Podcasts about NEA

Eno Reyes is the co-founder and CTO of Factory, the agent-native software development platform building autonomous "Droids" for enterprise engineering teams. Factory has raised $220 million, most recently a $150 million Series C at a $1.5 billion valuation, from investors including Khosla Ventures, Sequoia Capital, 20VC, NEA, Blackstone, Insight Partners and Nvidia. Before founding Factory, Eno worked as a machine-learning engineer at Hugging Face, training, optimizing and deploying large language models for enterprise customers. AGENDA: 00:00 Are We Underestimating AI by an Order of Magnitude?  06:35 Why Can the Smartest AI Model Be the Cheapest?  18:51 Is Anthropic's Coding Business Really Worth $2 Trillion?  33:41 Will Continuous-Learning Models Help or Hurt Factory?  40:43 Will 80–90% of Neo-Labs Die in the Next 18 Months?  44:33 Should American Enterprises Work With Open-Source Chinese Models?  55:42 Must AI Founders Radically Rethink What a Great Outcome Looks Like?  1:04:30 Do Pedigree and Credentials Still Matter in AI Hiring?  1:19:17 Which Is the Biggest Threat: Claude Code, Codex, Cognition or Cursor?  1:24:20 What Seems Crazy Today but Will Be Obvious in Five Years?  

Jess Row is the author of the novels The New Earth and Your Face in Mine as well as a collection of essays, White Flights: Race, Fiction, and the American Imagination.  His short story collections include The Train to Lo Wu, Nobody Ever Gets Lost and the newly published Storyknife. His fiction has appeared in The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Tin House, Conjunctions, Ploughshares, Granta, n+1, and elsewhere, has been anthologized three times in The Best American Short Stories, and has won two Pushcart Prizes and a PEN/O. Henry Award. He has received a Guggenheim fellowship, an NEA fellowship in fiction among other honors. He directs the undergraduate creative writing program in the Department of English at NYU and is an ordained senior dharma teacher in the Kwam Um School of Zen.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hanna har det absolut bästa feministiska tipset och Nea har bara accepterat sitt nya epitet: hemmafru. Dessutom: hur lång är världens längsta penis och listan på ALLT som ointresserar Surret, ni kan inte ana hur lång den är... Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Hungry Ghost Festival is here, and NEA is reminding devotees to clear their offerings after prayers. But with food, ash and joss paper still being left behind, are we relying too heavily on cleaners to pick up after us? Singapore Unfiltered asks where tradition meets civic responsibility and whether having someone to clean up has made us less responsible for the mess we leave behind. Join Neil Humphreys & Audrey Siek — LIVE every Monday, Wednesday & Friday at 8am for Singapore Unfiltered.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Three finalists for the 2026 Nebula Awards—Amy Chu, Somto Ihezue, and Annalee Newitz—discuss their craft, why they write, and the state of speculative fiction today. Moderated by Tananarive Due, Toastmaster of the 2026 Nebula Awards, which are given annually by the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Association. Featured writers and their 2026 Nebula Award nominations include: Automatic Noodle by Annalee Newitz (Nebula Award for Best Novella) Carmilla Volume 3: The Eternal by Amy Chu (Nebula Award for Best Comic) "We Begin Where Infinity Ends" by Somto Ihezue (Nebula Award for Best Novelette) This program was part of the 2026 American Writers Festival. Co-hosted by the American Writers Museum and Chicago Public Library, the American Writers Festival is a free literary event featuring in-depth conversations with diverse writers from across genres and backgrounds. This conversation took place June 7, 2026 and was recorded live at the Harold Washington Library Center. AWM PODCAST NETWORK HUB About the writers: AMY CHU is a multi-genre writer for graphic novels and animation. Her most recent book is the Nebula Award nominated Carmilla: The Eternal (Dark Horse / Berger Books) the final chapter in the award-winning Carmilla the First Vampire trilogy. She teaches at the Kubert School and the School of Visual Arts, and is a board member of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. A frequent convention speaker, she has also judged the Harvey, Ringo and MoCCA awards. Amy holds an MBA from Harvard Business School and a double bachelor's degree in Architectural Design from MIT and East Asian Studies from Wellesley College. TANANARIVE DUE is an award-winning author who teaches Black Horror and Afrofuturism at UCLA. A leading voice in Black speculative fiction for more than 20 years, Due has won an American Book Award, an NAACP Image Award, and a British Fantasy Award, and her writing has been included in best-of-the-year anthologies. Her books include The Reformatory (winner of a Los Angeles Times Book Prize, Chautauqua Prize, Bram Stoker Award, Shirley Jackson Award, World Fantasy Award, and a New York Times Notable Book), The Wishing Pool and Other Stories, Ghost Summer: Stories, My Soul to Keep, and The Good House. She and her late mother, civil rights activist Patricia Stephens Due, co-authored Freedom in the Family: A Mother-Daughter Memoir of the Fight for Civil Rights. SOMTO IHEZUE is a writer and filmmaker. He is an MFA fellow in Creative Writing at the University of Maryland. His writes about boyhood, land, disruption, and joy in Igbo communities. His work has been a finalist for the Nebula Award, the Locus Award, the British Fantasy Award, the ALCS Tom-Gallon Trust Award, and has appeared in Clarkesworld, POETRY, Uncanny, Strange Horizons, Beneath Ceaseless Skies, Sauúti, and others. He has received residencies and fellowships from the Kimmel Harding Nelson Center for the Arts, Tin House, Clarion West, Sundress Academy for the Arts, Rabbit Island, and more. He was assistant editor of the Publishing Taught Me Anthology (SFWA & NEA) and co-editor of Will This Be a Problem? The Anthology. ANNALEE NEWITZ writes science fiction and nonfiction. They are the author of four novels: Automatic Noodle, The Terraformers, The Future of Another Timeline, and Autonomous, which won the Lambda Literary Award. As a science journalist, they are the author of Stories Are Weapons: Psychological Warfare and the American Mind, Four Lost Cities: A Secret History of the Urban Age and Scatter, Adapt and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction, which was a finalist for the LA Times Book Prize in science. They are a writer for the New York Times and elsewhere, and have a monthly column in New Scientist. They have published in The Washington Post, Slate, Scientific American, Ars Technica, The New Yorker, and Technology Review, among others. They were the co-host of the Hugo Award-winning podcast Our Opinions Are Correct, and have contributed to the public radio shows Science Friday, On the Media, KQED Forum, and Here and Now. Previously, they were the founder of io9, and served as the editor-in-chief of Gizmodo.

Kickoff your Back to School week on Wake Up!  Hessam Rahimian and Bob Wells convene the US-Iran Roundtable.  Brother Joseph DeSimone in the 3rd hour talks money and politics. Stories today:  RIP John Strobeck, How much has the NEA dump into anti-ESA efforts?, Birx dumps on Fauci, City of Tucson being accused of asbestos poisoning at Tucson House Apts?

Ett nytt somrigt avsnitt via länk är här! Det surras om barnuppfostran, att kunna vara sommarsåsig och Nea har en teori om hur deras katt/hund-personligheter ser ut. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jess Row is the author of the novel Your Face in Mine, the essay collection White Flights: Race, Fiction, and the American Imagination, and two collections of short stories, The Train to Lo Wu and Nobody Ever Gets Lost. His fiction has appeared in The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Tin House, Conjunctions, Ploughshares, Granta, n+1, and elsewhere, has been anthologized three times in The Best American Short Stories, and has won two Pushcart Prizes and a PEN/O. Henry Award. He has received a Guggenheim fellowship, an NEA fellowship in fiction, a Whiting Writers Award, and a Whiting Creative Nonfiction Grant. In 2007, he was named a “Best Young American Novelist” by Granta. His nonfiction and criticism appear often in The New Yorker, The New Republic, The New York Times Book Review, Bookforum, Threepenny Review, and Boston Review, among other venues. He directs the undergraduate creative writing program in the Department of English at NYU and lives in New York City and Plainfield, Vermont. His latest is the shortstory collection titled, Storyknife. Learn more at jessrow.com Intro reel, Writing Table Podcast 2024 Outro RecordingFollow the Writing Table: @writingtablepodcastEmail questions or tell us who you'd like us to invite to the Writing Table: writingtablepodcast@gmail.com.

EL COMITÉ TÉCNICO DE LA UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO CONCLUYÓ EL ANÁLISIS DEL EXAMEN DE ADMISIÓN, POR LO QUE RECOMENDÓ A LA UNAM REALIZAR UN EXAMEN DE CONTROL PRESENCIAL PARA LAS Y LOS ASPIRANTES SELECCIONADOS Y PARA QUIENES QUEDARON FUERA, PERO ALCANZARON PUNTAJES EQUIVALENTES O SUPERIORES A LOS MÍNIMOS HISTÓRICOS DE INGRESO REGISTRADOS PARA LA MISMA CARRERA, PLANTEL Y MODALIDAD ENTRE 2021 Y 2026…EL GRUPO DE EXPERTOS QUE REVISÓ EL PROCESO DE INGRESO A LA LICENCIATURA 2026, DETALLÓ QUE EL MODELO DE SUPERVISIÓN DE INTELIGENCIA ARTIFICIAL UTILIZADO DURANTE LA APLICACIÓN DEL EXAMEN EN LÍNEA, DETECTÓ CONDUCTAS PROHIBIDAS, ENTRE ELLAS EL USO DE CELULARES, APOYO EXTERNO Y SUPLANTACIÓN DE IDENTIDAD QUE FINALMENTE LLEVÓ A LA CANCELACIÓN DE CERCA DEL 2% DE LAS PRUEBASSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Marissa Streit, CEO of PragerU, is back! Last time,  she told us serving your country can mean enlisting as an educator, a line we still bring up constantly. We cover a lot of ground in this conversation: why personal responsibility beats collective grievance, how socialism and communism sell real problems with fake solutions, a teacher's union resolution instructing teachers not to tell parents when a student is transitioning, intersectionality as what Marissa calls "victim bingo," and why PragerU ended up on the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate map alongside Charlie Kirk.  Summarized timestamps 02:42 – The founding principle: personal responsibility vs. collective grievance, and "the bigger the government, the smaller the citizens 07:13 – Why socialism keeps winning young people over — real problems, fake solutions 15:57 – Case study: why a young family can't afford to raise kids in New York (rent control, tort law, regulation) 20:15 – The "education industrial complex": inside the books training teachers — Lessons in Liberation and Cultivating Genius 22:31 – The term "adultism" defined, and what it does to parental authority 24:52 – The AFT resolution: teachers told not to tell parents when a student is transitioning 27:11 – The California law letting a 12-year-old consent to gender-affirming care without parental notice 33:59 – Why parents look away: "it's not my child" and the cost of that thinking 38:34 – Intersectionality as "victim bingo" — how kids get recruited into causes that have nothing to do with their lives 45:18 – PragerU as a target: the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate map, Charlie Kirk, and repeated platform takedowns 49:36 – Is PragerU "right-wing propaganda"? Marissa's answer, and the story of the $1 million donor who set out to expose them Quotes: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen." — Marissa Streit "Socialism, I oftentimes say, is communism with lipstick. It's the same thing — the government's going to fix things for you by stealing everything from you, and then everybody ends up equally poor." — Marissa Streit "God wanted the Israelites who made it to the promised land to be a people who recognized that freedom isn't free. It comes with a sacrifice, but it's a sacrifice worth making." — Marissa Streit "A socialist and a communist will take a truth we all recognize, but they'll give you a solution that is a lie." — Marissa Streit "They're defining adultism as adults having power and rights to decide what young people's boundaries should be — and young people should go along with what adults say. They're defining it as tyranny." — Marissa Streit, on the term found in Lessons in Liberation "See the connection, how the unions are breaking the relationship with parents? The word 'outing' — you out somebody, you snitch on somebody. They know it's a negative thing, but they're saying the parent shouldn't know." — Marissa Streit, on the AFT resolution "It's getting worse because good people are not fighting against it." — Marissa Streit "Essentially that's what intersectionality does — it says find the victim within yourself, and now you can join the group. Once you join, there is no tolerance for diversity of ideas, only an expectation that you abide by communist and socialist values." — Marissa Streit "It's 100% a political cult. It's a cult and it has different tentacles." — Polina on intersectionality "Van Jones said recently the DSA is on the ground knocking on doors, and we're not gonna fix this until people commit." — Polina "Go to PragerU and make your own opinion. We're not in an era where you have to rely on the AFT, the NEA, or the New York Times to tell you what to think." — Marissa Streit https://www.prageru.com Books referenced: Lessons in Liberation: An Abolitionist Toolkit for Educators; Cultivating Genius (Scholastic) Follow us on Instagram  @thecuriousmiddlepod Our Website: https://curiousmiddlepod.com Email us: thecuriousmiddlepod@gmail.com Substack: https://curiousmiddle.substack.com  

