Podcasts about Nobel Prize

For a subject that won the Nobel Prize in 2012 and could be considered a scientific miracle, we surprisingly don't hear a lot about cloning today. This episode, Dr. Vilceu Bordignon joins Dr. Samantha Yammine to give us an update on where we are with the science of cloning and how that technology is moving forward. Sam also looks into some new studies that explain why some old houses feel haunted and a surprisingly eco-friendly way to deal with termites. Link to Show Notes HERE Follow Curiosity Weekly on your favorite podcast app to get smarter with Dr. Samantha Yammine — for free! Still curious? Get science shows, nature documentaries, and more real-life entertainment on discovery+! Go to https://discoveryplus.com/curiosity to start your 7-day free trial. Terms apply. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Have you ever scrolled Netflix for 25 minutes, finally picked something—and then couldn't enjoy it because you kept wondering if there was something better? Or told yourself that if you just had more time, more space, or more freedom, you'd finally write the book, start the business, or get serious about the creative work you keep putting off? We've been sold the idea that more options and more freedom make us happier and more creative. But what if the opposite is true—what if all that freedom is actually making you stay stuck? My guest is David Epstein, a New York Times bestselling author whose TED talk has been viewed more than eight million times. His new book, Inside the Box, makes the case that the limits we resent might be the very thing standing between us and our best work. Some of the things we discuss are: Why "think outside the box" is actually terrible advice—and what your brain does instead when you hand it a blank page. The reason too much freedom raises your anxiety. The jazz pianist who turned a near-disaster into the best-selling solo piano album of all time. The "satisficing" rule a Nobel Prize winner used to free up his mind—and why he owned only three sets of clothes. Why "maximizers" who hunt for the best option end up less satisfied, more regretful, and unhappier with their lives. David's simple three-letter framework (BCS) for putting useful constraints into your work and your day. The almost embarrassingly simple trick David uses to become a morning person and never skip a workout. The Therapist's Take: my three favorite strategies for using constraints to think more creatively, make faster decisions, and grow mentally stronger. Related Episodes ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 126 — Overcome Choice Overload to Make Smarter, Faster Decisions without Regret ⁠316 — How Talking to a Duck Will Solve Any Problem Fast (And Why Thinking Harder Fire Backfires) Links & Resources Inside the Box Connect with the Show Buy a copy of⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Connect with Amy on Instagram —⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@AmyMorinAuthor⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Visit my website —⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AmyMorinLCSW.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Sponsors Helix Sleep —Go to helixsleep.com/STRONGER to get 20% off sitewide   AirDoctor — Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AirDoctorPro.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and use promo code STRONGER to get UP TO $300 off today! One Skin — Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠oneskin.co/STRONGER⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and use code stronger to get up to 30% off your first 3 subscription orders Quince — Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Quince.com/stronger⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns! Flamingo — Get a $7 starter set at ⁠⁠⁠ShopFlamingo.com/STRONGER⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mentally Stronger Premium⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for exclusive content like weekly bonus episodes, mental strength challenges, and office hours with me. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Peter Diamandis has built more of the future than almost anyone alive. He founded XPRIZE. He co-founded Singularity University with Ray Kurzweil. He started Human Longevity with Craig Venter. And in his new book with Steven Kotler, We Are as Gods, he argues that artificial intelligence isn't just changing what we can do. It's changing what it means to be human. I'm not so sure. This is Peter's fifth time on Into the Impossible, and the conversation I've been waiting years to have. His thesis: AI will deliver not just intelligence at scale, but wisdom — and humanity is already crossing the threshold into godlike capability, whether we're ready or not. My pushback: an experiment one of my students and I ran shows large language models trained only on pre-1911 physics cannot reproduce what Einstein did with the same data. If wisdom were just scale, that shouldn't be true. We go after it for an hour. No hedging, no softening. What you'll hear: — Whether AGI can manufacture genuine wisdom or just better simulations of it — The pre-1911 Einstein test and what it reveals about the ceiling of current AI — The "five forks of humanity": longevity, BCI, off-planet speciation, creators vs. consumers, and uploading — What happens to human purpose when scarcity disappears — Why Peter thinks India dominates the next twenty years of science and technology — Peter's Fermi paradox theory and why he thinks we may be someone else's biosphere experiment — The Future Vision XPRIZE and how dystopian training data may be making AI more dangerous — David Sinclair's epigenetic age-reversal trials, now underway in human eyes Peter says what you did between breakfast and dinner would be godlike to your grandparents. We just stopped noticing. Subscribe if you want science with evidence, not speculation. CHAPTERS 00:00 Diamandis: AGI will generate wisdom by simulating billions of outcomes 04:07 Brian's counterargument: wisdom requires embodiment, not just simulation 07:07 The GPU + LLM architecture may already be a local maximum 09:48 AI is outpacing most math PhDs but the ceiling is still unknown 15:30 Diamandis fires back at the doomers 17:59 AI will eventually untangle the legal systems blocking the future 23:18 The Singularity has religious qualities and both hosts take that seriously 29:37 Post-scarcity splits humanity into creators and consumers 36:08 Peter's Fermi paradox theory: we may be someone else's biosphere experiment 43:07 Dystopian AI training data may be causing misalignment 51:46 Human trials are underway for epigenetic eye age reversal ——— Get the transcript, fascinating bonus content, and my Monday M.A.G.I.C. Message: https://briankeating.com/yt Have a .edu email and live in the USA? You automatically win a meteorite: https://BrianKeating.com/edu Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 Support Into the Impossible on Patreon — get my weekly M.A.G.I.C. Message, unfiltered bonus content, and live monthly Office Hours with me: https://www.patreon.com/drbriankeating Join this channel for perks, monthly Office Hours, and your name in the Member Roster at the end of every episode: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join My books: Losing the Nobel Prize (memoir): http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/hi50U9U Galileo's Dialogue (first-ever audiobook): https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un More: Peter Diamandis Moonshots Podcast: https://www.diamandis.com/podcast Peter Diamandis Substack: https://metatrends.substack.com/ Future Vision XPRIZE: https://futurevisionxprize.com/ Book We Are as Gods: https://a.co/d/0bfz2pBo Peter Diamandis YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@peterdiamandis Follow Peter on X: https://x.com/PeterDiamandis Twitter/X: https://x.com/BrianKeating Substack: https://briankeating.substack.com Blog: https://briankeating.com/blog Audio-only: https://briankeating.com/podcast #intotheimpossible #briankeating #science #physics #astronomy #cosmology #podcast #universe #peterdiamandis #ai #agi #singularity #abundance #longevity Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Don and Tom tackle some of the most common retirement planning mistakes, with a particular focus on taxes and the danger of becoming overly obsessed with them. They discuss taxable Social Security benefits, the importance of diversifying across account types, Roth conversion considerations, tax-loss harvesting, and why most retirement decisions ultimately fall into the category of “it depends.” They also answer a listener question about navigating poor 403(b) plan options and the advantages of a 457 plan for educators. Finally, they dive deep into a thoughtful challenge from a listener regarding Avantis and Dimensional factor funds versus traditional Vanguard index funds, examining the evidence for factor tilts, the role of risk premiums, costs, and whether higher expected returns justify modestly higher expense ratios.0:05 Retirement planning mistakes, taxes, retirement income, financial independence, retirement readiness1:58 Tax obsession, retirement taxes, income planning, financial priorities, wealth management2:43 Social Security taxation, taxable benefits, retirement income, Social Security myths, tax planning5:14 Tax diversification, traditional 401(k), Roth accounts, brokerage accounts, retirement savings7:57 Roth IRA, young investors, compound growth, retirement investing, tax-free income9:11 Tax-loss harvesting, brokerage accounts, capital gains, tax strategy, investment management10:03 Roth conversions, Medicare IRMAA, retirement taxes, financial planning, tax efficiency12:03 Inherited IRAs, heirs, estate planning, retirement accounts, legacy planning13:35 403(b) plans, 457 plans, retirement savings, school employees, listener question15:29 403(b) Wise, 457B Wiser, educator retirement plans, high fees, retirement options18:35 Roth IRA investing, small-cap funds, emerging markets, diversification, asset allocation19:38 Avantis funds, Dimensional funds, Vanguard funds, factor investing, index investing23:55 Fama-French research, small-value premium, indexing, active management, factor premiums26:08 Rules-based investing, passive investing, factor tilts, portfolio construction, diversification27:02 Small-cap value investing, fund performance, index comparisons, advisor value, investment returns30:25 International small value, emerging markets, factor premiums, diversification, expected returns32:55 Academic investing research, Nobel Prize economics, risk premiums, value investing, factor investing35:18 Portfolio construction, asset allocation, diversification, retirement planning, investment strategy36:16 Free portfolio review, financial advice, portfolio allocation, retirement readiness, fiduciary planningQuestions? Comments? Click!

