it did in 2024 (60%). We have blown through a number of milestones, but AIs are only capable of doing tasks that took 1-10 hours in 2024 (60%), and humans are better at working with them (70%). AI regulation has become tighter (80%). With each new jump in capabilities the public gets more concerned and requires more regulation (60%). The top labs are still in control of their models (75%), with some oversight from the government, but they are red-teamed heavily (60%), with strong anti-copyright measures in place (85%). Political deepfakes probably didn't end up being as bad as everyone feared (60%), because people are more careful with sources. Using deepfakes as scams is a big issue (60%). People in the AI safety community are a little more optimistic (60%). The world is just "a lot" (65%). People are becoming exhausted by the availability and pace of change (60%). Perhaps rapidly growing technologies focus on bundling the many new interactions and interpreting them for us (20%). There is a new culture war (80%), perhaps relating to AI (33%). Peak woke happened around 2024, peak trans panic around a similar time. Perhaps eugenics (10%) is the current culture war or polyamory (10%), child labour (5%), artificial wombs (10%). It is plausible that with the increase in AI this will be AI Safety, e/acc and AI ethics. If that's the case, I am already tired (80%). In the meantime physical engineering is perhaps noticeably out of the great stagnation. Maybe we finally have self-driving cars in most Western cities (60%), drones are cheap and widely used, we are perhaps starting to see nuclear power stations (60%), house building is on the up. Climate change is seen as a bit less of a significant problem. World peak carbon production has happened and nuclear and solar are now well and truly booming. A fusion breakthrough looks likely in the next 5 years. China has maybe attacked Taiwan (25%), but probably not. Xi is likely still in charge (75%) but there has probably been a major recession (60%). The US, which is more reliant on Mexico is less affected (60%), but Europe struggles significantly (60%). In the wider world, both Africa and Indi...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Works in Progress: The Long Journey to Doing Good Better by Dustin Moskovitz [Linkpost], published by Nathan Young on February 14, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. @Dustin Moskovitz has written a piece on his reflections on doing good, EA, FTX and other stuff. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

An interview with Nathan Young, CEO of MODS PDX and Kegan Flanderka, Principal at Base Design and Architechture about the work they do building modular homes for the homeless and their workforce development program.

Support the show

Prediction market enthusiast and effective altruist Nathan Young (@nathanpmyoung) joins the show to discuss the relation of prediction markets and AI. He also discusses Polymarket's market on whether an AI win the $5 million AI Math Olympiad Prize before August and explains why it's unlikely to happen. Timestamps 0:00: Intro begins 4:00: Interview with Nathan begins. Nathan explains his full-time work in the forecasting industry 6:18: AI and effective altruism  13:25: What exactly is AI and what are its capabilities? 30:49: Polymarket's AI Math Olympiad Prize market Follow us on Twitter @ssgamblers

Support the show

Have you ever found yourself paralyzed by the fear of taking that initial leap towards your goals? In our latest episode, we face this universal challenge head-on, providing not only insight but also practical steps to conquer procrastination and harness the courage to begin. As we approach the year's end, a time famously riddled with reflections and resolutions, we cast a spotlight on the essence of action—why starting with whatever you have, right where you are, isn't just advisable, it's imperative.This isn't just another pep talk; we're diving into the depths of our spiritual well-being and its profound impact on every facet of our lives. From personal stories that resonate with the struggle to keep the faith to scriptural wisdom that guides us back on track, we delve into the transformative power of aligning our first moments each day with God's word. And if you're feeling the call to recharge your spiritual batteries, join us as we map out a season of fasting and an enriching spiritual life conference to kick off the new year with intention and divine connectivity.Wrapping up, we draw inspiration from familiar biblical figures like Moses, Peter, and John, reflecting on how they utilized what was in their hands to fulfill extraordinary purposes. By examining these narratives, we uncover the strength that resides within our seemingly ordinary resources and abilities. It's about recognizing that, with faith as our foundation, what we possess is enough to embark on new ventures or rejuvenate stagnant waters. So, as we stand on the brink of new beginnings, let's commit to placing Jesus Christ at the center of our aspirations and welcome the blessings that await us.Support the show

Four Part Episode Part 1: Dr. Lucas (@talophex) on Biden's health Part 2: The Winner (@thewinner2875) and Ben Freeman (@benwfreeman1) on whether Vivek Ramaswamy is worth buying as a hedge Part 3: Mick Bransfield (@mickbransfield) on the CFTC's decision to reject Kalshi's election contracts Part 4: Nathan Young (@nathanpyoung) on religion and prediction markets  Timestamps 5:08: Interview with Lucas begins 6:39: Biden's cognitive decline 8:49: Biden's physical health 10:20: Biden's aneurysms 13:18: Biden's capacity to run a presidential campaign 15:19: Biden's risk of vaccine injury 18:45: How to trade on Biden's health on Polymarket 20:46: Segment on Ramaswamy begins 21:46: Ben Freeman on fading the online candidate 23:22: Segment on CFTC's Kalshi decision begins 24:21: Commissioner Mersinger's dissent 25:54: State laws on political betting 27:40: Why the CFTC is not main the adversary of political betting 28:14: Legality of the Iowa Electronic Markets 29:47: Kalshi's tried to find a shortcut 30:50: Excerpt of Chougule's speech on black markets 32:22: Segment with Nathan Young begins 32:37: How religion made Young interested in prediction markets 33:10: Forecasters were ahead of the curve on COVID 34:02: Similarities between the rationality and religious communities 38:05: Religious attitudes toward gambling in the UK 40:56: America's religious opposition to political betting Follow Star Spangled Gamblers on Twitter @ssgamblers.