Jon Sakoda of Decibel joins me to break down AI's impact on cybersecurity startups, venture funding, and why endpoint is the Super Bowl of cyber.Jon is the Founding Partner at Decibel, an early-stage firm backing technical founders in security and infrastructure. He started his career founding IMlogic, an IM security company acquired by Symantec, then spent over a decade at NEA working with companies like Cloudflare, MongoDB, and HackerOne before launching Decibel. We got into why he thinks AI is only magical if you have a magic power, why Decibel led a $100M seed into Ent, and where the firm is placing its next bets.In this episode:Why Decibel operates like the Navy SEALs next to the big platform fundsThe founder community model and finding the early believers among CISOsWhat separates the founders who finish now that AI lets everyone startEnt's $100M seed and the self-driving moment for endpoint securityTelling genuinely AI-native companies apart from AI washingAI eating venture capital and why cyber's best years are aheadOpen models, frontier labs, and why the cat is out of the bagThe agentic SOC, Dropzone AI, and driver assistance vs. self-drivingStartup consolidation cycles and being an N of oneHow buyers and job seekers should evaluate early-stage vendorsDecibel's next bets, from novel AI models to resilience and cyber insuranceChapters:0:00 Intro 0:32 Jon's background and founding Decibel 2:25 Big platform funds vs. specialized firms 3:56 Founders helping founders and early believers 6:22 Scaling beyond the early adopters 7:40 Who finishes the marathon in the AI era 10:19 Founders from outside cyber 12:21 Ent's $100M seed and the endpoint bet 14:53 AI-native vs. AI washing 17:04 AI is eating venture capital 18:55 Open models vs. frontier labs 22:41 The agentic SOC and Dropzone AI 26:03 Consolidation and the startup cycle 29:22 How buyers should evaluate young vendors 31:43 Decibel's next bets and cyber resilience 34:11 Game Day at Black HatConnect with Jon: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonsakoda/ Decibel: https://www.decibel.vcSubscribe for more conversations with security practitioners and leaders, and find my writing at https://www.resilientcyber.io

Deb Gesualdo joins the show to talk about being in the Labor movement as an educator in Massachusetts. Her Union is MassTeacher.org she is the current Vice President & part of the NEA.org She is the former president of the Malden Education Association. Find writer Kim-Kelly.com here.  Thanks to CWA-Union.org  UAW2209.org  Mlaborpress.org  AnneFeeney.com    

As artificial intelligence continues to reshape government technology, National Endowment for the Arts CIO and Chief AI Officer Jim Tunnessen said the technology has significant potential to accelerate modernization, streamline software development and improve operational efficiency. Tunnessen pointed to AI-assisted development as a fundamental shift in how agencies build applications, enabling smaller teams to deliver capabilities faster than through traditional development methods. He said agencies must balance those gains with strong governance, transparency and cybersecurity guardrails. At the NEA, Tunnessen views AI as a tool for enhancing back-office operations while ensuring human judgment remains central to evaluating artistic work.

Hanna och Nea poddar denna gången via länk så här i semestertider. De pratar bland annat om vad Sveriges egna take på "Ro!" skulle vara och vilka syskonkonstellationer som hissas, samt dissas. Det är SURRET! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

OPINION: Catanduanes controversy puts NEA in the crosshairs | July 12, 2026Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alaska is proving that politics doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.In a lively BigTentUSA conversation held on June 25, independent congressional candidate Bill Hill and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins shared how Alaska's unique political culture is creating space for practical leadership, coalition-building, and solutions that put people ahead of party. They discussed the importance of protecting democracy, preserving Alaska's ranked-choice voting system, and working across political divides to rebuild trust in government.The conversation also highlighted the critical role of Alaska's fisheries, with both candidates calling for stronger protections against bycatch, greater local representation in fisheries management, and expanded opportunities for young Alaskans to remain in the industry. Throughout the discussion, both speakers emphasized that lasting progress comes from listening, collaboration, and staying focused on the needs of local communities rather than partisan agendas.Their message was clear: when leaders choose cooperation over division, democracy—and the people it serves—are stronger for it.Wanna help get out the vote? Write letters to voters through BigTentUSA:https://bigtentusa.org/act-now/Learn more about Bill's campaign:https://billhillforalaskans.com/Learn more about Jonathan's campaign:https://www.jktforak.com/ABOUT THE SPEAKERS:Bill Hill is running for Alaska's Congressional At-Large seat, and grew up in a small village in Bristol Bay, Alaska – the home of the largest salmon run in the world. He grew up subsistence fishing and hunting, trapping, and raising and racing sled dog teams with his family. Bill is first and foremost a commercial fisherman, joining his dad on the family fishing boat when he was 12 and fishing every fishing season in Bristol Bay since. Bill also worked in rural construction, from building houses, working on remote health clinics and canneries, environmental remediation, and on a crew that installed the sewer system in the Bristol Bay Borough. A son of two teachers, Bill spent nearly 25 years working as a teacher, a principal, and a superintendent, and was named Alaska Superintendent of the Year in 2023. He's a proud union guy, having been part of both the Laborers union and the NEA. Bill is a husband, dad of four, and Chada (grandpa) to 7. Bill and his family have lived in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. Now he and his wife Diane are back in Naknek, population 470.Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins — known as JKT — is running for governor of Alaska in an open-seat election. Born and raised in the island community of Sitka in Southeast Alaska, JKT became interested in politics at a young age. At 13, he attracted national attention, leading Howard Dean's presidential campaign's Alaska efforts. During his senior year of college, he received recruitment calls to run against the powerful eight-year Republican incumbent for his home district. He mounted a scrappy underdog campaign in 2012, defeating him by 32 votes. At 23 years old, JKT was the third-youngest legislator elected in Alaska history, and served in the Alaska House of Representatives for 10 years. Four years in, in 2016, he worked across the aisle to help sweep into power a “bipartisan coalition” majority caucus of all House Democrats, as well as independents and moderate Republicans. That bipartisan coalition remains in power today. JKT is running for governor to bring a new generation of leadership to the governor's office — supporting schools, lowering the cost of energy, building new homes, and balancing the budget — so that the next generation will also call Alaska home. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bigtentnews.substack.com

Leah Solivan — Founders at Work by Jessica Livingston Alice Bentink — A Work in Progress by Rene Redzepi David Spreng — All Money Is Not Created Equal by David Spreng Caitlin Holloway — Creativity, Inc. by Ed Catmull Grant Lee — Seven Powers by Hamilton Helmer Vas Natarajan — Thinking in Bets by Annie Duke Alex Halliday — High Output Management by Andy Grove Andy Chen — Shoe Dog by Phil Knight PR Yu — Tao Te Ching by Laozi Christina Smolke — Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery Adeo Ressi — Palo Alto by Malcolm Harris Jack Leney — Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger TJ Rylander — By Any Means Available by Mike Vickers Kanye Makabela — Doing Capitalism in the Innovation Economy by Bill Janeway Ashu Garg — Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari Eugene Malobrodsky — Zero to One by Peter Thiel Aaron Jacobson — Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson and Daemon by Daniel Suarez Darian Shirazi — The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz Maria Palma — Bending Reality by Victoria Song Dr. Ed Engelman — Blind Spots by Marty Makary Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

12 - Is FIFA more corrupt than any other governing body on the planet? Dom kicks off the week with soccer talk as the world clutches their pearls over a suspended red card. 1205 - How ridiculous was NEA President Becky PRingle this weekend? 1215 - Side - underdogs in media 1220 - More on the FIFA scandal. Your calls. 1230 - Corey DeAngelis, School Choice Evangelist, is here this afternoon. What has been the latest on school choice and the fight that many governors are putting up trying to keep it out of their states? How can teachers rise up against the behemoth NEA and other teachers unions to stop politicizing the field? Are there “educational reparations” and how would they even work? Her name is Princess? 1245 - More on Folarin Balogun's situation and the crying in the soccer community.

12 - Is FIFA more corrupt than any other governing body on the planet? Dom kicks off the week with soccer talk as the world clutches their pearls over a suspended red card. 1205 - How ridiculous was NEA President Becky PRingle this weekend? 1215 - Side - underdogs in media 1220 - More on the FIFA scandal. Your calls. 1230 - Corey DeAngelis, School Choice Evangelist, is here this afternoon. What has been the latest on school choice and the fight that many governors are putting up trying to keep it out of their states? How can teachers rise up against the behemoth NEA and other teachers unions to stop politicizing the field? Are there “educational reparations” and how would they even work? Her name is Princess? 1245 - More on Folarin Balogun's situation and the crying in the soccer community. 1 - Dom needs a doctor? Should he go with a Greek one? 115 - What's the vibe on Broad Street as PECO strikes? 120 - More calls. 145 - Can someone at CNN push back against Josh Shapiro, just once? 150 - Calls to round out the hour. 2 - Why do Democrats hate the American Flag so much? What flags do they like? 205 - How ridiculous is soccer and its lack of rules? 215 - Dom's Money Melody! 220 - More of your calls. 240 - Should high schools talk about socialism? For better or for worse? 245 - Your calls. 250 - The Lightning Round!

A resolution targeting the Anti-Defamation League. Accusations of antisemitism. Calls for political activism in schools. How did America's largest teachers union become involved in these debates? David Osborne welcomes Clifford Smith of the North American Values Institute to unpack the controversies surrounding the NEA, the influence of activist movements in education, and the ongoing fight over the purpose of public schools and teachers unions in America. 

Sponsored by Auth0 for Startups → 1-year free https://auth0.com/startups/vip Auth0 is an adaptable authentication and authorization platform that helps you secure your apps and AI agents. It delivers convenience, privacy, and security so you can focus on building a great UX. FOUNDER PROFILE: Hugo Santos, Founder of Namespace https://www.linkedin.com/in/hugomgsantos/ - Namespace, founded by Hugo Santos (ex-Google), began by building an internal application platform to solve infrastructure pain points, eventually pivoting to offer a high-performance, low-friction infrastructure product for other companies. - The company's early growth relied heavily on leveraging Hugo's professional network to build trust and secure initial customers, emphasizing the importance of relationships and reputation in infrastructure adoption. - Achieving product-market fit was marked by customer loyalty—even during a major outage, Namespace did not lose a single customer, highlighting the strength of their customer relationships and support. - Hugo shared key fundraising lessons: raising their seed round was easier due to strong networks and a clear vision, but Series A required a more structured, process-driven approach to control the narrative and manage investor perceptions. - Namespace has raised $23 million in Seed and Series A funding, led by NEA with participation from Susa Ventures and other investors.

Matan Grinberg is the Founder and CEO @ Factory, an AI research lab, bringing autonomy to software engineering. Matan has raised over $220M for the company from the likes of Sequoia, Khosla, NEA, Evantic and 20VC. Last round valued the company at a whopping $1.5BN.  AGENDA:  00:00 – Why AI Means Everyone Will Become a Builder 04:55 – Will AI Finally Break the 200-Year GDP Growth Ceiling? 06:45 – The Rise of the 100x Engineer & Load-Bearing Talent 08:00 – The New Executive Job: Allocating Tokens Like Capital 10:35 – Kirkland's $500M AI Bet: Brilliant or Delusional? 12:45 – The AI Value War: Models vs Applications vs Infrastructure 18:45 – Token Maxing, AI Hangovers & The Coming ROI Reckoning 22:00 – Why AI Spend Could Soon Exceed Developer Salaries 24:00 – Open Source Can Already Replace 80–90% of Frontier Model Work 28:00 – What Makes a Great Engineer in the Age of Agents? 35:00 – Jobs That Will Disappear First Because of AI 40:00 – Why Matan Isn't Worried About AI Taking Jobs Long-Term 46:00 – From String Theory to Startup Founder: The Sequoia Origin Story 52:00 – The Meeting That Led to Sequoia's First Check 58:00 – Why America's Lack of Frontier Open Models Is Embarrassing 1:08:00 – What Matan Looks for in Every New Employee 1:12:00 – Why Elite Companies Will Treat Employees Like NBA Athletes 1:16:00 – The Most Important Prediction Matan Has Changed His Mind On    

Synopsis: While biotech is increasingly measured by clinical milestones and financial outcomes, Rahul Chaturvedi welcomes two leaders who argue that true success begins and ends with patients. In this deeply personal and inspiring conversation, Mike Raab, President & Chief Executive Officer of Ardelyx, and Laura Williams, Chief Patient Officer, share how empathy, resilience, and patient advocacy have shaped both their careers and the culture of the company they've built. Mike reflects on an unconventional journey that spans pharmaceutical sales, rare disease leadership at Genzyme, venture capital at NEA, and ultimately leading Ardelyx through some of biotech's most difficult challenges—including a Complete Response Letter, massive layoffs, and a historic FDA reversal that resulted in approval without additional clinical trials. Laura shares her path from rural Mississippi to becoming a physician, recounting the transformative patient experience during the HIV epidemic that inspired her move from academia into industry and ultimately into a pioneering Chief Patient Officer role. Together, they explore what patient-centricity truly means beyond corporate slogans, how Ardelyx embedded patient advocacy into the C-suite, and why empathy must be a core competency for biotech leadership. The discussion also dives into clinical trial diversity, commercializing therapies for underserved populations, navigating regulatory adversity, responsible capital allocation, and the future of building enduring biotech companies. It is a powerful reminder that when patients become the North Star, resilience, innovation, and impact naturally follow. Biography: Mike Raab Mike has served as Ardelyx's President and Chief Executive Officer since March 2009. Before Ardelyx, Mike was a partner at New Enterprise Associates (NEA), one of the world's largest and most successful venture capital firms, where he specialized in healthcare investments focusing on the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors. Prior to joining NEA in 2002, Mike spent 15 years in commercial and operating leadership roles in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries. He was senior vice president, therapeutics and general manager of the renal division at Genzyme Corporation, a Sanofi company. In this position, Mike launched and oversaw the sales growth of sevelamer, the leading phosphate binder for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia, with over $1.0 billion in worldwide sales in 2013. Mike was also instrumental in the worldwide launch of Genzyme's therapies for Gaucher disease, Ceredase and Cerezyme. Laura Williams, MD, MPH Laura has served as Ardelyx's Chief Patient Officer since 2025, having joined the company in November 2020 as Senior Vice President, Global Therapeutic Strategies and Patient Advocacy. Laura was later promoted to Chief Medical Officer in 2021. Laura is a life science enterprise leader with extensive experience as a pharmaceutical drug developer, healthcare policy advisor, patient advocate, and portfolio strategist. She is an accomplished, results-oriented, physician scientist and board member who is committed to discovering, developing, and commercializing innovative therapies that address unmet medical need. With nearly 30 years of pharmaceutical experience, across all clinical development phases and multiple therapeutic areas, in both large pharma and smaller biotech, Laura has a proven track-record in drug development, as indicated by her leadership and major contributions toward eight drug approvals.