Sebastian Mallaby spent three years and 30+ hours interviewing Demis Hassabis in the back of a British pub to write The Infinity Machine, and the conversation uses that reporting to surface the most underexplored figure in AI. Demis founded the original AI lab in 2010, won a Nobel Prize, runs models that consistently top the leaderboards, and yet remains so unrecognized that Sebastian's own publisher worried no one would buy a book with his face on the cover.  The throughline is a paradox: Demis tried to prevent the AI race we're now all living through, and now finds himself one of its central protagonists. He used to believe a single lab could carry the safety burden to AGI; he now sees safety as a collective action problem only governments can solve. He hedged DeepMind's research bets across every promising direction, and as a result missed the two most consumer-defining moments in modern AI — ChatGPT and Claude Code. He nearly spun DeepMind out of Google with a secret $1B Reid Hoffman pledge backing him, but never used the leverage and stayed — and won a Nobel Prize the next year. The episode also zooms out to the structural forces shaping the race — why hyperscalers can't out-recruit concentrated-bet labs, why Sebastian gives OpenAI roughly 50/50 odds of being absorbed by next summer, why he thinks Anthropic should IPO right now, and what the personal histories between Demis, Elon, and Sam reveal about who actually trusts whom.   (0:00) Intro (2:04) Was the AI Race Inevitable? (4:03) The 2015 Safety Summit Backfire (7:15) Can Governments Actually Fix This? (9:26) How the World Misread DeepMind (11:27) Why Google Never Makes the Concentrated Bet (15:51) Project Mario: The Secret Spinout Plan (19:43) What Demis Actually Regrets (23:46) Venture Startups vs. Tech Behemoths (27:50) Controlling the Narrative (30:40) The Talent War and Hiring Brand (34:08) David Silver and the RL True Believers (38:21) Demis, Elon, and the Evil Genius Feud (42:39) Great Man Theory vs. Inevitability (45:00) What Demis Didn't Want Published With your host: @jacobeffron - Managing Director at Redpoint