Support the show

Have you ever found yourself in a room full of people, yet felt a profound sense of isolation? This week at Community Church, we peel back the layers of loneliness and discover the importance of forging meaningful relationships. Our conversation takes us on a journey through the beloved holiday classic "Home Alone," where we uncover how the absence of genuine connections can amplify feelings of solitude, even in today's hyper-connected society. As we prepare our hearts for the Christmas season, we extend a warm invitation to all, especially newcomers, to our candlelight Christmas Eve services, promising an atmosphere of worship and togetherness that lights up the darkest nights.This episode isn't just about listening; it's an invitation to engage with your faith community and recognize the transformative power of coming together. Drawing inspiration from Hebrews 10, we reinforce the biblical call to gather for mutual encouragement, exploring how 'Emmanuel'—God with us—isn't just a concept for personal solace but a collective experience of God's presence among us. As we look forward to reuniting with our church family, we eagerly anticipate sharing in the sacred tradition of Christmas Eve communion, and we give a sneak peek into the next event, Jumpstart Live, with hopes that we'll all be part of it if it's in the Lord's plan.Support the show

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What are the biggest conceivable wins for animal welfare by 2025?, published by Nathan Young on December 11, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. In a years time, let's imagine we live in the 95th percentile world for animal welfare. What wins are there? I am trying to write an article about what the end of 2024 will look like, but I don't know enough about animal welfare. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Have you ever found yourself caught up in the pursuit of an immaculate holiday season, only to end up feeling more drained than uplifted? Join me, Pastor Nathan Young, as we break away from the traditional chase for the 'Perfect Christmas' and, instead, celebrate the true imperfections that mirror the very origins of this holiday. We kick off our heartfelt discourse by delving into the reality that our quest for a picture-perfect Christmas might just be what's steering us away from its genuine blessings. In a world where immaculate decorations and festive banquets often take center stage, we're reminded that Jesus' own birth took place in the most humble and chaotic of circumstances—a stable. This episode is an open invitation to all, especially those who might feel less than worthy due to their personal 'messes,' to find beauty and grace in the imperfect.The sanitized images of the Nativity scene we've grown accustomed to can overshadow the gritty truth of the very first Christmas. In this second chapter of our spiritual journey, we peel back those layers to expose the messiness that surrounded the birth of Christ. Through this exploration, we uncover the profound theological message that God often chooses to meet us right where we are—in the midst of our own chaos and struggles. This revelation is a powerful reminder that the true essence of Christmas is not about pristine settings but about embracing God's presence and the peace it brings into our lives, no matter how disordered they may seem.Finally, we eschew the commercial glitz and focus on the transformative miracles that the birth of Jesus represents. Casting aside images of Santa Claus and magical holidays, we contemplate the deeper, more meaningful aspects of the season. It's about hope, salvation, and the promise of spiritual renewal. As we wrap up this episode, I invite you to invest in a Christmas enriched with faith and purpose, recognizing that God's work is often accomplished through ordinary individuals. So, if you're ready to release the pressures of holiday perfection and embrace a more authentic, grace-filled Christmas, this conversation is for you. Join us and discover the beauty in celebrating a Christmas that's as real and transformative as the very first one.Support the show

Embrace the holiday spirit as we unravel the true essence of peace and how it can transform your festive season. This episode is a heartfelt journey into finding serenity in God's presence, despite the challenges that life may throw at us. I'm here to walk with you through the wisdom of Isaiah 26:3, illuminating the path to perfect peace by keeping our focus steadfast on the promises of the Almighty rather than the turmoil around us.Join me in a profound reflection on the internal battle we all face between truth and falsehood, a struggle that often determines our state of peace. We'll uncover how our mental posture, the direction of our attention, plays a crucial role in experiencing divine tranquility. Moreover, this episode extends an open-hearted invitation to accept the transformative power of faith, welcoming Jesus into our lives, and discovering the peace that comes with it. Together, we'll navigate through a prayer of salvation, celebrating the journey towards eternal peace and gratitude for the blessings that bind our Community Church family.Finally, get ready to create unforgettable memories with our "Christmas at the movies" series, where magic and joy come to life for all ages. I'm excited to share the enchanting world of "Polar Express," waiting to whisk you and your loved ones away on a wondrous adventure. This experience promises not only to be a festive delight but also a cherished moment that echoes the message of peace we hold dear. So, tune in, be moved, and may this season fill your heart with a peace that surpasses all understanding.Support the show

Imagine a world where your sales and marketing efforts aren't at odds, but instead, they're in perfect harmony, working together to significantly boost your revenue. That's the world Nathan Yeung, founder of Find Your Audience, lives in every day! In our enlightening chat, Nathan pulls back the curtain on this integrated approach, sharing strategies for blending sales and marketing into a conversion rate optimization (CRO) role and illuminating the potential challenges in achieving this harmony. Our conversation gets really interesting as we delve into the concept of scrubbing, a cunning technique well-known in the affiliate marketing realm. As a lifelong marketing enthusiast and a fractional CMO, Nathan's perspective on the customer's role in shaping an effective strategy is quite compelling. His belief in the power of user-generated content in marketing, and his insights on how marketing can act as a robust support to sales are sure to give you food for thought.But the nuggets of wisdom don't stop there. We also discuss the importance of sales enablement tools and how they can increase the success rate of your sales calls. Plus, we get into the nitty-gritty of crafting a work-back schedule and sequencing retargeting to create a captivating narrative. As we wrap up, we underscore the power of a well-crafted call to action and engagement opportunities. If increasing revenue through seamless integration of sales and marketing is on your agenda, this chat with Nathan Young is what your playlist needs!