Today on the podcast, Gail Eichenthal is joined by leaders at the intersection of Arts & Health to celebrate LA Opera's partnerships and impact as we as we reflect on 5 years of LA County Arts and Health Week Summits. Listen in to conversations covering our 5th annual Summit's Core Themes. From Research to Practice with Sunil Iyengar of the NEA; Five Years of Progress with Kristin Sakoda, Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Arts and Culture; and Advocacy Across Sectors with Co-Director of the Jameel Arts & Health Lab Dr. Nisha Sajnani. Then, we'll hear from LA Opera Connects Vice-President Dr. Andréa Fuentes as we look the future of caring for our communities through the arts. LAOpera.org/Summit Arts.gov/Impact/Research LACountyArts.org JameelArtsHealthLab.org

¿Y si te dijéramos que el planeta tiene más problemas que Jon intentando responder una pregunta complicada?En este episodio de ¡Qué Pasa! nos metemos de lleno en uno de los temas más importantes (y polémicos) de nuestro tiempo: el agua, el medioambiente y la pequeña posibilidad de que estemos convirtiendo la Tierra en un sitio cada vez más difícil para vivir.Hablamos sobre:

Marta Renzi is a filmmaker and choreographer who has created over 20 short films, which have screened in over 100 festivals. Marta and her Project Company received a New York Dance and Performance Award (a “Bessie”) in 1992 and the first Dancing in the Streets award in 1995. She has received two videodance commissions from PBS, including one for MOUNTAINVIEW (1989), made in collaboration with filmmaker John Sayles. A seven-time recipient of funding from the NEA, Marta was a Bogliasco Fellow at the Liguria Center for Arts & Humanities in 2013 and a RAW Community Supported Artist in 2014. She served on the Board of Directors of DFA from 2008-2018.

Det här är ett gammalt avsnitt från Podme. För att få tillgång till Podmes alla premiumpoddar samt fler avsnitt från den här podden, helt utan reklam, prova Podme Premium kostnadsfritt. Vi tömmer två flaskor bubbel tillsammans med Hanapee och Nea från världens bästa podd Surret!

This conversation started 2 years ago, when I ran into Kelly McMahon at a summer conference. Kelly's a kindergarten teacher at Hoover Community School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and I was curious about what that label “community school” means in practice for teachers, students, and the community served by this new model for the area.I've since learned that just because your kids attend Ames Community School District, for example, that doesn't mean they attend a “community school.” Kelly put me in touch with Dave Greenberg and Angelia Ebner, senior policy analysts and community schools program specialists at the National Education Association, who have helped build and support thousands of community schools, as Angelia described it, from “coast to coast and border to border.”And no exploration of the community schools model could be complete without including the story of Sustainable Community Schools in Chicago. Just last year, Major Brandon Johnson announced a near doubling of the number of community schools in the city, bringing the number to 36.I spoke with foundational community organizer, advocate, and elected Chicago Public Schools Board Member, Jitu Brown, about how organizing for Sustainable Community Schools defused the push by elected officials for school closures, privatization, and charter-ization of Chicago Public Schools. For Jitu, the title of School Board member may be new, but he is Chicago born and raised, and he's been organizing around education and all of its related issues since the 90s.While there were just hundreds of community schools in the United States 15 years ago, today there are over 5,000 and growing in nearly every state in the nation. A consistent refrain from every person I spoke with for this episode was that community schools are the future of public education and the alternative to narratives about “failing public schools” that favor privatization as a solution.NEA - What are community schools?NEA - 5 Steps to Kickstarting Community Schools in Your DistrictNEA Community School Measurement Guidance Tool Chicago Sustainable Community Schools Eve Ewing - Ghosts in the Schoolyard: Racism and School Closings on Chicago's South SideYou can read out directly to Angelia & Dave @ NEA:aebner@nea.org | DGreenberg@nea.org

Teachers’ Unions as Political Power Brokers Major teachers’ unions (e.g., NEA, AFT) have contributed over $1 billion to left‑wing political causes over the past decade. This funding overwhelmingly supports Democratic candidates, progressive activism, and ideological causes unrelated to education. Education System as Ideological Indoctrination Unions have shifted from focusing on education (reading, writing, math) to political indoctrination of students. Declining academic performance is linked to this ideological focus rather than educational reform. Coerced Union Participation Teachers are forced to contribute union dues and face professional consequences if they dissent, framing this as coercive or unethical. Link Between Education, Ideology, and Political Violence Left‑leaning control of education has normalized hatred of conservatives, Christians, and Donald Trump. There is a direct causal line between: union political spending, ideological education, polling data suggesting some Democrats justify political violence, and alleged assassination attempts on Donald Trump. Normalization of Political Violence 25% of Democrats believe political violence can be justified. This reflects a broader cultural shift allegedly driven by education and political messaging. Democratic Strategy Framing Democrats deliberately pursued a “long game” by controlling education from elementary school through universities to shape future voters. Education institutions are culture‑shaping tools rather than neutral public services. Call to Parental Action This is a warning to parents for continued and increased involvement in school boards. This activism is a response to loss of trust, lack of accountability, and ideological overreach. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode is presented by Create A Video – The North Carolina teachers union has organized a strike for Friday so members can rally in Raleigh for more money from state lawmakers (who will not be in session at that time). Andrew Dunn is the publisher of Longleaf Politics and  a contributing columnist to The Charlotte Observer and he joins me to discuss the issue.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-kaliner-show--6946691/support.Subscribe to the podcast All the links to Pete's Prep are free!Get exclusive content here!Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code!Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com  

Spaßeshalber droppen wir hier im ersten Satz mal names, denn welcher verhältnismäßig junge Mensch kann von sich schon behaupten, mit den Legenden Conny Froboess und Günter Pfitzmann zusammengearbeitet zu haben? Unser heutiger Gast kann es, Dennenesch Zoudé, die im Dezember des Jahres 1966 in Äthiopiens Hauptstadt Addis Abeba zur Welt und mit zwei Jahren nach West-Berlin kam. Die politischen Verhältnisse in der Heimat wurden und blieben wackelig, die Rückkehr verschob sich auf ungewisse Zeit und Dennenesch konnte auf Umwegen das tun, wofür sie wirklich brannte: Theater spielen, Singen lernen. Als Schauspielerin arbeiten. Ihre erste Rolle 1992 bestritt sie – daher auch die legendären Verweise – in der früher sehr gefeierten "Praxis Bülowbogen", ein guter Start also. Ein Blick auf Dennenesch Zoudés Stationen zeigt, dass sie sich inhaltlich nicht festlegen lassen möchte, davon zeugen Engagements als Sängerin, klassische Unterhaltungsfilme aber auch anspruchsvollen Theaterstücke. Und nun? Wird es ein ganz neues Projekt geben, über das wir natürlich auch sprechen. Neben all den Geschichten und Songs ihres Lebens. Playlist: Stephanie Mills - Never knew Love like this before Kool and the Gang - Ladies Night Stevie Wonder - For once in my Life Teddy Swims - Lose Control Barry White - You’re the first, last, everything Marvin Gaye und Tammi Terrell - Ain’t no mountain high enough Felix Jaehn ft. Nea, Bryn Christopher - No Therapy Miley Cyrus - Flowers Suzie Quattro & Chris Norman - Stumblin‘In Diese Podcast-Episode steht unter der Creative Commons Lizenz CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