An astrophysicist and founder of Reasons to Believe argues the universe looks increasingly designed for life — while a cosmologist challenges whether fine-tuning proves anything at all. If we're alone in the cosmos, the implications are staggering. If we're not, it could change science, religion, and humanity's future forever. Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist, founder of Reasons to Believe, and author focused on the intersection of science and faith. We cover: - Why the search for extraterrestrial life may be making Earth look more unique - Whether fine-tuning points to a Creator or a multiverse - What happens if AI becomes the dominant intelligence in the universe - Why scientists increasingly believe intelligent aliens exist despite lacking evidence - The cosmic time windows that make human existence possible Can hope survive in a universe that eventually dies? Timestamps: 00:00 Why Are We Here at All? 10:44 Is the Universe Designed to Kill Us? 20:25 The Evidence That Humans Are Different 29:42 Why Scientists Still Believe in Aliens 40:08 The 25 Conditions Life Needs to Exist 49:42 Does Fine-Tuning Prove a Creator? 55:37 Could an Alien Have a Soul? 1:03:26 What Happens After This Universe Ends? 1:05:59 Do Parallel Universes Solve Anything? 1:12:09 Will AI Replace Humanity First? 1:17:55 The Strongest Case Against Fine-Tuning 1:24:00 Would You Baptize an Alien? ———

Is AI the biggest scam of our generation — or the most misunderstood technology in history? Cognitive scientist Gary Marcus has been studying artificial intelligence for over 30 years, and what he has to say will make you question everything you thought you knew about ChatGPT, AGI, and the trillion dollar AI gold rush.In this episode of SparX, we are talking with Gary Marcus – professor, author, and one of the most respected and fiercely independent voices in AI research – about why the promises being made by Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Elon Musk may be leading the global economy toward a catastrophic miscalculation.

AI, Talent and the Future of Europe: Why Universities Matter More Than Ever As AI reshapes jobs, health and society, University of Luxembourg Rector Jens Kreisel explains why universities matter more than ever. The future belongs to people who can learn, adapt and think critically. That was the central message from University of Luxembourg Rector Jens Kreisel when he joined The Lisa Burke Show for a wide-ranging conversation on artificial intelligence, education and Europe's future. As AI transforms almost every aspect of life, Kreisel argues that universities have never been more important. Their role extends far beyond delivering degrees. They educate future generations, drive research and innovation, connect knowledge with society and increasingly provide lifelong learning for people whose careers will evolve multiple times throughout their lives. "The future challenge is not knowledge alone," he suggests, "but wisdom, ethics and contextualisation." One of the most striking revelations concerns Luxembourg itself. The University of Luxembourg attracts students from more than 100 nationalities and retains around 70% of its graduates after they finish their studies. In a country facing the same demographic challenges as much of Europe, the university has become a powerful engine for attracting and retaining global talent. "We bring them in, and Luxembourg makes them stay." The discussion also explored AI's extraordinary potential in medicine and biology. Kreisel points to breakthroughs such as Nobel Prize-winning AI systems that can predict protein structures at unprecedented speed, potentially accelerating drug discovery and transforming healthcare. Yet he warns that AI also raises profound questions around trust, manipulation, democracy and truth. As machines become more persuasive, the ability to question information may become humanity's most valuable skill. "Universities are not just educating students - they are shaping the future of a country." That is why Kreisel believes the humanities are becoming more important, not less. Historians, philosophers and social scientists are trained to analyse sources, understand context and challenge assumptions: skills that may prove essential in an age of synthetic media, misinformation and algorithmic influence. "Welcome to the club," one historian told university leaders when ChatGPT emerged. "We've been questioning sources for 400 years." "The ability to question information may become humanity's most valuable skill. Humanities may become more important, not less, in the age of AI." Ultimately, Kreisel believes the university of the future must combine deep expertise with intellectual curiosity across disciplines. In a world where careers are no longer linear and technologies evolve at digital speed, success will belong not simply to those who know the most, but to those who know how to learn, think and adapt. For Luxembourg, Europe and the next generation, that may be the most important lesson of all. "Success will belong not to those who know the most, but to those who know how to learn."