* Follow ⁠Max on Twitter⁠* And read his ⁠blog⁠* Listen here or on Spotify or Apple Podcasts * RIP Google Podcasts

Nathan Young is a fractional CMO at Find Your Audience and a business owner with over six years of experience in marketing operations. He helps mid-market businesses enhance their marketing function and drive value creation. Nathan is based in Vancouver and specializes in developing and implementing marketing strategies across different audiences and industries.Summary: Nathan Young, fractional CMO at Find Your Audience, shares his insights on the business mindset, scaling a business, and the importance of adaptability. He discusses his upbringing and how it shaped his entrepreneurial journey. Nathan also talks about the market expansion plans for his business and the need for specialization in marketing.Key Takeaways:The business mindset involves solving pain points that are meaningful or scalable.Scaling a business requires assessing the market's accessibility and operational scalability.Nathan's upbringing and experiences with adversity have shaped his curiosity and problem-solving approach.Market expansion for Find Your Audience involves targeting the US and UK markets.Nathan emphasizes the importance of specialization in marketing to maximize operational efficiency and differentiate from competitors.Digital Trailblazer PodcastLearn how to build a legitimate, profitable online business from the ground up...Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showDo you want to be a guest on multiple podcasts as a service go to:www.podcastintroduction.comFind more details about the podcast and my coaching business on:www.absolutebusinessmindset.comDo you want to be a podcaster? Sign up onwww.abmpodcastcourse.co.ukFind me onLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-hayw...Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/markjhayward​

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A List of Things EAs should and shouldn't do, attempt 2, published by Nathan Young on September 16, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. A week ago @Rockwell wrote this list of things she thought EAs shoudn't do. I am glad this discussion is happening. I ran a poll (results here) and here is my attempt at a list more people can agree with: . We can do better, so someone feel free to write version 3. The list These are not norms for what it is to be a good EA, but rather some boundaries around things that would damage trust. When someone doesn't do these things we widely agree it is a bad sign EAs should report relevant conflicts of interest Eas should not date coworkers they report to or who report to them EAs should not use sexist or racist epithets EAs should not date their funders/grantees EAs should not retain someone as a full-time contractor or grant recipient for the long term, where this is illegal EAs should not promote illegal drug use to their colleagues who report to them Commentary Beyond racism, crime and conflicts of interest the clear theme is "take employment power relations seriously". Some people might want other things on this list, but I don't think there is widespread enough agreement to push those things as norms. Some examples: Illegal drugs - "EAs should not promote illegal drug use to their colleagues" - 41% agreed, 20% disagreed, 35% said "it's complicated", 4% skipped Romance during business hours - "EA, should in general, be as romanceless a place as possible during business hours" - 40% Agreed, 21% disagreed, 36% said "it's complicated", 2% skipped Housing - "EAs should not offer employer-provided housing for more than a predefined and very short period of time" - 27% Agreed 37% Disagreed 31% said "it's complicated", 6% skipped. I know not everyone loves my use of polls or my vibes as a person. But consensus is a really useful tool for moving forward. Sure we can push aside those who disagree, put if we find things that are 70% + agreed, then that tends to move forward much more quickly and painlessly. And it builds trust that we don't steamroll opposition. So I suggest that rather a big list of things that some parts of the community think are obvious and others think are awful, we try and get a short list of things that most people think are pretty good/fine/obvious. Once we have a "checkpoint" that is widely agreed, we can tackle some thornier questions. Full poll results Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Whose actions are you thankful for?, published by Nathan Young on September 7, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I think the other side of criticism is support. What have you been thankful for in the last 3 months. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Which organisation is most deserving of the marginal $ right now? (your opinions), published by Nathan Young on August 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. @Aaron Bergman says I wish there was (and there should be) more discussion of "which singular organization is most deserving of money rn" Individual donors should make their best guess public and indicate openness to critique twitter So let's guess. What is your suggestion? Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Hi friends! We have a special treat for you this week - it's a mysterious, moody, fully sound-designed audio drama! Also, we have a few updates about the Murder Museum. The gist of it is that Marcus will be unavailable for the next few weeks because he's gettin' hitched! If you'd like to wish him well, now might be a good time to... SUPPORT THE SHOW: ko-fi.com/murdermuseum ;) Also, WE WROTE A RIDDLE BOOK: ⁠aureliuswhitlock.gumroad.com⁠ Follow us on Instagram and Twitter: @murdermuseumpod Thank you for listening! CREDITS for REVERSE SPEAK: Written, Produced, and Directed by Marcus Richardson. Performances by Andrew Walker, Adam Woodall, and Sydney Olsen. Audio Engineering by Maren Del Rio. Special thanks to Nathan Hicken, Jared Richardson, Nathan Young, and to you for listening!