The Great private Capital Reset is upon us. Markets are volatile and driving new economic imperatives. Are VC funds still VC funds, even if they raise billions per fund? What happened to the rest of the market? What is driving VC investments? What do Limited Partners think? What is on their minds? This and more, in episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation What Really Matters: Performance.. Returns The Mega Fund Question The Case for Smaller… Rightsized Funds What Comes Next? Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will be about the great private capital reset. As you know, or you have probably heard, there is significant structural transformation in the world of venture capital, and we are probably witnessing a fundamental reset of the private capital stack. We got a huge bubble in 2020, 2021. Fueled by near-zero interest rates. We got inflated fund size, compressed due diligence, and now a generation of zombie funds and zombie startups. Now that rates have normalized, exits have not been as much as expected. LP patience is a warning sign, and I guess the industry is being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: most VC funds raised since 2017 might not return what their LPs expected. You know, how do we start?   Nuno This is going to be a relatively nuanced episode. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of haves and have-nots, both in terms of VC funds, also in terms of startups. And so I want to start with that. This is going to be more nuanced than all transformational and disruptive.   Bertrand It’s not the end. It’s not the end.   Nuno State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? It’s not the end. There’s still huge mega funds that are raising more and more. It’s clear that the music has stopped, right? So if we’re playing the game of chairs, the music has stopped. Around ’22, ’23, we started seeing the first signals that funds had raised way too much money. Firms collectively raised around $669 billion globally in 2021 alone. If we fast forward now to last year, 2025, depending on the sources, we did some internal analysis at Chameleon. We came up with $75.6 billion was raised last year by 493 funds, right? So That’s a significant drop, right, in terms of fundraising. Other sources would say a little bit more. There’s a little bit of a discussion around how much did the top 30 funds capture. If you believe some of the stats out there, they would say that actually top 30 funds captured 75% of all capital raised last year. We did again some internal analysis at Chameleon, and the conclusion we came to, it was closer to 50 to 55%. So not as dramatic as some of the sources out there, but still pretty dramatic. There’s a lot of capital concentration on the top funds. Again, the top 30 funds would’ve raised 50 to 55% of capital or up to 75% according to other sources. So definitely a tremendous amount of concentration. There was a lot more fragmentation in terms of capital raised if we’re looking at the years from 2010, 2011, all the way through 2021. So 2021 would’ve been sort of the peak of non-concentration if you look at that. And that again, now we are getting more and more concentration. There’s more and more of this arbitrage around, I’ll give money to the top funds, I will not give money to the smaller funds, or I’ll give less money to the smaller funds. There’s a little bit of a movement around concentration. We’ll talk about it later and what that means. Are mega funds really better? Are the small funds still the way to go? We’ll talk a lot about that later in today’s episode. There seems to be a little bit of a bifurcation. We could say it’s either bifurcation around top-tier VCs or larger VC funds versus smaller VC funds. My perspective is the bifurcation that we’re seeing right now is more of a bifurcation between funds that are no longer just stepped into the VC space, but they’re actually becoming more and more private equity firms with full asset management range from early stage all the way to late stage. Think of it almost like a private equity hedge fund, quasi, versus classic VC funds. And I think what we’re seeing is the Andreessen Horowitzes, the a16zs of the world, the NEAs, the Sequoia Capitals, just to name a few, becoming more and more broad asset class managers across private equity, whereas you have more classic VC happening in earlier stages. And so that’s the real bifurcation that I think is actually happening.   Bertrand And maybe not really hedge fund, because they are always still long-only funds. So there is no hedging happening, at least as far as I know.   Nuno Well, some of these guys have become RIAs, like A16z has become an RIA, so they can do secondaries.   Bertrand That’s true. Yeah.   Nuno And they can also sell stuff, etc. So I don’t know how aggressive they’re going to be in terms of secondaries and selling and actually doing other kinds of services you can do if you’re an RIA. But it’s not, I think, out of the realm of possibility that they would sort of acquire and sell stock more rapidly. In that way, to your point, Bertrand, maybe they actually become beyond just long guys, right?   Bertrand Yes. Another trend I have seen is some of the larger VC funds seems to have no problem investing in multiple competitors. This was not possible before. I mean, if you’re a VC fund, you had some sort of duty not to invest in the competitors, but now some invest OpenAI, Anthropic at the same time. Do you see that as part of this evolution?   Nuno For sure. And I think there’s a lot of people like the ostrich putting their heads below the ground and it’s like, “Eh, no, no, nothing to see here.” But that does constitute a conflict of interest. And if I’m a startup raising, this assumption that you will not invest in one of my competitors is no longer there, certainly for the mega funds, because of that notion of deployment of capital. Now, some funds will still hide under the notion, actually formally from a fund perspective, we’re not investing in competitors. It just happens that different types of our funds are investing in competitors. Like maybe my growth fund is investing in a competitor to my early stage fund, right? But our funds are relatively independent. So I think there’s a little bit of hide and seek that will go on if you talk to some of the fund managers. Well, they say, well, we’re not investing out of the same fund into these competitors. But between you and I, as we know, a lot of these partnerships actually do a lot of stuff together at the general partnership level. So are there really actual Chinese walls between the funds? Well, it really depends on the partnership. And to be honest, most of the partnerships don’t have very significant Chinese walls between the funds, right? The managing general partners sometimes actually occupy investment committee roles across different funds. So I think the conflict of interest is there. So that’s why I say there’s a little bit of ostrich behavior. Put your head behind the ground or below the ground and just pretend nothing is happening. Just sharing maybe a couple of interesting stats. Global fund closings for 2025, according to our numbers at Chameleon, 1,098 closed. In 2025. Closed is when you start deploying capital, right? Whereas— so it’s not closed down, it’s closed like we start deploying capital. And that number, 1,098, is dramatically down from 1,600 in 2024. And it’s actually the lowest number of closings that we saw since 2014. So again, this is bad, right? It means there’s less funds doing fund closings and deploying capital in the market than since 2014 and dramatically below the 2024 numbers, right? Where we already saw some market readjustments. The number of active VC firms in the US that did 2+ deals, which is not a huge bar, has dropped 38% back to numbers in 2023. So we don’t have numbers that are a little bit more up to date, but basically in 2023, those numbers are already dramatically dropped. So there’s less and less active funds. So there’s funds that might be in the market, but they’re not actually deploying that much capital, not doing that many investment. They’re sort of either zombie funds or relatively passive funds that have passed their investment period. For those listening to us, the investment period for a VC fund is normally between the first 3 to 5 years of the fund, which is when you build your portfolio, when you can invest in new companies. After that time period, everything that you do up to normally what would be year 10 is follow-ons. You put more money into the companies that you’re already invested in, that you already constructed portfolio with during those 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand Yeah, that’s a pretty scary change. And obviously, I guess we’ll come to it, but the time it takes to fully liquidate investments is getting longer and longer. In the old days, we used to talk about VC funds having a 10-year life, maybe a +1/+1 in terms of extension of the fund life. But it looks like it’s taking 16 to 18 years actually to get full liquidity from a fund investment.   Nuno LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation And I think that’s the scariest piece. I mean, just to share some numbers, we in venture capital talk about vintages, right? Which year did your fund start in? Normally when you did your first close onto the fund, as we were saying before, close is when you get all your investors at that moment in time to come in and you do your first close so the next fund starts running. 2018 vintage funds, right? This is now almost 7 years ago. So you should start having— actually 8 years ago almost at this point in time. You should start already getting distributions or you start getting cash back if you’re a limited partner and investor in those funds, you should start getting cash back. Half of all 2018 vintage funds have returned $0 to their LPs. So they’ve had no distributions to their LPs. 2020 vintage, which was a very hot vintage, only 42% have begun any distribution. So 58% have distributed $0, right? 2021, only 25% have done any distributions. Now, I happen to have a 2018 vintage fund and a 2021 fund. My 2018 fund has already distributed over 3x net of fees in distributions, and my 2021 fund’s already over 10% distributed back in distribution. So we’re very proud of that. But in general, the numbers are awful. There’s no liquidity back to LPs. And to your point, that’s kind of a big deal because some of these funds have been going on for 7, 8 years, and where’s the liquidity going to come from? On the other hand, if you look at TVPI, so DPI is distributions to paid-ins cash on cash. But if you look at TVPI, which is total value to paid-in, which also includes the book value or the value that you’re marking it on your books, basically the paper value as we call it for the company, even on that, the median 2017 fund, so 2017 vintage fund has a TVPI, total value to paid-in, of only around 1.76x, which is well below what should be, which is sort of the 2 to 3x benchmark of a really good performing fund. So the median funds are doing very, very poorly overall. So if you add that to the fact of what’s happening and distributions are taking a long time, back to your point, Bertrand, it’s taking like— this should be a 10-year asset class, maybe 11, 12 years, and now it’s looking a little bit like a 15, to 18-year asset class, which is not what most limited partners sign up for. Part of this dynamic, I think, is that we’ve had tremendously overvalued private companies over the last few years, right? Secondly, these companies have just stayed private longer. And I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine, it’s like, hey, what’s this thing about companies are staying private much longer? Is there some dynamic around secondaries? And the reality is there is a dynamic around secondaries, right? Because if I’m a very large fund and I can get away with doing secondaries on my portfolio, I will get liquidity at some point, right? But someone else is stuck with private stock, which hopefully will IPO, but who knows, right? And so there’s this funny dynamic right now of because of secondaries, because of a couple of other things that are happening in the market, actually a lot of these startups are staying private for tremendous amounts of times, and some of them will IPO and they’ll be huge deals. Some of them might not and might not warrant the latest private valuations that they’ve exercised. And so there’s this tremendous noise that we’re seeing in the mid to late funnel of privately held companies where some are just waiting to be public. Some of them might not be able to go public at anything that is an up round versus private valuations that they’ve had in previous moments and in previous rounds.   Bertrand And obviously the 2 to 3x returns that funds are targeting, and obviously more 3x than 2x, I mean, that was good and nice if it’s a 10-year fund, but if it’s the same 3x for 15 to 18 years, it’s not at all the same rate of return annualized. So it’s a really, really, really big issue if you keep the return the same, but you extend the duration of the fund. Concerning going IPO, there is a lot of complexity going public, the IPO process itself, but also after that when you’re a public company. It changed how you can run the business. Some would argue that we have had an issue with more companies delisting than companies listing on the public market. So I think there might be also separate issues about the efficiency of the public market and maybe a need for change. We went very strongly in one direction for the public market, have post and run, but was it really ultimately the right thing to do? I’m actually not so sure.   Nuno Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, this is anecdotal, but when we tell prospective LPs at Chameleon about our returns, the last few funds, 2018, 2021, the first reaction is, “You must be lying, right? Surely you can’t have distributions already for 2021,” et cetera, et cetera. So clearly there’s almost a state of disbelief right now from limited partners. And liquidity does matter. So clearly you have to move forward. So how did we get to this point where we had this bubble 2021 all around that time space and now things don’t look so good. Well, the macro conditions have changed dramatically. I mean, rates when they were near zero, safer assets yield nothing or yield nothing. So basically you had to push capital into longer duration risk assets like venture capital. And so you had to push it. So the opportunity cost of capital also has fundamentally shifted. Obviously a 3x VC return in 15 years over 10 actually competes very poorly against 5% annual credit returns over several years. So there’s been a readjustment of stuff. And then the public equities in particular, the tech public equities have had a lot of volatility, but some of them have done extremely well, right? Chipsets, things like NVIDIA, the Amazons of the world, Alphabets, et cetera, et cetera. They’ve done very, very well. So why would I invest in a long-term illiquid asset that takes now longer to give me money back, and in some case doesn’t give me back, if I can invest just in public equities, and a variety of other things. The venture debt costs have increased dramatically. The burn rates that were sustainable back in the day with sort of the addition of venture debt, private credit, et cetera, now are overblown at this moment in time. At the end of the day, there’s been a lot of movements also overall in the pipeline in terms of valuations, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I would put a grain of salt into all the numbers I just told you. There still is a little bit of the haves and have-nots in startup land. Certainly in early stage where if you’re a hot AI company, you can get away with raising a Series C or $480 million. This is actually a true story. Series C, right? Not Series C, a $480 million at $4 billion pre-money valuation. Whereas if you are maybe in a space that’s less hot, you’ll have more difficulty in raising money at this point in time, might not be able to even raise a Series C, right? So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots happening on the VC side in early stage that has been really amplified by the macro regime and where we’re at, which is actively zero-rate era is done and now the new regime is quite different. And so I can get better returns by doing something else.   Bertrand Kind of makes sense. I mean, if you have some ways the SaaSpocalypse in the public market because there is that fear that AI is going to completely change the game for especially for the more typical software companies. Good luck raising private money to quote unquote just build traditional software companies. You cannot expect a warm embrace from the private market if the public markets are completely destroying that category. I’m not saying that this is there forever, uh, things might change over time, but for sure what’s happening on the public markets always have a very strong impact on the private market.   Nuno Indeed. So what’s happening in this relationship between limited partners and VCs, the general partners? Again, limited partners are the people that give venture capital firms and venture capital funds their capital to actually deploy. And they are a variety of different players, right? Could be endowments, like university endowments, pension funds, family offices, very high net worth individuals, fund of funds, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, in particular, if you look at the institutional investors, the endowments, the pension funds, the fund of funds, they have allocations that they do to different asset classes typically. And the feedback that we’ve received from the market is they are increasingly frustrated with what’s happening in terms of distributions. They’re not getting capital back. It’s like, I gave you capital 8 years ago, 9 years ago, 2017, 2018 vintages, and I’m not getting any capital back. So what the hell’s happening? On paper, it looks maybe the fund’s doing okay or it’s doing great in some cases, but where’s my money? And so that creates a little bit of wait-and-see kind of game on portfolio allocation. As we’re thinking through their re-ups, putting more capital into funds that they’re already actually put capital or putting in capital into new slots, into new fund managers that they want to put money into. They’re like, well, let’s wait and see. I want to get my money back or get some money back first before I redeploy it. Again, this is a little bit the haves and have-nots because we’ve seen, for example, a couple of top-end LPs in terms of returns that have a little bit the opposite problem, right? Because they are into funds that are performing extremely well. They actually are over that period and they want to actually redeploy. But to be honest, the average in the industry right now is a wait-and-see game. It’s like, I want to wait and see, which leads to what can only be characterized— I was hearing someone the other day, one of the top advisors in the LP community, saying this is the worst fundraising environment ever for venture capital. Not the last 20 years, 30 years, like ever, right? Since this became an asset class more institutionally in the late ’60s, early ’70s, Pulse Robo 2 as it was created, this is the worst fundraising environment ever. Oh, wow.   Bertrand And concerning TVPI, let’s not forget that typically it’s not mark-to-market. So the metrics in terms of TVPI, correct me if I’m wrong, you know, but the metrics in TVPI are based on typically the last fundraise. So if the valuation went down but there was no additional fundraise, we wouldn’t know by looking at the TVPI metrics. It will only be updated if there is a new Financing, equity financing, or an exit.   Nuno Yeah, normally most funds act like that. Some funds are a little bit more aggressive and do do mark-to-market, but normally funds would be conservative and say, hey, I’m being conservative, it’s whatever is the last known valuation of the company. And if there wasn’t a priced round, it’s a little bit more obscure than that, right, Bertrand? Because it might actually be the company has raised money on a note, or either convertible note or a SAFE note, and that wouldn’t count as a priced round. So I would say actually, even if it was a cap that’s below with a significant discount, I won’t recognize the assets as a down round. I won’t recognize the asset with a lower valuation because formally it wasn’t a price round. So it’s on the one hand conservative, on the other hand, it’s only relating to price rounds or exits to your point. So it’s sort of, you can be like, hmm, well, we opt to do that because we think it’s actually the most conservative route. Mark-to-market is extremely difficult to do. And who would do the mark-to-market for you, right? It’s like it’s some valuation firm, et cetera.   Bertrand I’m not saying a mark-to-market is easy, but I’m not sure I would call using the last valuation something conservative in the context that most startups will fail. So it’s not clear.   Nuno Well, in some cases it is, some cases it’s not, right? Depends on the startup situation, to be honest. Yeah, yeah.   Bertrand But yeah, at least that’s how it’s done. So for instance, to evaluate the impact of the SaaS apocalypse, it’s tough to know. We will have on the private market. I mean, we will see that in a few quarters. Because if companies still exist in that environment, if they still do additional truly price rounds after that, that’s when I will start to know.   Nuno I mean, just to share a little bit more data, like VC fund close time stretched to 15 months. Basically, it’s just taking a long time to raise money. It’s taking a long time to do your first close, get your fund running. When entrepreneurs complain to me that their fundraising is difficult, I always say, you have no clue how difficult it is compared to ours. First-time funds have collapsed. We had some numbers that only 77 first-time funds actually closed. I assume this is in 2025 versus 215 in 2023. So that’s a huge number. We did some internal analysis on our side and we did some analysis that emerging fund managers, emerging fund managers are normally people that are in their first one or two funds. Basically emerging fund managers gained some ground until 2017. Reaching by then a slice that was 63.7% of all capital raised in 2017. But since then, the capital deployed to emerging managers has been largely reduced to actually 24.2%, right? So it’s gone from 63.7% in 2017 to 24.2%. So this has been a culling of sorts on emerging managers and almost like a slaughterhouse of emerging managers. Compared to previous situations, which is obviously incredibly concerning if you’re an emerging manager starting your VC firm, et cetera, et cetera. So really tremendously problematic for those. We think capital’s not leaving VC. I think we see a lot of the institutionals saying— there’s some numbers as high as 33% of institutional investors plan to invest more in venture in the next 12 months. So I don’t think capital’s leaving VC. I think it’s really concentrating. We’ll come back to the concentration issue later in the episode. And part of that concentration comes from a topic that has been widely spoken in venture capital recently, which is differentiation. How do you differentiate in venture capital if you’re talking to a limited partner, right? How does my firm differentiate versus the firm next to mine? And that’s incredibly, incredibly challenging. Bertrand, what are your thoughts on that?   Bertrand Differentiation is always a question. I mean, if you’re an entrepreneur, Typically, you think fully about the best possible partner for your stage and for your type of business model. You want a VC who understands fully your business model, because if they don’t, then it’s going to be troubled down the line. But that’s true that another piece of the puzzle is that the best VCs help you get more visibility in terms of achieving potential customer deals, in terms of attracting the best talent. And that’s where VCs’ brand names can help. If you can say you have backing by some of the top, most visible names in the industry, and usually these are the mega funds because others have trouble to be as visible, then they have some sort of unfair advantage compared to others. So I can see that there is some level of concentration happening naturally, especially in the later stage from Series B onwards.   Nuno What Really Matters: Performance… Returns Yeah, I mean, we did some analysis internally about What are the top funds that invested in the top performing companies in early stage, Series C, Series A? And we looked at it by size of fund and the top performing normally are funds below $100 million, but in some cases very closely followed by funds between $100 and $500 million. And actually funds above $500 million, so $500 million to $1 billion and then $1 billion and above are actually tremendously underperforming. So this notion of the industry that says, well, the mega funds still see The top investments early on, because they still deploy in Series C and Series A opportunistically, in some cases even spray and pray if they have their own incubation and acceleration programs, is not true. Actually, we verified that over the last 12 to 13 years. It is not 12 to 13 years in vintage, right? So up to a 2021 vintage fund. So we went basically 12, 13 years back from there. And it’s not true. Actually, the most performing are 0 to 100 and then 100 to 500. And as I said, there’s 100 to 500 in a couple of years actually are a little bit better. Than the $0 to $100 million ones. So that’s the first thing that’s a conclusion. And actually, that’s not shocking. If we remember back in the day, Kleiner Perkins used to raise funds up to $600 million, Benchmark raised their $425 million funds. It seems like the sweet spot for a VC fund would be around $500 million at the top end, like maximum. And now somehow people are saying, well, I’m raising a $3 billion VC fund. It’s like, well, it can’t be a VC fund. The return profile is totally different, right? You can’t deploy that capital just based on early stage investing. And by the way, you’re not seeing the guys at early stage, all that you’re seeing, you’re going to make your returns in mid to late stage, right? Back to what we said at the beginning of the episode. So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots there. The big guys are raising more and more money, but they’re no longer venture capital. And I think limited partners that are a little bit more evolved, that are a little bit more conscious of this, that have been in the market longer, are realizing that shift. So it’s like if they want to have the alpha of venture capital, they need to deploy to the sub-$100 million funds or the sub-$500 million funds, right? That’s where they need to actually focus their VC capital. They can still deploy to mega funds, but they’re deploying to a different asset class. They’re deploying to a private equity, mid to late stage asset class, which looks maybe a little bit more like a growth fund or something like that. The second part of differentiation is the honest truth is most VC funds are like, I have proprietary network access, right? I’m ex-Stripe or I’m ex-Google or I’m ex-Facebook or whatever, and I have access to that. I mean, we know proprietary networks from that standpoint are no longer true. The whole thing that created Silicon Valley back in the ’70s of what I used to call the country club deals where there were a few people coming out of the big companies, the Fairchilds of the world, later on the Intels of the world, et cetera, et cetera, that made some money along the way that sort of bootstrapped their next companies, were well-known quantity to the existing VCs and raised money relatively easy on ideas, that doesn’t work anymore. Someone was telling me the other day one interesting thing that I wasn’t quite aware of, a lot of it had to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if you knew this, Bertrand, but like the fact that in California, it was sort of the Silicon Valley community sort of imposed this, we don’t sign NDAs thing and Boston continued signing it. And this whole NDA enforcement issue and non-compete, actually not the NDA thing, but more strongly that California did not enforce non-competes. I could leave Fairchild and start a company that magically was doing something that could be considered competitive to Fairchild. And that was sort of part of the acceleration actually of venture capital in California versus, for example, Boston, which was sort of hand in hand at the beginning.   Bertrand Yeah, I mean, I’m a big, big believer in California success coming from not enforcing or banning non-compete agreements. I think it’s a key part of the game. If you lock people into not doing something similar in the next 6 months to 24 months. And the industry has always been moving fast. So this is a significant time where you are blocked to do something very similar. I think it was really an issue. So I think it’s a key part of the game and it has been there. I don’t know how it started, but I think that non-enforcement of non-compete has been a key part of the success of California. I’m actually pleased to say that Washington State is going in the same direction. They are just signing a non-compete ban. And you might remember that at the federal level, I think in 2024, there was also a ban that was put in place to ban non-compete, but this has been reversed by the courts. So this is not there anymore. So that’s why we see a state like Washington State putting their own ban, and we might see more state by state moving in that direction. I think it was not helping at all, this non-compete. I mean, there is obviously stuff that needs to be done, like you cannot steal secrets, you cannot steal IP.   Nuno Yeah.   Bertrand Even stealing employees, there should be some restraints. We need to find the right balance, but you have to be careful there. That was key for the success of California, and I’m glad to see that this is a trend that’s going to go beyond California. And I hope most states will have a ban on non-compete.   Nuno Maybe just to close on the differentiation process, two things. One, I think there’s this notion When you talk to some LPs, that seems to be a little bit ingrained, some LPs that prefer specialized funds. We’ve also done some significant analysis internally and have talked to a couple of datasets other than our own, or people that own datasets other than our own, and the feedback has actually been not so fast. Actually, generalist funds over time cannot perform specialist funds. There seems to be a little bit of a sweet spot around generalist funds. We like to call ourselves multi-specialized at Chameleon, but ultimately from the perspective of specialized versus Generalist funds, the picture’s not as clear as specialized funds outperform generalists or generalists outperform specialized. We’ve seen there are pockets where actually generalists outperform specialized, in other pockets where specialized of a certain size can outperform generalists. So that’s one topic on differentiation that is a little bit broader. And then the final topic on differentiation, it’s really an industry that hasn’t innovated dramatically on where it creates the most value, which is really the picking stage, right? So it’s having great deal flow, very optimal, productive, efficient due diligence with very few resources and the ability to then get into those deals. That’s where most of the value is created. And then hopefully liquidating the asset if there’s an opportunity to do so at the right time, either through secondary trade sales or an IPO or something else. And what we’ve seen is the industry has innovated very little. I mean, the only thing I could point out in terms of core innovation at the top of the funnel has been the creation of the mega funds, the well-known funds, right? Like a16z, Union Square Ventures, et cetera, et cetera. But there needs to be more innovation on that cycle. And that’s why we certainly at Chameleon believe that the future is to have quant and AI-native VC firms that develop their own tooling, their own platforms. We have Mantis in our case that allow you to have this unfair advantage in how you source deals and how you do due diligence, how you get into the deals, et cetera, and how you take it to the next level. And we think that’s the beginning of the next stage is that the industry becomes more tech-enabled, shockingly enough, an industry that has made all its returns on tech or almost all of its returns on tech. That we need to be more tech-enabled ourselves. But I think the writing is on the wall there, and that will be a source of differentiation certainly over the next 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand One thing the industry has innovated somewhat and maybe could innovate even more is providing liquidity beyond trade sale and an IPO, because it’s clear that if VCs want more liquidity without waiting 18 years, you need that liquidity at different stage, not just when it’s time to do an exit, a full exit for the business. And for employees as well. I mean, it’s one thing to stay for a company for 4 years, which is your typical vesting. Maybe you extend that to 6 years, to 8 years, you have a great time at the company. But to think that maybe you have to stick around for 15 to 20 years in order to get liquidity on your stock options. I mean, that’s too much to ask for most people. I mean, people have a life, they have other things to do, other plans, they might want to move, they come at a different stage of life. So you need to provide them liquidity. The new game is we are not going to exit until 15 to 20 years, else it’s truly unfair. It’s not just unfair, but people will say, you know what, I’m going to go across the street, go work for Amazon or Google. I will have RSUs at best regularly that are liquid, and why bother? I mean, we need to find pathways to liquidity for both investors but also employees. There has been a change in that direction, but I think we need more of this change, and maybe not just reserved for the absolute biggest, most successful companies like OpenAI or SpaceX, but also us as well. Hopefully we can find a way.   Nuno Well, now we have these AI companies that actually grow so fast that they will IPO in one year. Now, isn’t that what’s going to happen? They raise They raised $500 million in Series C or $1.4 billion in Series C, and they’re going to IPO in 2 years. No? Is that not the new reality? I’m being facetious.   Bertrand At the same time, I mean, there are rumors that some of them are going to IPO this year. I mean, we talk about OpenAI, about Anthropic. I mean, OpenAI is quite old, but Anthropic is a relatively new business, quote unquote. So I think it’s a good time.   Nuno The Mega Fund Question So maybe it will be true after all. Moving to the next section, are mega funds still venture capital, Bertrand? Are they still venture capital funds?   Bertrand Yeah, I guess venture capital is a term that can encompass from small to very big funds. I truly don’t know. I mean, once you reach a growth stage, are you truly a VC fund? I don’t know. I think some of these definitions are kind of arbitrary from my perspective. What is clear is that you as a business need different providers of capital. And as we just discussed, you as a business, probably need to keep going and stay private for longer. One reason being, again, there is a tremendous cost to being a public company. There are some true strategic disadvantages. And at the same time, just practically, I mean, you need to get bigger and bigger in order to have a chance of a successful IPO. So you cannot just go IPO at a $500 million valuation. I mean, that’s like committing suicide, at least in the US market on NASDAQ. So my point is, you truly have no choice. You need to extend and If you need to extend, then you need to have capital providers that are there at later stage and therefore have more money. Is it still true venture capital? Is it true venture? I don’t know. At some point, it makes sense that from the startups to the capital providers, everyone adjusts to a reality where the life cycle is getting longer.   Nuno We don’t think it is. We don’t think mega funds are venture capital. We have actually some data that shows that they’re not in terms of actual returns. The alphas you can generate, the IRR that you can generate is actually not comparable. We did some analysis again with some of our datasets and from 2012 to 2022, so that’s the datasets that we used so that we had actual distributions and stuff we could take into account and so on and so forth. And looking at IRR, just to share some numbers in terms of IRR over those 10 years on sub-$100 million funds versus above $1 billion funds, the differences are incredibly stark. And this is true for global and US IRR, right? So just to quote some numbers in terms of average, sub-$100 million funds, global IRR of 22.9%, US IRR of 21.6% versus above $1 billion, 9.1% and 9.0%. Median IRR, if we just looked at median, 7.3% and 16.6% for sub-$100 million funds, 7.5% and 8.1% above $1 billion. Top quartile IRR, sub-$100 million, 31% versus 30.4% US IRR. And then above $1 billion funds, 14.7%, 15.5%. So it’s very clear if you sort of cut this in different ways, averages, medians, top quartiles, et cetera, over all these years that sub-$100 million funds are in a very different asset class than above $1 billion funds. They’re in different alpha that you can generate and so on and so forth. Now to the point you made, Bertrand, I don’t fully disagree with the point you made of the bigger funds should become bigger. I just think they’re becoming different things. Now, again, some of these funds will hide under the facts like, well, wait a second, we have all these assets under management, but they’re over different funds. Sequoia, we’re still raising small early-stage funds, $500, $600 million funds. And then we have larger funds for growth, et cetera, et cetera. Andreessen Horowitz, a little bit less clear what they’re actually doing. We heard that they’ve raised $15 billion across funds. I’m not sure if that’s the exact number at the end of the day. But the point is, if I’m a multi-asset class manager, like early growth, et cetera, et cetera, then it still applies what Nunu is saying. I’m still going after the $500 million, $600 million early-stage funds. Well, not so fast, right? Because you still have all this capital with managing general partners that are maybe across funds for which their incentives in particular, both carry and management fees are coming from the larger funds. Et cetera, et cetera. So there’s necessarily conflicts of interest. In many cases, the funds are just straight up big, right? And so they are above a billion. And so I don’t think a lot of these guys are in early-stage investing anymore, right? It may appear that they are, but I don’t think that’s where the returns necessarily are going to come from. And so if you are a limited partner, if you’re looking at your asset class allocation, again, you’re absolutely free to put money into mega funds because that’s the kind of asset class you want to play in. In terms of a blended private equity asset class that has a little bit of growth, a little bit of whatever, or actually a lot of growth, a lot of late stage, and maybe a little bit of early stage. And I want something that’s a little bit more blended, right? But if I still want the alpha venture capital, I need to deploy to funds that are early stage, right? And that’s like up to $100 million, up to $500 million. I think that’s my two cents on that topic. We see crossover things coming around, like guys who do both public and private markets. Again, that starts feeling a bit like a hedge fund. A lot of these funds have also become RAs, as we discussed earlier. So I feel the writing’s on the wall. The mega funds are going more and more after either some mechanism of edging or a mechanism that’s a little bit more blended in terms of private equity than classic venture capital.   Bertrand Yes, I think a few things. One, if you’re an LP, I can imagine that dealing with multiple $100 million funds might be more difficult. You, you need to know the partners, you need to have some background, uh, visibility. You need potentially to change regularly of VC investments. So I can see some level of simplicity if you just focus on the bigger ones, especially if you have a lot of assets you have to put to work. Another piece of the puzzle, I would guess that the bigger funds are able to return money faster because they are at later stage of the cycle. So instead of that 15 to 18 years, maybe they are more in a 5 to 10 year range, while the smaller funds being there more early might be the one who are taking longer to deliver. So I can see that Yes, there is an IRR picture, but there is also time to liquidity that is not the same. So that can probably also influence. And in terms of crossover PE hybrid model, I mean, for sure we have seen some of the public equity investors doing crossover, meaning going into private equity firms like Coatue, like Tiger Global and others. And for companies that are preparing for IPO, there is a lot of value to work with these firms because they have very good visibility and understanding of the public markets. And their presence in the cap table is also a sign of quality, typically for public market investors. So there is a lot of value and logic for them to be there on both sides of the puzzle. But again, the fact that firms keep delaying IPOs, that the market is not so much startup-friendly, makes this model a bit more difficult. But personally, I think there is value there.   Nuno Yeah, I think on the mega fund, just so that I’m not boo-booing everything, I mean, but there’s definitely angles in terms of the asset class that make a lot of sense. And there’s the scalability of the model. The ability to go after Series B, Series C, as well as mid-stage, as well as late-stage, even secondaries over time, to your point, in some cases even public equities. And that level of skill I think matters. We’ve also seen, as we’ve known, we won’t mention any brands, but people will know who they are, that late-stage hedge funds and investors, even if they’ve done okay-ish in growth in private equity, don’t necessarily do well in venture. So it’s clearly a very different asset class, right? So once you start getting venture teams together, The returns are not quite the same. Actually, sometimes they’re not even quite the same as the growth investments. So clearly they’re very good at the growth side, but not so good in early stage. But definitely there is a case for it. The Case for Smaller…Rightsized Funds But if we switch gears maybe to the small, or I would call right-sized funds, maybe just to quote a couple of numbers and then open up the discussion. Small funds do seem to outperform larger funds. There’s a lot of data in the market that shows some of that dynamic outperformance frequency. All the Very historical numbers from Cambridge Associates from 1981 to 2010. 19 out of 30 vintages were won by sub-$150 million funds. We did our own analysis as I was sharing before. Funds between $0 and $100 won most years between around 2010 and 2021. And the years that they didn’t outperform in terms of investing in the top-performing companies in early-stage Series C, Series A, they were outperformed by the $100 to $500 million funds. The $500 to $1 billion funds and $1 billion or above were never even in the same league in terms of performance, of having identified those top performers in terms of quantity over those early-stage investments. Top 10 funds by vintage, 2004 to 2006, 2016 numbers. Top 10 funds, 73% were sub-$100 million. 2004 to 2016, top 10 funds by vintage, 73% of those were sub-$100 million. So there seems to be a little bit of a case that actually smaller funds, sub-$100 million, sub-$500 million in some cases, are outperforming the larger funds over time. Now, these funds are complex in and of itself. The positive of it is small fund GPs like myself, we are deeply invested in our own funds. We’re not there to just make management fee monies. I mean, we’re not making $1 million, $2 million a year in management fees of salary ourselves, like some of the larger funds. So we are there to really get the carry and be less focused on management fees. And so I think there’s a little bit of alignment around that and really taking that kind of perspective on portfolio construction and liquidation, being also more aggressive on the individual time that we spend with our startups. On the negative side, obviously a lot of these smaller funds, not the case of Chameleon, but others out there are single GPs, very little teams or very small teams. And so it’s sometimes difficult to actually do a lot for portfolio companies as well. And this is where the mega funds, for example, a16z notably would say, hey, we have 600+ people that can support you, right? On market development, business development, communications, talent recruiting, all this stuff. Question mark whether that’s the right way to do it in terms of operating model, if technology is not a better way of supplying that value back to your portfolio companies, or if there’s no better way of doing it. But still, that’s one of the appeals of actually dealing with a larger mega fund if you’re a startup, right? That they will have the resources, also the financial resources to put more capital in you. But also, again, if there’s entrepreneurs listening to this right now, and hopefully there are, it’s a two-edged sword, right? Because if you have Andreessen Horowitz putting money in you, or NEA, or General Catalyst, or whatever, putting money in you on a Series C and then not doubling down on the Series A or the Series B, there will be questions, right? Because like they have the capital, they have other funds, so why the hell are they not putting more money in? Um, so, so it’s a little bit of a two-edged sword.   Bertrand Yeah, I think that one is a pretty big one. And on top of it, as we discussed, some of these big firms have multiple funds managed technically by different teams. So you might have convinced the early-stage teams, they have investors, they’re happy, but you don’t convince the growth-stage firm. As you say, it might raise questions because people might think that there is some communication between the early-stage team and the growth-stage team. So why the heck are they not deciding to invest? And as we also discussed, even worse possible situation, what happens if the growth-stage team has invested in your competitor? It’s even more trouble. So I think trying to understand how firms behave, what’s the reputation of the firm, what’s the reputation of the partner you are working with, I mean, can have tremendous importance and impact. When it’s time for you to work with a firm.   Nuno Indeed. I mean, at the end of the day, we still believe that the smaller fund— we at Chameleon discuss the notion that our limit should be $500 million per fund, right? And that’s the logic of it. We think that model is the model that works well in venture capital. We do recognize, as I said before, why mega funds keep raising more and more money, right? It becomes a harm’s race at that end of the market. As I said, probably a slightly different asset class, or if not a significantly different asset class as well. So seeing a little bit both sides of the market, I mean, we often compete with the mega funds, but honestly, a lot of the mega funds are kind to us and they let us in. And this whole notion of elbows out, we haven’t felt it that much in the market. And people see our value at the table. And in many cases, I, I do see the larger funds more and more seeing the value of smaller funds coming in on the same rounds and even in some cases co-leading early stage rounds like Series C. So it’s not like elbows are out everywhere across the board. So I don’t mean to say this is like an all-out war between small funds and big funds and the small funds need to win or the big funds need to win. I think actually there’s a lot of potential for coexistence. My point is more that the asset classes and the returns are quite different over time, and that’s how I would think through it. And if you’re an entrepreneur, you should think about that as well, right? What are the implications of taking money from certain funds versus others in terms of the expected returns, expected time allocated to you? For example, if you’re not doing very well as a as a company, right? Will the big funds spend the same amount of energy on you if you’re not doing great and all of that? So it’s a little bit sort of a beware, open your eyes, both for limited partners and for startups. What do you actually want, right? What do you want from your VC firm if you’re a startup? And what do you want from your VC firm if you’re an LP?   Bertrand I must say, as an entrepreneur, uh, a board member, I have seen some situations where the bigger funds are actually trying sometimes to elbow out the existing investors. Like, uh, we have that much money to put to work, we cannot do less. And you’re like, yeah, but I don’t need that much money. And then they’re like, okay, just don’t let your existing investors do their pro rata. I don’t think it’s great because an entrepreneur, if your investors, your VCs, trusted you earlier stage when it’s more risky, and when it’s becoming less risky, you don’t give them the right to their pro rata because you have to let this big guy come in. That’s not great. Or even if there is not this pro rata issue, when an investor tries to put more money to work than it’s really necessary, it’s also not a good idea as an entrepreneur to take more capital than you could use. It will dilute you more, it will set higher expectations in terms of valuation, it will push you to use that capital faster than maybe would be reasonable. So I think that’s something you want to be careful with the bigger funds. So don’t talk to funds that are in some ways beyond your stage and try to make it work in that context. Or don’t accept to have your strategy change dramatically for no good reason by funds that just want to put too much money to work in your business. And that for me is surprising because it should also be in their best interest not to invest in businesses that are not ready to accept that much capital. But as we have seen, there were in the past some funds that believe that capital is a moat. Was a good idea. So hopefully, I guess we’re a bit behind that. But yeah, I would say entrepreneurs, be careful, find partners that are the right partners for you at your current stage. Sometimes some big names look great, but at the same time, if it comes with a lot of issues, from too much capital to also taking the risk that these partners don’t understand the stage of the business you are in or your industry, Just be careful. There is a lot of value to have firms that are very focused on your stage, on your industry, are finely attuned to that situation.   Nuno What Comes Next? Maybe to end in terms of sections, what comes next? And maybe we can come up with some predictions that are a little bit provocative on what’s going to happen to the market. You, if you’re listening to us, feel free to interact with us on LinkedIn, on X. If you have our email address, shoot us an email as well. We’d love to hear from you if you think these are the right predictions or if we’re totally off. Maybe I’ll throw in the first one, Bertrand, and we’ll go one by one. So we’ll each put one at the table and see where we head. My first one is that we’ll have a huge culling of VC investors. We had this rapid expansion of the VC asset class with arguably at least tens of thousands of firms globally, maybe even over 10,000 in the US. I think we’ll have a culling and the culling will continue and we’ll have several firms sort of getting eliminated over the next couple of years that will have either because they’re having tremendous difficulty doing their first close in their next fund, or the returns are not there, or it’s a firm that has done 3, 4 funds, but for some reason the returns have just gone out of whack in the last few years during the bull years. And so therefore, actually they can’t justify to raise more funds out there. So I predict there will be a significant elimination of active firms in the next at least 2 to 3 years. So maybe by 2028, and we’ll be below, I don’t know, 30% of number of active firms that we are today. The other side of it is I do think if we look beyond that, 2029, 2030, and so on, we’ll have the reemergence of not micro funds, but nano funds where people will start deploying capital very, very early and writing small angel checks, but doing it in a way that it’s sort of not this cottage industry that we’ve had of angel investors. So I think angel investment will be disrupted by people that will use more and more of the AI toolification out there to actually manage their portfolios of 10, 15, 5K investments in a way that is a lot more professional, creating sort of an advent of nano funds.   Bertrand Yeah, makes sense. On my side, in terms of prediction, I think there is a possibility that the mega fund model keeps expanding and looks more similar over time to some PE models. So do we have the top 10 VC firms that look more like a Blackstone than a Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia used to be? That for me will be an interesting question and development. I think that there is some possibility that it keeps going in that direction. A lot of incentives are pushing things that way.   Nuno My next prediction is that DPI, distributions to paid-in cash on cash, just cash back, will become essential for limited partners. I think TVPI, total value to paid-in, that also has in there, as we just said, paper valuations. There’s a lot of disbelief now around the TVPI metric if there isn’t distributions going alongside it. For those who, again, don’t know what TVPI is, it’s total value paid in, but it also includes DPI. So it’s cash on cash component plus a remaining valuation to paid in, an RVPI. And the problem is the RVPI really, in reality, it’s that kind of on-paper valuation that never gets attributed. I think LPs, they’ve seen the writing on the wall and they’re like, dude, just show me your DPI numbers. I don’t care about TVPI. Some LPs will still ask about TVPI just to make sure that the rest is sort of looking in order. Like, show me the money, show me the cash. Actually, it’s not money, show me the cash, right? I want money back.   Bertrand But that’s an issue. I mean, if you’re supposed to raise financing every 3 or 4 years, good luck getting DPI to show for that. So you need to be at least on your third fund in order to be able to show DPI, I guess.   Nuno I mean, my corollary to that, Bertrand, is if you allow me just to have a corollary kind of prediction, is that we’ll see certainly for funds like $50 million and above, $100 million, $200 million, et cetera, even increased concentration, right? I really need to have anchors that believe in me over time. And we might start having, again, the advent— we had it some decades ago, the advent of cap table kind of VCs, right? Like Sutter Hill Ventures, right? Where they’re not really raising funds anymore. And so we might have the advent of that, that we’ll have structures that are created that have more permanent capital allocated to them, or at the very least more concentrated capital by very few players.   Bertrand Interesting. Me on my side, as I shared before, I believe secondaries are, are important and here to stay. Um, in the past, some could argue, is it a distress signal or something? I, I don’t think it’s true anymore. In a world where your average startup might take 15 to 18 years to exit through M&A or IPO, we need to have other options. For funds, for employees, they cannot be expected to stick around for so long and have no liquidity. I mean, it’s just pure madness. It’s just bad alignment at some point to do that. So I think secondaries are becoming the third liquidity pathway for VCs, for employees, and it should be more and more a key part of the game, a key infrastructure in the VC/startups tech industry.   Nuno I mean, on specialized versus generalist funds, I believe we’ll continue seeing the coexistence of those two models where the specialized funds will in many pockets actually outperform generalist funds, but where we’ll continue seeing that the large franchises, the tier one franchises will likely be generalist funds. I mean, we just saw it in the cycle. The AI cycle went upon us. We had a 2021 fund. We could easily adapt and go into AI and figure out that AI was growing very fast. I mean, if you have an ultra-specialized fund and that’s your remit and that’s the only thing you can invest on, very difficult to change even during our investment period. I will put a caveat on that. We don’t call, for example, ourselves at Chameleon generalist. We call ourselves multi-specialized because our scoring models for the verticals that we track are specialized within Mantis. Because the partnership is specialized, we all focus on different areas. And because we have the Kin network that allows us to tap into that level of expertise, Again, I think the world will be specialized coexistence. Some pockets specialized will do very well, certainly on the smaller fund size, but the big franchises will likely look a little bit more generalist. And as I said, multi-specialized from our perspective is the future. We’ll start seeing more and more funds that are multi-specialized like ourselves. Do you want to talk about AI and how it’ll distort the metrics? No.   Bertrand Yes. I think AI is an exciting moment in the tech industry. It feels in some ways that the same way we had a big distortion coming with COVID and work from home in 2020, 2021. 2021, where suddenly everyone and their mother will build a SaaS company or invest in a SaaS company. AI feels a bit of the same. I mean, to be clear, I truly believe it’s deserved. I mean, we are facing a dramatic shift in how computing is being done in terms of value you can get from software. So at the same time, AI will probably distort this matrix for a long time. We clearly see a split where investments are going, in what startups are being created. So I think, yeah, we will see some distortion. And we know that maybe 50% of all deal value is going to AI in 2025. We have seen single rounds reaching 40 billion, like to OpenAI. We have seen, as you discussed, some seed stage investment of 400 million. So AI investing and AI startups are definitely a beast on their own. And will distort VC metrics for a long time. And we might need two sets of metrics in parallel, you know, AI versus everything else. So that would be an interesting bifurcation in the industry in some ways. I would say it’s fair to separate AI versus non-AI. We reach a point where it’s two different beasts.   Nuno Conclusion So in conclusion, AI has changed the world and it’s changing VC as well, as we discussed earlier in the episode. We have a tremendous momentous occasion for the asset class where venture capital is really bifurcating into very large funds, which no longer are in venture capital or seemingly may be distributed between different asset classes, and the smaller funds, sub-$500 million and sub-$100 million, that keep having the better returns, but also with much smaller scale. We’re seeing a culling of the industry where the industry is definitely getting smaller and smaller and more concentrated at both ends, number of VC firms, as well as a number of limited partners per fund and the interest that some of these limited partners have of being more and more concentrated in their own portfolio allocations. And last but not the least, the discussion around specialized versus generalist, where it seems like there’s some clear winners on some asset classes, on some sizes, in some industries, but on others, there’s other kinds of winners. And so maybe the future is multi-specialized, as I framed at the end. Thank you so much for listening. If you want to check us out and if you want to comment, feel free to send us messages on X, LinkedIn, to both myself and Bertrand, as well as send us an email. Thank you so much, Bertrand.   Bertrand Thank you, Nuno.