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Kara speaks with journalist and author Sebastian Mallaby about his new book, "The Infinity Machine," and its central figure: Demis Hassabis, the CEO and co-founder of Google's AI research lab, DeepMind, and a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry.   Sebastian argues that Hassabis is one of the original scientist-entrepreneurs of modern AI. And although he's extremely competitive and research-driven, Sebastian says Hassabis is also one of the few big names in AI development who genuinely cares about public safety. However, despite his best intentions, Hassabis doesn't have the power to change the race dynamic driving AI's rapid, and potentially unsafe, development. Kara and Sebastian break down DeepMind's relationship with Google, the push toward artificial general intelligence, and whether the government can regulate the technology before something goes wrong.  Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How did a teenage video game designer from London become a Nobel Prize-winning scientist behind one of the most consequential technology efforts in history? Sebastian Mallaby is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the new book, The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence which provides an in-depth look into one of the greatest minds behind artificial general intelligence. In this episode, Sebastian and Greg discuss how Hassabis's early immersion in game design and neuroscience shaped his unique approach to artificial intelligence, why groundbreaking science is increasingly happening outside academia, and the tension between scientific discovery and corporate strategy.  *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.* Episode Quotes: Why AI is becoming an ‘infinity machine' 03:01: It struck me that two breakthroughs in AI pointed to more to come. And these were AlphaGo and then AlphaFold. And what these two things had in common was—you had a sort of massive combinatorial space in both cases. So with Go, because it's a nineteen-by-nineteen board, the very first move, there's three hundred and sixty-one choices, then there's three-sixty for the second one. If you multiply that out, you pretty soon get to a search space which is sort of, you know, approaching infinity in terms of the number of possible permutations in the game. And with proteins, the way they can fold is even bigger. And so in both of these challenges, effectively, you have a machine that can make sense of near infinity of data, so an infinity machine. And once you have that, I figured, well, it's niche for the moment, but it may not stay niche forever. The “Third Way” that helped Google overcome the innovator's dilemma 44:06: The third way is you have a skunkworks, like DeepMind in London, which is a separate entity, and you're letting them kind of be the new policy in waiting, like the fightback policy in waiting. And you don't activate it. But when the moment comes when your competitor embraces the new technology, and you're in danger of falling foul of the innovator's dilemma, then you've got the answer because you've been keeping it ready, and you bring it in, and then you fight back fast. How DeepMind helped Google catch up in the AI race 42:54: How did they, in the space of two and a half years, go from the merger announcement to Gemini 3.0, which was better than the ChatGPT rivals? The key to it is that DeepMind had that top-down strike-team methodology, which came from the video game development world, and they imposed that on the Mountain View team, which was much more bottom-up and kind of inchoate in the research process. And that's what generated Gemini 3.0. That's how they got ahead. Show Links: Recommended Resources: Sebastian Mallaby | unSILOed AlphaGo AlphaFold Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter Geoffrey Hinton Mustafa Suleyman Guest Profile: Senior Fellow Profile at Council on Foreign Relations Professional Profile on LinkedIn Guest Work: The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence  The Power Law: Venture Capital and the Making of the New Future  More Money Than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite  The Man Who Knew: The Life and Times of Alan Greenspan Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Every year, dozens of communities from across the country compete for the prestigious All-America City Award, presented by the National Civic League. George Gallup, founder of the Gallup Poll, once called it the “Nobel Prize for constructive citizenship.”

An experimental cosmologist with 35 years of CMB research breaks down the curvature tension — and why the viral claim that "everything we know about cosmology is wrong" doesn't survive contact with the actual data. Subscribe if you want science with evidence, not speculation. Dr. Brian Keating is Chancellor's Distinguished Professor of Physics at UC San Diego and one of the leading experimental cosmologists working on the cosmic microwave background. He has spent three decades on experiments including BICEP, BICEP2, the Simons Array, and the Simons Observatory — the same data ecosystem at the center of this debate. We cover: why a statistical preference in one dataset is not the same as a discovery, what Planck actually measured and what its curvature signal does and doesn't mean, why combining CMB data with baryon acoustic oscillations changes the picture, the difference between geometry and topology that most explainers skip, and why science communicators who sensationalize real tensions do more damage than they realize. A clickable title and a photogenic host are not the same thing as a careful inference from the data. Key Takeaways: 00:00 A flat universe means the angles of any triangle in space sum to exactly 180° 02:10 Zero curvature is a unique number — it demands explanation, which is part of why inflation matters 04:45 Geometry describes how space behaves at scale; topology is a separate question most explainers conflate 07:30 Planck's curvature preference appears in some analyses — it is real, but it is also model-sensitive 10:00 A statistical preference within one dataset is not a confirmed result 12:20 Parameter degeneracy means changing one cosmological knob shifts others — results are not isolated 14:40 When Planck data is combined with baryon acoustic oscillation data, the case for curvature weakens 17:00 The honest summary: the curvature tension is worth watching, but nowhere near decisive 18:30 Sensationalizing legitimate tensions trains the public to think science only matters when it's exploding ———

Nobel Prize-winning economist Alvin E. Roth discusses the moral limits of markets, how bans create black markets, and why harm reduction often works better than prohibition.