Paul Farber:You are listening to Monument Lab Future Memory where we discuss the future of monuments and the state of public memory in the US and across the globe. You can support the work of Monument Lab by visiting monumentlab.com, following us on social @Monument_Lab, or subscribing to this podcast anywhere you listen to podcasts. Li Sumpter:Our guest today on Future Memory is artist, scholar, and composer, Nathan Young. Young is a member of the Delaware Tribe of Indians and a direct descendant of the Pawnee Nation and Kiowa Tribe, currently living in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. His work incorporates sound, video, documentary, animation, installation, socially-engaged art, and experimental and improvised music. Young is also a founding member of the artist collective, Postcommodity. He holds an MFA in Music/Sound from Bard College's Milton Avery School of the Arts and is currently pursuing a PhD in the University of Oklahoma's innovative Native American art history doctoral program. His scholarship focuses on Indigenous Sonic Agency. Today we discuss his art and practice and a recently opened public art project at Historic site Pennsbury Manor entitled nkwiluntàmën, funded by the Pew Center for Arts & Heritage and curated by Ryan Strand Greenberg and Theo Loftis. Let's listen.Welcome to another episode of Future Memory. I'm your co-host, Li Sumpter. Today my guest is Nathan Young. Welcome, Nathan.Nathan Young:Hello. Thank you. It's nice to be here with you today. Li:Future Memory is the name of Monument Lab's podcast. In the context of your own work, when you hear the words "future memory," what does that mean to you? Do any images or sounds come to mind? Nathan:They really do. There's one. It was a website of a sound artist, a writer, an educator, Jace Clayton, DJ/Rupture, had a mixed CD called "Gold Teeth Thief". I remember it was kind of a game changer in the late '90s. I got that mixed CD from a website called History of the Future. Li:That's very close. It was very close.Nathan:It's always stuck with me. I'm fortunate enough to be able to grapple with a lot of these kind of ideas. I'm not really quite sure how I feel about some of the history of the future because in some ways I work within many different archives so I am dealing with people's future or thinking about or reimagining or just imagining their future.But future monuments are something that I grapple with and deeply consider in my artwork. I think it's one of the more challenging subjects today in art. I think we see that with the taking down of monuments that were so controversial or are so controversial. But I find it fascinating the idea of finding new forms to make monuments to remember and the idea of working with different communities of memory. It's key to my work. It's just a lot of listening and a lot of pondering. Actually, it's a very productive space for me because it's a place to think about form. Also, it opens doors for me just to think about the future. I will say this, that one problem that often arises as a Lenape Delaware Pawnee Kiowa person is we're often talking about the past, and I really like to talk about the future and to work with organizations that are thinking about the future. Li:I can relate to that. Nathan:I think it's a misunderstanding. We always really are talking about the future. I've had the great fortune to be around some people. Actually, I grew up in the capital of the Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma. A lot of people know that Oklahoma is the home to 39 federally recognized tribes. I was fortunate enough to grow up in Tahlequah, which is the capital of the Cherokee Nation, and was able to be around a well-known and respected medicine man named Crosslin Smith, also an author. I remember being a part of an interview with Crosslin. I grew up, he was a family friend.He said, "I'm often asked about the old or ancient ways and the new ways." What Crosland said was, and I'll try my best to articulate this idea, is that there is no difference between the ancient ways and today. These things still exist. It might be an illusion or we might not be able to comprehend or understand it, but there is no difference between the ancient, when we're thinking of things in the sense of the sublime, I think. There is no understanding the ancient and what is contemporary. That was really an important moment for me as an adult. To hear him articulate that was really important. So I think about that. I'm not really sure about a lot of things, but I really like to think about that when I'm working. Li:It kind of runs through your mind as you're working and creating. It's a deep thought, that's for sure, connecting those things. Even thinking back on your own personal history with sound, when did you first connect your relationship to place and homeland to sound and music? Nathan:Well, my earliest remembrances of music, honestly, are my dad driving me around in his truck, picking me up after school, and singing peyote songs, Native American Church songs, peyote songs. The members of the Native American Church call that medicine. My father was an active member of a chapter of the Native American Church at that time. I was fortunate enough to receive my Lenape Delaware name in a peyote meeting. But the first things I remember are the music he played in the car, but really the singing in the car, the singing in the truck that he would do of those peyote songs. Even after he quit going to meetings or he wasn't active in the Native American Church anymore, he still would sing these peyote songs, and I would ask him about the peyote songs, because they're different for every tribe. The forms, they still have their kind of conventions, but they're very tribally specific.Everything in what we call legally Indian Country here in the United States is super hyper local. So just down the road, that's really the beautiful thing about living in Oklahoma, is you have people whose ancestors are from northeast, southeast, southwest. There's only one tribe here from California. So it's a really rich place for sound and song. Both of my parents are Indigenous American Indian. My mother is Pawnee and Kiowa. My father is Lenape Delaware. I also grew up around the Big Drum, what we call the Big Drum at powwows. I never became a powwow singer or anything like that. Never learned anything around the Big Drum. But I did eventually learn Pawnee songs, Native American Church Pawnee songs.But really, I was just a kid in a small town in Oklahoma. When skateboarding hit and you become kind of an adolescent, you start to discover punk rock and things like that. Those to me were the way that the culture was imported to me. I didn't realize that I was already surrounded by all this beautiful culture, all of the tribes and my parents' tribes and my grandparents'. But then it was like a transmitter. Even these tapes were just transmitters to me. So those were really important also. I have a lot of thoughts about sound. Other thing I remember is my father often would get onto us or make fun of us for being so loud and saying we would be horrible scouts or hunters.Li:Making too much noise. Nathan:The Native Americans, yeah, yeah. We weren't stealth. You'd hear us coming a mile away. So he would always say, "You wouldn't be a very good one," just to try to get us quiet down.Li:No one wants to be a bad hunter, right? Can you break down the concept of Indigenous Sonic Agency? is this based on ancestral traditions, your artistic practice, academic scholarship, or a bit of all the above? Nathan:Well, Indigenous Sonic Agency is really one piece of a larger subject sonic agency, which I encountered in a book titled Sonic Agency by Brandon LaBelle. I was a former member of this collective, Postcommodity, and I'm reading this book. When we were first starting the collective, we had the opportunity to work with this Czech poet named Magor, Ivan Jirous Magor. It means blockhead, I believe. It's