Hello, I'm Michael Watson joined by Sarah Lee and this is our first episode of Capital Research Center's “Who Funds That?” podcast. I am fond of reminding anyone who will hear me that organized labor is an institutional pillar of “Everything Leftism,” the omnibus ideology of progressive-liberal-socialist politics that relies on every single issue—yes, including that one—has one right answer and every issue relies on all issues following the party line. Today's guest, Rhyen Staley of Defending Education, found documents from the Sunrise Movement, the radical left mobilization group that has shifted focus from the Green New Deal and environmentalism toward the full Everything Leftist agenda, that further prove these ties. He joins us today to discuss his research on Sunrise Movement's guide to planned school disruptions and the role of the teachers' unions in supporting them.A Sunrise Movement training guidebook calls for students to ‘take action monthly' to ‘disrupt business as usual' to bring about a ‘political revolution'Newly obtained slides from a Sunrise Movement membership meeting calls for a ‘political revolution' that includes the ‘need to structurally change the foundations of this country' to achieve ‘Eco-socialism, [a] multi-racial democracy, and Green New Deal legislation'A May Day 2026 Host Toolkit includes training information for a “coordinated day of action” and promotes tactics such as a school ‘walk-in'; NEA provided $1.7M in funding to organization involved with training.K-12 Student Walkout and Protest Tracker