This isn't a conversation about supplements. It's a conversation about energy, clarity, and coming back to life.If you're exhausted, foggy, depleted, or wondering if this is simply what midlife feels like now... this conversation matters.Because I was there too.When I first met Chris Burris, chief scientist and founder of My Vital C, I was still deep in the grief portal, hormonal repair, and a heaviness I didn't have language for yet.And then something began to change.Not overnight. Not magically. But because I was introduced to something that works at the level of the mitochondria, the energy systems inside the body that impact everything from mental clarity and nervous system regulation to sleep, inflammation, vitality, and resilience.Chris has been manufacturing the C60 molecule commercially since 1991, five years before the scientists who discovered it won the Nobel Prize. What began as a scientific pursuit eventually evolved into a wellness breakthrough now getting attention from some of the most trusted voices in biohacking and longevity.But what matters most to me is this: I felt the difference.And then I watched nine women on my retreat feel it too. Three days in, every single one of them noticed a shift. More clarity. More presence. More energy. Better sleep. Less fog. Feeling more like themselves.That's when I knew I needed to bring Chris onto Fire and Soul.In This EpisodeWhy so many women in midlife feel foggy, depleted, and exhaustedThe hidden role mitochondria play in energy, sleep, focus, and resilienceChris's BOSS Theory and how stressed mitochondria impact the whole bodyWhy you take it in the morning and often sleep better at nightThe retreat experience that made me pay attentionSkin changes, energy shifts, and the three-month arc many people experiencePets, longevity research, and the surprising breadth of testimonialsWhat it feels like to finally come back online after depletionAbout Chris BurresChris Burres is the chief scientist and founder of My Vital C and has been manufacturing the C60 molecule commercially since 1991. He's a published author, longevity researcher, and one of the longest-standing manufacturers of this molecule in the world. Find him at myvitalc.com.ResourcesGet My Vital C with Michelle's discount here.Chris's book Live Longer and Better is available on Amazon. Signed copies are available through the landing page, and 100% of the signature proceeds support Operation Underground Railroad.Work with meVisit michelle-sorro.com to explore everything available and find what's right for you right now.Let's connect Instagram: @michellesorro Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Show Notes: Peter Schmidt talks about his senior year during the Iraq War, and how the news on the problem of jobless recovery led him to consider graduate school.  The Journey from Student to Dean Peter studied biomechanics at Cornell, focusing on the mathematics of biological systems and modeling clinical trials in orthopedics. He was admitted into  a fellowship program in New York at an orthopedic  hospital where he worked on total joint replacement.  His career path led him to neuroscience, where he led clinical research and worked for a nonprofit before becoming the vice dean of a medical school. He then moved on to running clinical trials and drug development.  A Focus on Parkinson's Disease Pete shares his interest in Parkinson's disease and explains that Parkinson's affects a tractable part of the brain, the basal ganglia, which is easier to model mathematically. He enjoys thinking about neuronal signaling and the microstructure of the brain, which helps in understanding the macro structure. Pete's PhD work involved modeling bone at the cellular level, and he applies similar thinking to the basal ganglia in Parkinson's disease. Research on Neurodegenerative Diseases Pete discusses the challenges in determining whether a question in neurodegenerative diseases is a question of science or engineering. He explains the historical focus on stem cells and extracellular proteins as solutions for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Pete emphasizes the need to understand the role of extracellular proteins and the importance of scientific inquiry. He mentions the Nobel Prize-winning discovery of prion diseases and the subsequent focus on characteristic proteins in neurodegenerative diseases, which led to initiatives focused on proteins.  The Brain's Micro and Macro Structures Pete discusses the current focus on extracellular proteins and the challenges in proving their role in diseases like Parkinson's. He mentions the drug Lecanemab for Alzheimer's, which slows the disease but does not reverse it. Pete predicts that future research will focus on intracellular proteins and the need to restore lost cells in the brain. He highlights the importance of understanding the microstructure to inform the macro structure of the brain. The Logistics of Running Clinical Trials Pete explains that success in clinical trials is more about logistics than science, with 90-95% of the work being logistical. He discusses the challenges of recruiting subjects and the importance of working with academic medical centers that have a high volume of patients. Pete emphasizes the need for fast-moving ethics boards and efficient contracting to ensure the success of clinical trials. Incentives for Physicians When asked about the incentives for physicians to participate in clinical trials, Pete explains that most physicians are driven by scientific interest rather than financial incentives. He mentions the importance of academic leaders who can influence the participation of residents and fellows in trials. Pete highlights the passion of physicians in diseases like Huntington's and cystic fibrosis, which drives their engagement in research. The Role of Pharma Companies in Clinical Trials Pete talks about his role at East Carolina University where he oversaw clinical care and research at the medical school. He discusses the changing role of pharma companies in running clinical trials. He explains that many drugs are now discovered in labs, leading to a shift in the need for pharma companies to own their data. Pete mentions the issue of trial fraud, where fake patients are used to inflate data, and the importance of tighter control over trial data. He shares his experience of rescuing a trial from fraudulent data and the challenges of identifying such issues. Life on the Family Farm The conversation turns to Pete's family life, and Pete shares that his youngest child recently went to college, and he inherited a family farm that has been in his wife's family for 200 years. He enjoys working with his hands, doing woodworking, and using a skid steer for various tasks on the farm. Pete describes his role as the farm handyman, fixing things and maintaining the farm equipment. Harvard Reflections Pete mentions taking a quantum mechanics course and a material science class with X-ray interferometry. He highlights the impact of a physics class on fits and tolerances, which taught him about the importance of clearance and interference fits. Pete also shares his experience taking a folklore course with his roommate, which was his only pass/fail course at Harvard.  Pete explains the concept of fits and tolerances in engineering. He discusses the importance of understanding whether a fit needs to be tight or loose and planning accordingly. Pete uses examples from finance to illustrate the principle of having a cushion in budgeting. He emphasizes the need to know the target fit (tight or loose) to optimize engineering and design solutions. This episode on The 92 Report:https://92report.com/podcast/168-peter-schmidt-from-math-to-neuroscience/ Timestamps: 02:40: A focus on Parkinson's Disease  05:10: Challenges in Neurodegenerative Disease Research 09:50: The Role of Extracellular Proteins and Future Directions  17:34: Running Clinical Trials and Logistics  27:58: Incentives for Physicians to Participate in Clinical Trials  32:16: Pharma Companies and Clinical Trial Data  38:53: Personal Life and Farming  42:30: Reflections on Harvard Courses 46:23: Fits and Tolerances in Engineering  Links: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pnschmidt https://www.instagram.com/pnschmidt  