a nickname. He was kind of described as the Andy Warhol of the Plastic People of the Universe. He was an art historian. He spent most of his life in prison just for being an artist, an art historian. He was an actual musician. He didn't play with the Plastic People of the Universe, to my knowledge, but he did to write the lyrics, to my knowledge. We had the opportunity to record with Magor. So I'm reading this book about sonic agency, and here I find somebody that I'd actually had an experience with sonic agency with in my early days and as a young man and an artist.But ultimately Indigenous Sonic Agency is, in some sense, similar but different to tribal sovereignty. So when you think of agency or sovereignty, it's something that they sometimes get mixed up. I'm really trying to parse the differences between this, what we understand so well as political sovereignty as federally recognized tribes and what agency means, say, as an artist. But in my research, in the subject of sonic agency and Indigenous Sonic Agency, it encompasses pretty much everything. That's what I love about sound. Everything has a sound, whether we can hear it or not. Everything is in vibration. There are sounds that are inaudible to us, that are too high or too low. Then there's what we hear in the world and the importance of silence with John Cage. I think that they're just super productive.I was introduced really to sound studies through this book called Sonic Warfare by Steve Goodman. It was really about how the study of sound was, in a sense, still emerging because it had mostly been used for military purposes and for proprietary purposes such as commercials and things like that. As I stated earlier, I felt like music was my connection to a larger world that I couldn't access living in a small town. So even everything that came with it, the album covers, all that, they really made an impression on me as a young person, and it continues to this day, and I've been focusing deeply on it.My studies in sonic agency -- Indigenous Sonic Agency -- encompass everything from social song, sacred song, voice, just political speech and language, political language. There's so much work to be done in the emerging sound studies field. I felt that Indigenous Sonic Agency, there was a gap there in writing and knowledge on it. Now though, I acknowledge that there has been great study on the subject such as Dylan Robinson's book, Hungry Listening. I am fortunate enough to be around a lot of other Indigenous experimental artists who work in all the sonic fields. So it's an all-encompassing thing. I think about the sacred, I think about the political, I think about the nature of how we use it to organize things and how language works. Silence is a part of it. Also, listening is very important. It's something that I was taught at a very young age. You always have to continue to hone that practice to become a better and better listener. Li:That's the truth. Nathan:My grandmother was very quiet, but whenever she did talk, everybody loved it. Li:That's right. That's right. Let's talk about the Pennsbury Manor project. Can you share how you, Ryan Strand Greenberg, and Theo Loftis met and how nkwiluntàmën came to be? Nathan:Well, to my recollection, I try to keep busy around here, and oftentimes it means traveling to some of the other towns in the area such as Pawnee or Bartlesville or Dewey or Tahlequah. I wasn't able to do a studio visit with Ryan, but I wanted to see his artist talk that he was giving at the Tulsa Artist Fellowship, which I was a fellow at at that time. I remember seeing these large public art projects that were being imagined by Ryan. We had worked on some other projects that, for one reason or another, we weren't unable to get off the ground. Eventually, Pennsbury Manor was willing to be this space where we could all work together. I remember rushing back and being able to catch Ryan's artist talk. Then right before he left town, we had a studio visit and found out how much we had in common concerning the legacy of the Lenape in the Philadelphia area, what we used to call Lenapehoking. So it was a really a moment of good fortune, I believe. Li:Monument Lab defines monument as a statement of power and presence in public. The nkwiluntàmën project guide describes Pennsbury Manor as a space to attune public memory. It goes on to say that sites like these are not endpoints in history, but touchstones between generations. I really love that statement. Do you think Pennsbury Manor and the land it stands on, do you consider it a monument in your eyes? Why or, maybe even, why not? Nathan:Well, yeah, I would definitely consider Pennsbury Manor, in a sense, a monument. I think that we could make an argument for that. If we were talking about the nature of it being William Penn's home and it being reconstructed in the 20th century, you could make a very strong argument that it is a monument to William Penn and also as William Penn as this ideal friend to the Indian. Some people don't like that word. Here in Oklahoma, some of us use it. Technically, it was Indian Country legally. But I use all terms: Native American, Indigenous, Indian. But I'd mostly like to just be called a Lenape Delaware Pawnee Kiowa.I definitely would say that you could make an argument that is a monument to William Penn especially as part of that, as this ideal colonist who could be set as a standard as for how he worked with the Lenape and then other tribes in the area at the time. I think that's kind of the narrative that I run into mostly in my research, literally. However, I would not say that it was established or had been any type of monument to my Lenape legacy. I did not feel that... I mean, there was always mention of that. It was, like I said, as this ideal figure of how to cooperate with the tribes in the area. But I would definitely say it's not a monument to the Lenape or the Delaware or Munsee.Li:Can you share a bit more about the project itself in terms of nkwiluntàmën and what exactly you did there at Pennsbury Manor to shift and really inform that history from a different perspective? Nathan:Well, first of all, at Pennsbury Manor, I was given a lot of agency. I was given a lot of freedom to what I needed to as an artist. I was really fortunate to be able to work with Doug and Ryan and Theo in that manner where I could really think about these things and think deeply about them. I started to consider these living history sites. My understanding is that they're anachronisms. There's a lot of labor put into creating a kind of façade or an appearance of the past, and specifically this time, this four years that William Penn was on this continent. So this idea that nothing is here that is not supposed to be here became really important to me. What I mean by that is, say, if you threw in a television set, it kind of throws everything off. Everybody's walking around in clothing that reflects that era and that time. If you throw some strange electronics in the space, it kind of is disruptive. I didn't feel the need to do anything like that.I felt that one of the great things about working in sound and one of the most powerful things about sound is that sound can also be stealth. You can't see sound. We can sonify things or we can visualize it or quantify it in different ways. But to me, this challenge of letting the place be, but using sound as this kind of stealth element where I could express this very, very difficult subject and something that really nobody has any answers to or is sure about... I was trained as an art historian, and I know that we're only making guesses and approximations just like any doctors. We are just trying to do these things.But sound gave me the ability at Pennsbury Manor and nkwiluntàmën to work stealthy and quiet, to not disturb the space too much because there's important work that's done there, and I want to respect people's labor. As a member of the Delaware tribe of Indians of Lenape, I felt that