Public education is not partisan, but it is political. Politicians in the statehouse make decisions that impact Ohio's public school classrooms every day. That's why it is so important that our lawmakers hear directly from the educators who know what these policy decisions mean in our schools. Trotwood Madison Education Association President David Graham wasn't sure what to expect when he had a chance to talk to his state lawmakers the first time he joined his fellow OEA members for a Lobby Day at the statehouse. But as he tells us in this episode, he actually really enjoyed the experience, and he wants other educators to give it a try.REWIND | David Graham is no stranger to the Public Education Matters podcast. Click here to listen to an interview with him in Season 5 about learning the ropes as a new Local president and the support he received from NEA. SUBSCRIBE | Click here to subscribe to Public Education Matters on Apple Podcasts or click here to listen on Spotify so you don't miss a thing. You can also find Public Education Matters on many other platforms, including YouTube. Click here for links for other platforms so you can listen anywhere. And don't forget you can listen to all of the previous episodes anytime on your favorite podcast platform, or by clicking here.Featured Public Education Matters guest: David Graham, President, Trotwood Madison Education AssociationAn 8th grade science teacher at Trotwood Madison Middle School, David Graham is in his 18th year of teaching. He has been president of the Trotwood Madison Education Association since the 2024-2025 school year. Graham received his bachelor's degree in Middle Childhood Education from Wright State University, and later pursued a Master of Arts degree in Religion at Southern Evangelical Seminary, graduating in 2025.Connect with OEA:Email educationmatters@ohea.org with your feedback or ideas for future Public Education Matters topicsLike OEA on FacebookFollow OEA on TwitterFollow OEA on InstagramGet the latest news and statements from OEA hereLearn more about where OEA stands on the issues Keep up to date on the legislation affecting Ohio public schools and educators with OEA's Legislative WatchAbout us:The Ohio Education Association represents nearly 120,000 teachers, faculty members and support professionals who work in Ohio's schools, colleges, and universities to help improve public education and the lives of Ohio's children. OEA members provide professional services to benefit students, schools, and the public in virtually every position needed to run Ohio's schools.Public Education Matters host Katie Olmsted serves as Media Relations Consultant for the Ohio Education Association. She joined OEA in May 2020, after a ten-year career as an Emmy Award winning television reporter, anchor, and producer. Katie comes from a family of educators and is passionate about telling educators' stories and advocating for Ohio's students. She lives in Central Ohio with her husband and two young children. This episode was recorded on March 12, 2026.