What if aging isn't just something that happens to us… but something we can influence?In this episode, Chris Burres joins me to explore the science of longevity, mitochondrial health, oxidative stress, and what it really means to live longer and better.Chris is the founder and chief scientist at MyVitalC and has spent decades researching ESS60, a Nobel Prize-winning carbon molecule connected to one of the most significant longevity studies ever recorded in mammals. He is also a published author, host of the Uncovering the Secrets to Longevity Health Summit, a podcast host, patent holder and master of comedy improv. He is the intersection where science meets laughter and his life's mission is to help people live longer, healthier, happier, pain-free lives with science.Together, we unpack:What ESS60 is and why it's gaining attention in longevity scienceThe difference between lifespan and healthspanHow oxidative stress impacts agingWhy mitochondria are central to energy and vitalityThe role of inflammation in long-term healthPractical ways to support healthy agingThis is a fascinating conversation that blends science, curiosity, and practical insight into what may help us age with greater resilience and vitality.Find Chris Here:myvitalc.com/x.com/myvitalcinstagram.com/myvitalc/facebook.com/myvitalcyoutube.com/myvitalctiktok.com/@myvitalcBook:Live Longer and Better: Your Journey to Living Longer and Better Has Never Been More Achievable Than Today - https://www.amazon.com/Live-Longer-Better-Journey-Achievable/dp/B0CFCPVVH3Products:Special coupon code for $30 off an initial order of ESS60 for listeners:www.myvitalc.com/avoicebeyondMyVitalC ESS60: www.myvitalc.com/pages/ess60-olive-oilAll Supplements: www.myvitalc.com/Find Marisa online:Website: https://drmarisaleenaismith.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drmarisaleenaismith/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drmarisaleenaismith/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/marisa.lee.12YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@avoiceandbeyond3519/videosResources:MLN Coaching Program: https://drmarisaleenaismith.com/mentoring/Schedule a Free Clarity Call: https://calendly.com/info-56015/discovery Gratitude Journal: https://drmarisaleenaismith.com/product/in-gratitude-my-daily-self-journal/Download your eBook: Thriving in a Creative Industry: https://drmarisaleenaismith.com/product/ebook-thriving-in-a-creative-industry-dr-marisa-lee-naismith/Like this episode? Please leave a review here - even one sentence helps! ...

Today on The Gist, the upcoming Enhanced Games are analyzed not as an ethical crisis, but as a weak, corporate-sponsored satire of athletic boundaries. Then, Nobel Prize-winning economist Alvin Roth joins the show to discuss his book Moral Economics: From Prostitution to Organ Sales, What Controversial Transactions Reveal About How Markets Work. He maps out the baseline difference between evolutionary disgust and social repugnance, diving into historic natural experiments, including Rhode Island's accidental legalization of indoor prostitution and the downstream legalities of international surrogacy, to reveal the real-world trade-offs of market bans. Finally, in the spiel, the latest legislative chaos out of Washington is unpacked, showing how the constant breaking of institutional norms has simply become par for the course. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠sales@amplitudemediapartners.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What if the most important thing happening inside your body right now isn't a hormone, a supplement, or a nutrient — but something you've been completely ignoring?This week, I sat down with Dr. Ali Asadi, Chief Innovation Officer at TAM Global and a double PhD chemist who spent nearly a decade at Illumina — the world's largest genomics company — before joining the frontier of cancer and stem cell medicine. Trained at the Scripps Research Institute, an institute home to six Nobel Prize winners, Dr. Ali is one of those rare scientists who can make molecular chemistry feel like poetry.Here's what blew my mind: the weakest force in nature — hydrogen bonding — is what holds your DNA together. What shapes every protein in your body. What makes life on this planet possible at all. And without water, none of it happens. Water isn't the backdrop to biology. It is biology.He also dropped something the protein industry doesn't want you to hear: you cannot efficiently build muscle from a protein supplement if that protein isn't wrapped in lipids — because that's how nature packages it. Strip out the phospholipids, strip out the bioavailability.And then there's this: the water in your glass arrived on Earth from asteroids. It is billions of years old. Every sip is the history of the universe.We also got into TAM Global's personalized cancer vaccines — designed from each patient's own genomic signature — and their emerging molecular diagnostic for autism. This conversation will change how you think about water, about your biology, and about what it means to be alive.What we talk about:Why water breaks the laws of chemistry — and why that's the exact reason life exists on this planetThe weakest force in nature is what holds your DNA, proteins, and every cell structure togetherWhy drinking protein shakes without proper lipid encapsulation is largely wasted effortHow slightly alkaline water connects to what your evolutionary biology was designed to drinkWhy every sip of water is literally billions of years of cosmic history arriving from asteroidsWhat TAM Global is building with personalized cancer vaccines designed from your own DNAA molecular fingerprint for autism that could transform diagnosis from behavioral to biologicalListen now on all platforms: Hydrate With Tracy Duhs.Episode Links & Resources:Website: The Tam Center - https://thetamcenter.com | CPI Stem Cells - https://cellularperformanceinstitute.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nanoaliInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thetamcenter/Connect with Tracy:Website: ⁠https://tracyduhs.com/⁠Hydration Shop: ⁠https://sanctuarysd.com/⁠Instagram: ⁠@tracyduhs⁠Flow FAM Community: ⁠https://tracyduhs.com/join-flow-fam/⁠

Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, the first person to win two Nobel Prizes, and is still the only person to win Nobels in two separate disciplines. She continues to inspire women in science even today. Visit the ⁠⁠⁠⁠website⁠⁠⁠⁠ (herhalfofhistory.com) for sources, transcripts, and pictures. Sign up for the newsletter On This Day in Women's History, available on Patreon or Substack. There are free options in both places. This show survives on the support of listeners like you. Support the show on my ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon page⁠⁠⁠ (https://www.patreon.com/user?u=83998235) for ad-free episodes, bonus episodes, and polls. Or make a one-time donation on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Me a Coffee⁠⁠. Your support helps me keep bring the stories of past women into the present. Join ⁠⁠⁠Into History⁠⁠⁠ for a community of ad-free history podcasts plus bonus content. Visit ⁠⁠⁠Evergreen Podcasts⁠⁠⁠ to listen to more great shows. Follow me on ⁠⁠⁠Threads⁠⁠⁠ as Her Half of History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if your skin could literally rebuild itself from the inside out? In this episode, we break down one of the most powerful and misunderstood biological processes in the human body: autophagy.From its Nobel Prize-winning discovery to the molecular machinery that drives it, we walk you through exactly what autophagy is, how it works at the cellular level, and why it matters far more than most people realize for skin aging.We explore the two master switches that control autophagy, mTOR and AMPK, and how the constant tug of war between them determines whether your cells are in build mode or cleanup mode. We also explain why most people in the modern world are stuck in permanent mTOR activation, and what that means for how their skin ages over time.This is Part 1 of our deep dive. In Part 2, we go skin-specific and break down exactly how autophagy renews your skin at the tissue level.What's Discussed:(0:19) The "phoenix process": the cellular mechanism rebuilding your skin from the inside out(3:14) What autophagy actually means, and why the science world ignored it for 30 years(4:47) How baker's yeast cracked the code that won the 2016 Nobel Prize(7:14) Inside a single skin cell: the step-by-step breakdown of how autophagy actually works(10:22) Why autophagy is not destruction, and what this means for your collagen supplements(16:44) The two master switches controlling whether your cells build or clean(20:10) The everyday habit silencing your body's most powerful anti-aging system(26:17) Why aging skin isn't broken, it has just never been told to cleanResources Mentioned:Biohacking Beauty Podcast: Ben Azadi: Why 93% of Americans Are Aging Too Fast + What to Do About It: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ben-azadiFind more from Young Goose:Use code PODCAST10 to get 10% OFF your first purchase, and if you're a returning customer use the code PODCAST5 to get 5% OFF at younggoose.comInstagram: @young_goose_skincare

A kidney transplant does not work like buying a gallon of milk. Neither does hiring or getting into a medical residency. In these markets, both sides care deeply about who they end up with, and a good outcome depends on more than money. Alvin Roth has spent his career studying what makes those systems succeed or fail. His work designing kidney exchange programs showed that even when people desperately want to help each other, the market can still break down unless the rules create the right kind of match. In this episode, Dart and Al discuss matching markets, moral economics, and the hidden rules that shape opportunity, fairness, and work itself.Alvin Roth is an economist and professor at Stanford University best known for his work on market design and matching theory. He received the 2012 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on stable matching and the design of markets used in medical residencies, school choice, and kidney exchange.In this episode, Dart and Al discuss:- Why some markets depend on matching- Why fit matters more than money- What makes a market stable- Why real markets are messy- The difference between theory and engineering- What “repugnant transactions” are- Why societies ban some exchanges- How social norms shape markets- Why work is also a matching problem- And other topics…Alvin Roth is the Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics at Stanford University and recipient of the 2012 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, awarded with Lloyd Shapley for the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design. His work has helped design matching systems for medical residencies, public school admissions, and kidney exchange programs. He is the author of Who Gets What — and Why and Moral Economics: Why Good and Bad Markets Exist.Resources Mentioned:Al's Book, Moral Economics: Why Good and Bad Markets Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Economics-Good-Markets-Exist/dp/1324076445Al's Book, Who Gets What — and Why: https://www.amazon.com/Who-Gets-What-Why-Matchmaking/dp/0544705299Connect with Al:Stanford profile: https://profiles.stanford.edu/alvin-rothMarket Design Blog: https://marketdesigner.blogspot.com/Work with Dart:Dart is the CEO and co-founder of the work design firm 11fold. Build work that makes employees feel alive, connected to their work, and focused on what's most important to the business. Book a call at 11fold.com.

Demis Hassabis is an artificial intelligence researcher, scientist, and entrepreneur.  In 2010, he co-founded DeepMind, an AI research lab which is now part of Google. In 2024, Hassabis won a Nobel Prize for using AI to predict the 3D structure of proteins, critical for disease understanding and drug discovery.  He was also awarded a knighthood that year by King Charles III.On April 20, 2026, Sir Demis Hassabis came to the Sydney Goldstein Theater in San Francisco to talk with author Sebastian Mallaby, who recently published a book about Hassabis's work, The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence.  The two were interviewed on stage by journalist Emily Chang.