it was a great opportunity to be the person who's able to talk about this very difficult subject, and that is not lost on me. That's a very, very heavy, very serious task. Li:Yeah, big responsibility. Nathan:Yes. It is not lost on me at all how serious it is, and I feel very fortunate. I think without such a great support system in place, it wouldn't have been possible. nkwiluntàmën means lonesome, such as the sound of a drum. We have a thing called the Lenape Talking Dictionary,  Li:I've seen it. I've seen it. Nathan:I'm often listening. I'm listening to Nora Dean Thompson who gave me my Delaware name, my Lenape name, Unami Lenape name in a peyote ceremony. So I often go there to access Delaware thought and ideas and to hear Delaware voices and Delaware language being spoken. I know that some people have different views on it, but let's say, I think artists and people have used the Unami Lenape before and art exhibitions as a lost or an endangered languages. I know that in the entire state that I live in, and in most of Indian country, there's a great language revitalization movement that I was fortunate to be a part of and contribute to.Really, that's where I discovered that that's really where through language, there's nothing more Lenape, there's nothing more Delaware, Unami Lenape than to be able to talk and express yourself in that manner or, say, as a Pawnee or a Kiowa to be able to talk and express. Embedded in those words are much more than just how we think of language. They're really the key to our worldviews. Our languages are the keys to our worldview and really our thought patterns and how we see the world and how we should treat each other or how we choose to live in the world or our ancestors did. So I'm fascinated by the language. I was fortunate enough to be around many, many different native languages growing up. But ours was one because of the nature of us being a northeastern tribe that was very much in danger of being lost. Some would say that at one point it was a very, very, very endangered language to the point to where nobody was being born in what we call a first language household, where everybody could speak conversationally in Unami Lenape.So these things, we all think about this, by the way, all of my community, the Delaware Tribe of Indians. I was fortunate enough to serve on the Tribal Council as an elected member for four years. We think about these things definitely all the time, and people do hard work to try to revitalize the language. I know at this time that the Delaware Tribe of Indians is actively working to revitalize our language. Li:That's a part of that preservation and remembrance because your work, really does explore this idea of ancestral remembrance and is rooted in that. Then again, you're also engaging with these historic sites, like Pennsbury Manor, that tap into public memory. So in your thoughts, how are ancestral remembrance and public memory connected? Are there any similar ways that they resonate? Nathan:Well, I think of different communities of remembrance. Within this idea of memory there are just different communities. I don't want to want to create a dichotomy, but it's easily understood by those who focus on the legacy of William Penn and those who focus on the legacy of the Lenape or the Pawnee. But ancestral memory is key to my culture, I believe, and I really don't know any way to express it other than explaining it in a contemporary sense. If you're deeply involved in your tribal nation, one of the one things that people will ask you is they'll say, "Who are your folks?" Literally, people will say, "Who are your folks?" Li:Who are your peoples? Nathan:"What family do you come from?" I didn't start to realize this until I was an adult, of course. It's not something you think you would ever think of as a child or anything. It started to become really apparent to me that we're families that make up communities that have stayed together in our case for hundreds of years across thousands of miles. It's a point to where we got down to very small numbers. We still stuck together. Then there was also a diaspora of Lenape that went to Canada, the Munsee and the Stockbridge. There was the Delaware Nation who has actually lived more near the Kiowa. My grandmother was Kiowa. But we still had the same family names. For instance, there are people and members of the Delaware Nation that are actually blood related to the Delaware Tribe. So that is really our connection to each other is our ancestors. That's purely what binds us to together is that our ancestors were together, and we just continue that bond. Li:Thank you. A part of Monument Lab's mission is to illuminate how symbols are connected to systems of power and public memory. What are the recurring or even the most vital symbols illuminated in your work? Nathan:Oh, that's a really tough question because my work is all over the place. I work across a lot of different mediums, although I've trained as an art historian, so I came into this as a visual artist. I just happened to be a musician and then discovered installation art and how sound works in art. But for me, the story I feel that I'm trying to tell cannot be held by any number of symbols or signs. I want to give myself the freedom and agency to use whatever is needed, actually, whatever is needed to get across the idea that is important to me. So going back to nkwiluntàmën, lonesome, such as the sounds, these colors, we use these white post-Colonial benches, and there's four large ones, placed across the grounds of Pennsbury Manor. You'll see that, if one were to visit, they would see a black bench, a yellow bench, a white bench, and a red bench. Nathan:If you're from my community, a Delaware Tribe of Indian member and you know that you're a Lenape, you understand that those colors have meaning to our tribe, and you'll know that those colors have sacred meaning. So in some sense, I will use whatever I think is the most appropriate way to use it also. I want to give myself the freedom to use any type of symbolism. I loved growing up with my mother and my grandmother being able to go to powwows. My mom would say, "Well, here comes the Shawnee women. Here comes the Delaware women. They dress like this. Here comes..." Li:You can recognize from their dress. Nathan:My mother and my grandmother taught me that iconography of our clothing, what we now call regalia. Li:I was curious if perhaps the drum or even the idea of homeland show up in your work? Nathan:Oh, they definitely show up in my work when appropriate. But rather than a drum, I would say sound or song or music. We do have these iconographies and symbols that are deeply meaningful to us, and I often use those in my artwork. But really the question for me is how to use them appropriately and, also at the same time, expand the use of these things appropriately. It's just being accountable to your legacy and your community in a sense and not crossing these boundaries, but still at the same time pushing form, pushing the edge.I'm a contemporary person. We're all contemporary people. We want to add something. We want to contribute. We want to be useful. So I'm searching for symbols and forms all the time, different ones. Whether it be a mound, whether it'd be a swimming pool inside an art gallery or a singing park bench or a post-Colonial bench in Pennsbury Manor, in some ways you could say I would be indigenizing and musicalizing those benches. But I consciously work to have a very broad palette. I want my work to be expansive and be able to encompass any subject or idea, because that's why I got into art is because you can talk about anything.Li:Yeah, it's boundless. It's boundless. Then also thinking about the connections and the symbols that you mentioned, the colors that you mentioned, the iconography, what systems of power might they be connected to? Nathan:Well, ultimately, I think that most of the power that is embedded in these symbols comes from the