Senator Adam Schnelting discusses legislation to move Missouri school board elections from April to November to increase voter participation and counter the consistent advantage of NEA-backed candidates in low-turnout races. He details the political challenges from Senate Democrats and some rural Republicans, highlights recent controversial library policies in Francis Howell schools, and emphasizes the importance of broader conservative engagement. Schnelting also touches on his Show-Me Prosperity Fund, aiming to eventually eliminate state-imposed taxes in Missouri. Hashtags: #AdamSchnelting #MissouriPolitics #SchoolBoardElections #VoterTurnout #ShowMeProsperity #MarcCox

Marc Cox opens Hour 3 with Senator Adam Schnelting discussing low April election turnout and his bill to move St. Charles County school board races to November, aiming to counter union-backed liberal candidates and increase voter representation. The conversation highlights the influence of NEA machines, rural vs. suburban perspectives, and the need for conservative engagement. Later, Kim examines a Connecticut ICU malpractice case spotlighting telehealth use in critical care, weighing staffing shortages, cost incentives, and patient safety concerns, sparking debate on the balance between technology and in-person care. Schnelting also previews his Show Me Prosperity Fund legislation to phase out state taxes for future generations, rounding out a politically and socially charged hour. Hashtags: #SchoolBoardElections #MissouriPolitics #AdamSchnelting #Telehealth #ICUSafety #ShowMeProsperityFund #HealthcareDebate #UnionInfluence

Marc Cox wraps the day with Jimmy Failla sharing comedy insights, cab-driving stories, and advice on introducing comedians ahead of his Chesterfield Factory show. Taylor Riggs breaks down the stock market's positive reaction to a tentative two-week ceasefire with Iran, oil and diesel price expectations, and investor sentiment amid Trump-era negotiations. The hour concludes with a critique of Missouri school board elections, low voter turnout, NEA influence, and deceptive initiative petition tactics, highlighting the legislative push to move municipal elections to the fall for higher participation. Hashtags: #JimmyFailla #TaylorRiggs #StockMarket #IranCeasefire #MissouriPolitics #SchoolBoardElections #ElectionStrategy #FoxBusiness

The April 8th show opens with shockwaves from St. Charles County elections, surprising school board outcomes, and one-vote races, alongside debates over Mizzou cutting DEI-style funding. Hour 2 examines local property tax battles, Jennifer Newsom controversies, and market reactions to the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, with insights from Nicole Murray. Hour 3 focuses on voter turnout, the Surgeon General nomination clash, and the Brian Noem scandal, blending serious analysis with live listener perspectives. The show closes in Hour 4 with Jimmy Failla sharing comedy wisdom for his Chesterfield Factory show, Taylor Riggs breaking down bullish market sentiment, and a deep dive into Missouri school board election tactics, NEA influence, and upcoming legislative reforms to improve turnout. Hashtags: #MarcCox #StCharlesCounty #MissouriElections #Mizzou #DEI #PropertyTax #TrumpIran #StockMarket #SchoolBoard #JimmyFailla #TaylorRiggs #ElectionTurnout #LocalPolitics #FoxBusiness #BrianNoem

Hour 4 opens with a post-election discussion of property tax outcomes and voter frustrations in St. Charles and surrounding counties. Jen Olson, whistleblower and St. Charles County Director of Elections candidate, joins to discuss the recent settlement between the Wentzville School District and the Attorney General, highlighting sunshine law violations and the perceived “slap on the wrist” for the district. The conversation shifts to Olson's vision for election transparency, including hand-counted ballots with bipartisan oversight and live video of counting tables, alongside commentary on low turnout and NEA-backed school board victories. The segment concludes with Olson promoting her upcoming Gentucky Derby event and its fundraising activities. Hashtags: #WentzvilleSchoolDistrict #SunshineLaw #JenOlson #ElectionTransparency #StCharlesCounty #PropertyTax #SchoolBoardElections #GentuckyDerby #LocalPolitics

Marc Cox talks with St. Charles School Board candidate Josh Wilcutt about his campaign priorities, including student safety, accountability, and strengthening parental involvement. Wilcutt details his personal experience with discrimination against his special-needs son, criticizes the NEA's endorsements of other candidates, and emphasizes responsible use of tax dollars. The segment also covers local property tax freezes, fire and EMS sales taxes, and broader issues like DEI policies and curriculum transparency, giving listeners a thorough look at how school board decisions affect both families and the community. Hashtags: #JoshWilcutt #StCharlesSchoolBoard #ParentalRights #NEA #EducationPolicy #PropertyTax #StudentSafety #DEI

Marc Cox celebrates the reopening of Granite City Steel's blast furnace, tying the revival to Trump-era policies and sharing a personal story about working in the steel industry that shaped his work ethic. He then dives into the April Mark Cox Voter Guide, emphasizing the importance of conservative voices in local school board elections, explaining NEA influence, and providing tools for voters to hold candidates accountable. The hour wraps with lighter “In Other News” stories, including a Southwest Airlines seating dispute, a Maryland Chick-fil-A encouraging phone-free family meals, and Passover-friendly Coca-Cola bottles. Hashtags: #GraniteCitySteel #TrumpEra #SteelIndustry #MarkCoxVoterGuide #SchoolBoardElections #NEA #ConservativeVoices #InOtherNews #ChickFilA #Passover #MarcCoxMorningShow

Marc Cox opens the show with Dan Buck filling in for Kim St. Ange, covering St. Charles County's heated council meeting and unanimous approval of an ICE cooperation agreement despite anti-ICE protests. Hour 1 shifts to Cardinals early-season optimism and the controversy surrounding Jaden Ivey's release from the Chicago Bulls for criticizing NBA Pride Month, sparking debate on religious freedom and workplace rights. Hour 2 celebrates the reopening of Granite City Steel's blast furnace, ties the revival to Trump-era policies, and walks through the April Mark Cox Voter Guide, emphasizing conservative school board races and NEA influence. Hour 3 examines NYC daycare policy with Todd Pyro, Virginia gun law changes with Louis Valdez, and continues discussion of Jaden Ivey's firing. Hour 4 focuses on St. Charles County property tax debates, featuring Steve Ehlmann defending ICE cooperation, Ryan Wiggins analyzing Florida and Missouri property tax issues, and a detailed look at Proposition RT, showing how it empowers homeowners and limits future assessment hikes. Hashtags: #MarcCoxMorningShow #DanBuck #StCharlesCounty #ICE #JadenIvey #ChicagoBulls #ReligiousFreedom #GraniteCitySteel #MarkCoxVoterGuide #SchoolBoardElections #ToddPyro #LouisValdez #VirginiaGunLaw #PropertyTaxes #PropRT #RyanWiggins #LocalPolitics #TaxPolicy