sublime, that come from the sacred. It's complicated. The sacred means to not be touched. That's my understanding, it's to not be touched. However, it's been the source of inspiration for artists of any continent of any time is, if you want to call it, a spiritual, sublime, religious connection, inspiration, whatever, but ultimately, that is my understanding. From my research, even as a young person studying Pawnee mythologies at the University of Oklahoma and special collection and learning stories, our origin stories and what color meant and how the world was seen by my ancestors from other tribes as well as Lenape stories, it's something that's hard to grasp and to hold onto, but that's how we've come to identify each other. It's as simple as we have car tags here that represent our tribes. We have a compact with the state. So everybody's looking around at all these different car tags.Li:Wow. Nathan:You see a regular Oklahoma one, and then you'll see... A very common one is a Cherokee because they're one of the biggest tribes. You'll see a blue one, it's Pawnee. Now you'll see a red one, and it's Delaware or Lenape. It says Unami Lenape on it, and it has our seal. So we play this kind of game all of us. I mean, it's not a game, but we're always looking at license plates to see... It might be your mom's car you're driving that has, say, a Kickapoo license plate or something, and it's a Cherokee driving it or a non-Indian or something, a relative, say. It's not for me to say where these came from. It's something that I actually just really explore and that fascinates me. It's very rich growing up and being a member of my tribal communities. I learn something new almost daily. Li:I can imagine like you said, the learning experience that you have as a child growing up in your community. You mentioned mythologies earlier. I study mythology. One of the purposes I've come to understand is education, educating through these stories. I recently interviewed Jesse Hagopian from the Zinn Education Project and the movement for anti-racist education. The struggles for education reform and reckoning with Eurocentric understandings of history seem to be deeply connected efforts. So on nkwiluntàmën, I understand an educational curriculum has been developed for younger audiences. What do you hope that people take away from this project that they might not find in a textbook or a classroom? Nathan:Well, I would hope that when people visit the large-scale sound installation and visual elements of it that they would understand... my greatest hope that people would learn what I learned while creating the work was that I really don't know what it felt like. I just came across, I was looking for the words in the Delaware Talking Dictionary for feelings, and I found a sentence or a way of saying feeling that said, "It did not penetrate me. I did not feel it." It made me realize that I don't know. I've never had this happen to me. The history of the Delaware Lenape is of constant removal, of constant pushing. Most people know the Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears. Actually, there were many movements of the Cherokee. It's very complex. All tribes are very complex. You always have to qualify. But the Trail of Tears is what most people know about. It was this very long, two-year complex journey. It was fraught. Li:That's one of the stories that we learned in school, if at all. Nathan:So our story is of nine of those and, to my understanding and research, was about once every 30 years. So it seemed to me that most Lenape, who came to be known as the Delaware Tribe, who I grew up with as, had ancestors that had experienced a removal. It's something that we still live and deal with today. We came to Oklahoma from what is now Lawrence, Kansas, when this was called Indian Territory. We had been living before that north of Kansas and had adapted our way of life as we changed across this territory and through time to survive.So as we moved into the Plains, we started to hunt buffalo, and then we get kind of crosswise with some other tribes. I think when the federal government was constituting Indian Country, they were concerned with the relationships between other tribes and how they felt. My understanding is we had upset some... By Buffalo hunting and adopting that way of survival and life, there was some trepidation about us. They wanted our reservation. The railroad wanted our reservation, and Lawrence, Kansas, to run directly through our reservation. They were forcing us to move off that reservation, and they couldn't find a place. That was kind of my understanding of the situation. So we ended up in the northernmost part of the Cherokee Nation. This made us a landless tribe for a very, very long time. Technically, we didn't have a reservation. We were living in the Cherokee's reservation because we had this very ancient but kind of tangential connection to the Cherokees. So that's a very long and complicated story as well. Li:That's actually a beautiful setup for one of my last questions actually. This idea of documentation and stewardship are key for Indigenous communities, as you just mentioned, that continue to contend with stolen land, forest displacements, cultural erasure, and lost languages. Monument Lab thinks a lot about the future archives that can hold the dynamic nature of public memory in all its forms. What would a future archive of ancestral memory look, feel, or even sound like for you? Nathan Young:I love that question because we do work with future archives of our ancestors, all of us do today. So I think it's really a question of form. I've encountered this in my studies of Sonic Agency and Indigenous Sonic Agency. The invention of the phonograph and the wax cylinder are very important. It didn't look like anything. It looked like sound or that archive. I think that unknowingly, we're all living in an archive. We're archiving moments now as things speed up constantly. Paul Virilio, the theorist, was very, very important to my thinking because he theorized about speed and the speed of, say, how a camera shutter and a gun are very similar in their repeatingness. I think about repetition a lot. But today, we live in this hyper surveillance society that any moment could be archived, any moment could be filmed, and also these things will be lost. So that is a fascinating thought to think about what may survive and become the archive and what may not, even with all of this effort to constantly surveil and document everything.But it's my hope that archives are important just because they give us a deeper understanding of a connection to something we will never be able to experience. So I think that a future archive is something that we cannot imagine. We don't know what it's going to look like, and it's up to us to find out and to explore form and explore possibilities so that we're not stuck in this mindset that has to be in steel and monumentalized as a figure or a person or something like that. So in my mind, it's just to be revealed to us. We'll know later, but I would hope that were to make...I know this is what people still do today that make monuments. They want to make something beautiful, but that means something different to Lenape or a Pawnee or Kiowa, so that seems very different to us. And so we do that. We do memorialize things in different ways. But I think that we think of them as more ethereal, whether we think of them as things that we know that aren't going to really last forever. I feel that way, at least. I don't speak for all of my culture. But I know that some of us are trying to find new forms to really memorialize our past and unite our community of memory and our tribes, our experiences.Li:Like you said, time, everything's moving so fast and everything's evolving. Everything's constantly changing. So who knows what the forms will take. This has been such a wonderful conversation. I really appreciate your time. I just wanted to see if you had any final words or even gems of ancestral wisdom you might want to leave with us before we finish. Nathan:No, I can't share any ancestral wisdom, not knowingly or very well. I just appreciate the opportunity to create the piece. I appreciate the opportunity to expand upon the piece by talking with you about this because I'm just trying to figure this out. I don't have all the answers. Li:Right, that is part of  being a life learner and walking this path. Everyone's on their journey. We are constantly learning at every turn. I'm with you, Nathan. I often admit that I do not have all the answers. That is for sure. I really enjoyed learning about your work and your practice. I definitely plan on getting down to Pennsbury Manor and look forward to the curriculum for the youth when it comes out. Nathan:Well, thank you. I hope you enjoy it. I hope that it's a meaningful experience for you. I'm a very fortunate person to be able to work on such a project and very grateful to the entire team and everybody that supported the process. Li:Thank you, and thank you again to Ryan Strand Greenberg, who is also the producer of this podcast and worked with you on the project for nkwiluntàmën. Thank you to Nathan Young, our guest today on Future Memory. This is another one for the Future Memory archives.Monument Lab Future Memory is produced by Monument Lab Studio, Paul Farber, Li Sumpter, Ryan Strand Greenberg, Aubree Penney, and Nico Rodriguez. Our producing partner for Future Memory is RADIOKISMET, with special thanks to Justin Berger and the Christopher Plant. This season was supported with generous funding by the Stuart Weitzman School of Design and the University of Pennsylvania.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: It is good for EA funders to have seats on boards of orgs they fund [debate], published by Nathan Young on May 25, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. It has come to my attention that many people (including my past self) think that it's bad for funders to sit on the boards of orgs they fund. Eg someone at OpenPhil being the lead decision maker on a grant and then sitting on the board of that org. Let's debate this Since I said this, several separate people I always update to, including a non-EA said this is trivially wrong. It is typical practice with good reason: EA is not doing something weird and galaxy-brained here. Particularly in America this is normal practice Having a board seat ensures that your funding is going where you want and might allow you to fund with other fewer strings attached It allows funder oversight. They can ask the relevant questions at the time rather than in some funding meeting Perhaps you might think that it causes funders to become too involved, but I dunno. And this is clearly a different argument than the standard "EA is doing something weird and slightly nepotistic" To use the obvious examples, it is therefore good that Claire Zabel sits on whatever boards she sits on of orgs OP funds. And reasonable that OpenPhil considered funding OpenAI as a way to get a board seat (you can disagree with the actual cost benefit but there was nothing bad normsy about doing it) Do you buy my arguments? Please read the comments to this article also, then vote in this anonymouse poll. Loading... And now you can bet and then make your argument to try and shift future respondents and earn mana for doing so. This market resolves in a month to the final agree % + weakly agree % of the above poll. Hopefully we can see it move in real time if someone makes a convincing argument. I think this is a really cool real time debate format and we should have it at EAG. Relevant doc Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Who does work you are thankful for?, published by Nathan Young on May 23, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I think that the other side of criticism is community support. So who are you grateful is doing what they are doing? Perhaps pick people who you think don't get complimented very much or don't get complimented as much as they get criticised. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What is effective altruism? How could it be improved?, published by MichaelPlant on May 5, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. The EA community has been convulsing since FTX. There's been lots of discontent, but almost no public discussion between community leaders, and little in the way of a constructive suggestions for what could change. In this post, I offer a reconceptualisation of what the EA community is and then use that to sketch some ideas for how to do good better together. I'm writing this purely in my personal capacity as a long-term member of the effective altruism community. I drafted this at the start of 2023, in large part to help me process my own thoughts. The ideas here are still, by my lights, dissatisfyingly underdeveloped. But I'm posting it now, in its current state and with minimal changes, because it's suddenly relevant to topical discussions about how to run the Effective Ventures Foundation and the Centre for Effective Altruism and I don't know if I would ever make time to polish it. [I'm grateful to Ben West, Chana Messinger, Luke Freeman, Jack Lewars, Nathan Young, Peter Brietbart, Sam Bernecker, and Will Troy for their comments on this. All errors are theirs mine] Summary We can think of effective altruists as participants in a market for maximum impact activities. It's much like a local farmers' market, except people are buying and selling goods and services for how best to help others. Just like people in a market, EAs don't all share the same goal - a marketplace isn't an army. Rather, people have different goals, based on their different accounts of what matters. The participants can agree, however, that they all want there to be a marketplace to allow them to meet and trade; this market is useful because people want different things. Presumably, the EA market should function as a free, competitive market. This means lots of choice and debate among the participants. It requires the market administrators to operate a level playing-field. Currently, the EA community doesn't quite operate like this. The market administrators - CEA, its staff and trustees - are also major market participants, i.e. promoting particular ideas and running key organisations. And the market is dominated by one big buyer (i.e. it's a ‘monopsony'). I suggest some possible reforms: CEA to have its trustees elected by the community; it should strive to be impartial rather than take a stand on the priorities. I don't claim this will solve all the issues, but it should help. I'm sure there are other implications of the market model I've not thought of. These reforms seem sensible even without any of EA's recent scandals. I do, however, explain how they would likely have helped lessened these scandals too. I've tried to resist getting into the minutiae of “how would EA be run if modelled on a free market?” and I would encourage readers also to resist this. I want people to focus on the basic idea and the most obvious implications, not get stuck on the details. I'm not very confident in the below. It's an odd mix of ideas from philosophy, politics, and economics. I wrote it up in the hope others can develop the ideas and I can stop ruminating on the “what should FTX mean for EA?” question. What is EA? A market for maximum-impact altruistic activities What is effective altruism? It's described by the website effectivealtruism.org as a "research field and practical community that aims to find the best ways to help others, and put them into practice". That's all well and good, but it's not very informative if we want to understand the behaviour of individuals in the community and the functioning of the community as a whole. An alternative approach is to think of effective altruists, the people themselves, in economic terms. In this case, we might characterise the effe...

Support the show