Marc Cox opens the show celebrating Illinois' dramatic March Madness comeback and highlights standout performances, while criticizing nationwide “No Kings” protests as the actions of a vocal anti-Trump minority. Hour 1 also examines Kim St. Onge's “Kim on a Whim” segment on AI, robotics, and autonomous vehicles, including companies like RobotLAB and Waymo, alongside economic and community concerns over proposed Missouri data centers and a successful BackStoppers fundraiser in Washington, Missouri. Hour 2 features Hans von Spakovsky analyzing voter ID disputes and previewing the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship case, with Nicole Murray reporting on oil price surges linked to Middle East tensions, Eli Lilly's $2.75B AI-driven drug deal, Mistral's $830M AI data center financing, PS5 and PS5 Pro price increases, and the emergence of self-driving traffic lights. Hour 3 focuses on Fort Zumwalt school board candidate Mark Pratt addressing low voter turnout and NEA endorsements, Dan Buck dissecting Charles Barkley's March Madness immigration comments, and Kim on a Whim reviewing Drusky's viral parody of Erica Kirk, all while previewing Amendment 3 and local fire and EMS ballot issues. Hour 4 features Kathryn Wagner from Her Health Her Future outlining the campaign to overturn Missouri's 2024 Amendment 3 and educate voters for November, Tom Ackerman breaking down March Madness matchups—including Michigan vs. Arizona and Illinois vs. Yukon—celebrating Cardinals rookie J.J. Weatherholt's historic first two MLB games, and assessing the St. Louis Blues' playoff push, and St. Charles County Councilman Joe Brazel discussing the ICE Memorandum of Understanding to streamline officer processing, advocating for moving school board elections to November, and emphasizing voter engagement with the Missouri Voter Guide. Hashtags: #MarcCox #IllinoisBasketball #MarchMadnessComeback #NoKingsProtests #DonaldTrump #KimOnAWhim #AI #Robotics #Waymo #RobotLAB #MissouriDataCenters #BackStoppers #VoterID #BirthrightCitizenship #OilPrices #EliLilly #PS5 #FortZumwalt #SchoolBoard #DanBuck #CharlesBarkley #EricaKirk #Amendment3 #HerHealthHerFuture #ProLifeMovement #StLouisCardinals #JJWeatherholt #StLouisBlues #StCharlesCounty #JoeBrazel #VoterGuide

Karen Palmer joins Let's Talk Memoir for a conversation about changing her identity to escape a dangerous ex-husband, being stalked, the consequences of deciding to disappear, coming to grips with the experience of domestic abuse, mistaking grief for maturity, telling a story as truthfully as possible, relinquishing a child, the long-term effect of PTSD, not ever completely knowing ourselves or others, deep truth vs. inconsequential truth, writing about ourself like we are a character, projecting a persona that isn't real, understanding the end of the story late in the writing, moving around in time without losing the reader, believing in a story and the ability to tell it, and her new memoir She's Under Here: a Love Story, a Horror Story, a Reckoning.   Also in this episode: -keeping the faith -trying a story out as fiction first -coming of age with many obstacles   Books mentioned in this episode: -In the Dream House by Carmen Maria Machado -Bluets by Maggie Nelson  -Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel    Karen Palmer's memoir She's Under Here grew out of her award-winning essay The Reader Is the Protagonist, first published in VQR and selected by Leslie Jamison for inclusion in Best American Essays 2017. She has received a Pushcart Prize and grants from the NEA and the Colorado Council on the Arts, and is the author of the novels All Saints and Border Dogs. Other work has appeared in the Kenyon Review, Arts & Letters, The Rumpus, and Kalliope. She teaches at Lighthouse Writers Workshop in Denver, CO, and lives with her husband in California.    Connect with Karen: Website: www.karenpalmer.com Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/karenpalmer.bsky.social Instagram: instagram.com/karenpalmer1989/ Facebook: facebook.com/palmer.karen She's Under Here can be purchased at:   AMAZON: https://www.amazon.com/Shes-Under-Here-Karen-Palmer/dp/1643757547?_encoding=UTF8&dib_tag=se&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.V14dH3NYK1_JGqY01snjfw.dGdXTKkQ0h0_uH68hQXjNRQ82iK7rF80ygG6EAeafQ8&qid=1759333809&sr=8-1' BOOKSHOP.ORG: https://bookshop.org/p/books/she-s-under-here-a-memoir-karen-palmer/d5c065268851768c?ean=9781643757544&next=t For a signed copy from Diesel Bookstore: https://dieselbookstore.com/book/9781643757544s Barnes & Noble: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shes-under-here-karen-palmer/1147279207?ean=9781643757544   – Ronit's writing has appeared in The Atlantic, The Rumpus, The New York Times, Poets & Writers, The Iowa Review, Hippocampus, The Washington Post, Writer's Digest, American Literary Review, and elsewhere. Her memoir WHEN SHE COMES BACK about the loss of her mother to the guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and their eventual reconciliation was named Finalist in the 2021 Housatonic Awards Awards, the 2021 Indie Excellence Awards, and was a 2021 Book Riot Best True Crime Book. Her short story collection HOME IS A MADE-UP PLACE won Hidden River Arts' 2020 Eludia Award and the 2023 Page Turner Awards for Short Stories.  She earned an MFA in Nonfiction Writing at Pacific University, is Creative Nonfiction Editor at The Citron Review, and teaches memoir through the University of Washington's Online Continuum Program and also independently. She launched Let's Talk Memoir in 2022, lives in Seattle with her family of people and dogs, and is at work on her next book.   More about Ronit: https://ronitplank.com Subscribe to Ronit's Substack: https://substack.com/@ronitplank   Follow Ronit: https://www.instagram.com/ronitplank/ https://www.facebook.com/RonitPlank https://bsky.app/profile/ronitplank.bsky.social

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, processed foods should be defended against their common portrayal as dietary villains. About 100 years ago, mass urbanization, poverty, and lack of refrigeration made fresh food scarce, expensive, and prone to spoilage or contamination in cities, leading to widespread issues like foodborne illnesses, malnutrition, and short life expectancy. Processed foods, including canning, pasteurization, and preservatives, emerged as a critical solution to feed growing populations safely and affordably, preventing starvation and reducing risks from rancid items. While some synthetic additives may have downsides, they are far safer than historical alternatives like rotten eggs or swill milk. Also, our ​military ​personnel deserve ​our ​respect ​and ​our ​gratitude. They stand ready to act on orders from President Trump to protect current and future generations from Iran. Ordinary Americans strongly support the military, unlike Marxists, Islamists, woke individuals, neo-Nazis, and isolationists. Isolationism against evils like Islamism, Communism, and fascism is suicidal. Later, decades ago Landmark Legal Foundation and other patriot lawyers litigated school choice, starting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. They represented a black liberal state representative, Polly Williams, and her constituents in the city's poorest areas, advancing an idea originated by the late Dr. Milton Friedman. The program aimed to let money follow inner-city students—primarily minority and black children—out of failing, crime-ridden, union-controlled, government-run schools to better options, including participating private schools. Despite fierce opposition from Democrats, the NEA, AFT, NAACP, and others, the effort succeeded through multiple victories at the Wisconsin Supreme Court and twice at the U.S. Supreme Court over years. These wins, achieved alongside key colleagues and heroes, established school choice as one of the greatest civil rights victories in modern times, without which it would not exist. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The National Education Association is under fire as lawmakers like Mary Miller and Buddy Carter push to revoke its unique federal charter.In this episode, I take a hard look at the NEA's growing political influence inside public schools—and what it means for parental rights, religious liberty, and academic excellence. You'll hear from whistleblower Christina Barton, a former school counselor who risked her career after raising concerns about policies that kept parents in the dark.If you care about who is shaping your child's education—and whether schools are serving families or sidelining them—this is a conversation you don't want to miss.Prime Sponsor: No matter where you live, visit the Functional Medical Institute online today to connect with Drs Mark and Michele Sherwood. Go to homeschoolhealth.com to get connected and see some of my favorites items. Use coupon code HEIDI for 20% off!Show mentions: http://heidistjohn.com/mentionsWebsite | heidistjohn.comSupport the show! | donorbox.org/donation-827Rumble | rumble.com/user/HeidiStJohnYoutube | youtube.com/@HeidiStJohnPodcastInstagram | @‌heidistjohnFacebook | Heidi St. JohnX | @‌heidistjohnFaith That Speaks Online CommunitySubmit your questions for Fan Mail Friday | heidistjohn.com/fanmailfriday

On this Friday's episode of Joe Oltmann Untamed, Joe is back and diving headfirst into the accelerating 2020 election fallout federal investigators have seized ballots from Fulton County, Georgia, after months of fierce resistance, exposing what many call a massive cover-up. Emerald Robinson dropped a bombshell: massive post-certification alterations to Dominion voting machines, including hundreds of illegal DLL files per machine, invalidating the certification process itself. Joe ties it straight to Eric Coomer, declaring he's headed to jail along with precinct facilitators and the one big cartel protecting the fraud Ruby Freeman's Obama-linked lawyer Michael Gottlieb sued investigators, and Fulton officials spent millions blocking transparency. Why fight so hard? The truth is surfacing, and consequences are coming fast.Joe welcomes election and cyber-security expert Mark Cook to unpack the raid's implications, Patrick Byrne's fresh insights on DLL problems and hard drive needs (with Tulsi Gabbard mentions), and why Fulton Commissioner Bridget Thorne admitted they've burned millions to hide ballots. From Coomer's admissions of foreign contacts to the broader cartel operations, this is the accountability moment we've waited for people must go to prison.Radical left chaos ramps up with ICE Out Friday: a national strike calls for no work, school, or shopping until "ICE terror ends," with Denver metro protests and thousands of students (pawns of NEA radicals) walking out leading Aurora Public Schools to close due to teacher absences. We play Fox's Don Lemon arrest report, expose manufactured disruptions diverting from fraud revelations, and end with a disturbing clip from a liberal influencer explaining why conservatives "need" them. Tune in truth is rising, commies are crying, and justice is rolling!

We started out the week with a powerful personal testimony of how God can rescue any life even one that is seemly deep in darkness and despair. On In The Market with Janet Parshall this week we shared one woman’s amazing story of finding her hope and faith in Jesus and how to navigate our way through the dark nights that face all of us at one time or another. Parents can not count on the schools as they did in past years. More than ever parents have to be watchful over what their kids are being exposed to in the halls of education as dangerous ideologies and those who support them are actively seeking to indoctrinate kids into followers. We had a very revealing conversation with Janet’s daughter who shared the results of a study of 700 school districts across the country, how school are getting money from outside the U.S. to push radical ideologies and why the president of the NEA is joining a “revolution group” and how that could impact what is taught in the classroom. Artificial Intelligence and its advocates continue commandeering more and more aspects of daily life. We turned to our expert on all things tech to put these changes in biblical perspective for us. He talked to us about the rise of A.I. psychosis, how the implementation of A.I. is damaging or destroying our institutional foundations and whether or not ministries should include the use of A.I. chatbots. Our guest sent out a warning call to Christian parents as he exposed how young believers are turning away from their faith as a result of what they are learning and who they are learning it from in college. He encouraged parents to start early building resilience in their kids to face both the subtle and direct challenges to their faith and how to come out this experience with their walk still intact. Janet and Craig once again invite you to join them for another important exploration of the headlines of the week as they expose them to the unflinching sunlight of God’s truth.Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partnersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of The Holy Grail of Investing Podcast, Christopher Zook and CAZ Partner, Mark Wade, sit down with serial entrepreneur Marc Lore and NEA Co-CEO Tony Florence for a dynamic conversation about reinventing one of the largest industries in the world: food. Together, they explore how Wonder—the vertically integrated food-tech company Marc built after Diapers.com and Jet.com—is transforming the way we cook, eat, and experience convenience. From engineering a kitchen that can run 30 restaurants at once to inventing new cooking processes and delivery models, Wonder represents a complete rethinking of what's possible when technology meets daily life. Marc shares his VCP framework—Vision, Capital, People—and why great founders must constantly challenge the status quo. Tony Florence offers the investor's perspective: what makes elite entrepreneurs different, how NEA evaluates massive markets, and why periods of disruption often create the best opportunities.  This conversation highlights the breakthroughs that occur when innovation, execution, and long-term thinking collide.    Learn more at https://TheHolyGrailofInvesting.com and https://CAZInvestments.com

In fewer than two dozen lines, Cyrus Cassells's poem “Jasmine” offers readers a multisensory, cinematic immersion into late spring life in Rome. Not only is the “sweet, steady broadcast” of jasmine ever-present amid “the joyous braiding of sun and rain”, but there's also Daria, a “crone-glorious” neighbor, with a story about her romance with the gallant Galliano. It's la dolce vita, without overindulgence or artifice. We invite you to subscribe to Pádraig's weekly Poetry Unbound Substack, read the Poetry Unbound books and his newest work, Kitchen Hymns, or listen to all our Poetry Unbound episodes.  Cyrus Cassells, former poet laureate of Texas, is the author of 11 books of poetry, including Is There Room for Another Horse on Your Horse Ranch? (2024), The World That the Shooter Left Us (2022), and More Than Watchmen at Daybreak (2020). Cassells's honors include the 2025 Jackson Poetry Prize from Poets & Writers, a Guggenheim fellowship, a Lambda Literary Award, a Lannan Literary Award, an NAACP Image Award nomination, a National Poetry Series selection, two NEA grants, two Pushcart Prizes, and the Poetry Society of America's William Carlos Williams Award. He is a Regents' and University Distinguished Professor of English at Texas State University.Find the transcript for this show at onbeing.org. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.