Psychiatrist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient for the prevention of nuclear war, Dr Henry Abraham, joins Anthony Davis to warn of the risk of Donald Trump being in charge of America's nuclear arsenal, and how his deteriorating mental health and penchant for violence is a grave risk to humanity - only on The Weekend Show. More from Dr Henry Abraham at: https://substack.com/@henryabrahammd Independent media has never been more important. Please support this channel by subscribing here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g?sub_confirmation=1 Join this channel with a membership for exclusive early access and bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g/join Five Minute News is an Evergreen Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential news for the US and across the world. Visit us online at http://www.fiveminute.news Follow us on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/fiveminutenews.bsky.social Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/fiveminnews Support us on Patreon http://www.patreon.com/fiveminutenews You can subscribe to Five Minute News with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker, or enable Five Minute News as your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing skill. CONTENT DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed on this channel are those of the guests and authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Anthony Davis or Five Minute News LLC. Any content provided by our hosts, guests or authors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything, in line with the First Amendment right to free and protected speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The AI theorist who thinks consciousness is a software agent — and that God, AGI, and the apocalypse are all pointing at the same thing. What you think is "the world" isn't outside you. It's a simulation your brain produces, and the self that experiences it may not exist in the way you think it does.J oscha Bach is an AI researcher and cognitive scientist whose work sits at the intersection of computation, consciousness, and the architecture of the mind. He's one of the few thinkers willing to explain what experience actually is in mechanistic terms — without retreating to mysticism or handwaving. We cover: -why the world you perceive is a model your brain generates — not the physical world itself -what's actually wrong with Roger Penrose's quantum consciousness theory -why simulating a connectome won't produce behavior -what neuroscience is still missing; whether AGI is possible on current hardware -how religion functions as an operating system for civilizations -why atheists like Sam Harris may be more Protestant than they realize The self is not the substrate. You are not your neurons — you're the pattern running on them. KEY TAKEAWAYS 00:00 You Don't Live in the World — It Lives in You 10:05 Why Scientists Refuse to Explain Reality 14:50 Where Joscha Disagrees with David Deutsch 21:10 What Would a Truly Intelligent Machine Actually Do? 25:00 Why Chess Destroys Good Minds30:40 Can You Upload a Brain? What Neuroscience Gets Wrong 38:45 Why Einstein Needed a Body to Discover Relativity 46:00 AI Companies as Prophets of the New Religion 50:10 You Don't Die Because You Were Never Really Alive 57:50 Religion as a Civilizational Operating System 1:04:00 What the Torah Knew That Sam Harris Doesn't 1:12:00 What Is God, Actually? 1:18:00 What Bach University Would Teach 1:27:50 Confronting Your Own Death ———

Send us Fan MailChris Burres is a published author, host of the Uncovering the Secrets to Longevity Health Summit, podcast host, and patent holder with a surprising twist- he's not just a visionary scientist, but also a master of comedy improv!Chris Burres is the founder and chief scientist at My Vital C, where he manufactures a Nobel Prize winning molecule responsible for the single longest longevity experimental result in history, a full 90% of extension of life in animals.He is the intersection where science meets laughter, and his life mission is to help people live longer, healthier, happier, pain free lives with science. Aging is often seen as an unavoidable decline. But modern science tells a different story. The way we age is driven by biological processes happening deep inside our cells, processes that can be influenced by how we live.Chris is the author of several books, including Live Longer and Better: Your Journey to Living Longer and Better Has Never Been More Achievable Than Today, and his latest book, The Longevity Molecule: The Secret to Doubling Lifespan to 152 Years (and Beyond).He is also the host of the incredibly successful Beyond The Norms podcast, which I was recently honored to be hosted on.Find Chris Burres at-https://www.myvitalc.com/boundlessbodyFind Boundless Body at-myboundlessbody.comBook a session with us here! 

Most of us are unknowingly wasting hours each day that could fuel creativity, improve focus, and boost productivity. But what if the secret to achieving more isn’t working harder, it’s learning how to rest better? In this insightful episode, bestselling author and future-of-work expert Alex Soojung-Kim Pang shares how intentional rest can become a powerful tool for creativity, performance, and well-being. Drawing on research from elite athletes, Nobel Prize winners, and high performers, Alex explores how practices like microbreaks, physical activity, deep play, and shorter workweeks can help unlock better thinking and sustainable productivity. This conversation offers practical ways to integrate meaningful rest into everyday life so you can work smarter, think clearer, and feel better. He is the Director of Research and Innovation at 4 Day Week Global and the bestselling author of Rest: Why You Get More Done When You Work Less, Work Less, Do More: Designing the 4-Day Week, Shorter: Work Better, Smarter, and Less Here’s How, and The Distraction Addiction. LINKS: Alex Soojung-Kim Pang - Special Guest Strategy+Rest: www.strategy.rest LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/askpang Twitter and Instagram: @askpang Paul Fairweather - Co-host https://www.paulfairweather.com Chris Meredith - Co-host https://www.chrismeredith.com.auSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeffrey Epstein appeared to gravitate toward a very specific category of scientist and intellectual during the later decades of his life: elite researchers working at the cutting edge of fields tied to human intelligence, genetics, artificial intelligence, physics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and transhumanist-style theories about the future of humanity. Epstein surrounded himself with prominent academics from institutions like Harvard University, MIT, and other major research centers, often portraying himself as a patron of advanced scientific inquiry. He seemed especially drawn to scientists studying cognition, human behavior, reproductive science, and technological transformation, areas that aligned with his fascination with elitism, genetic legacy, and the idea of shaping future generations through intelligence and selective breeding. Numerous researchers later acknowledged attending dinners, conferences, or meetings funded or organized by Epstein, sometimes years after his 2008 conviction.Critics later argued that Epstein used the prestige of science and academia as both social camouflage and a gateway into elite institutional circles that could rehabilitate his public image. By attaching himself to celebrated thinkers, Nobel Prize winners, futurists, and influential researchers, Epstein cultivated the appearance of being a serious intellectual benefactor rather than a convicted sex offender attempting to re-enter polite society. Several scientists who interacted with him later faced backlash after the depth of those relationships became public, particularly as details emerged about private dinners, funding arrangements, advisory connections, and visits to Epstein's homes and properties. The pattern led many observers to conclude that Epstein was not randomly collecting famous names, but deliberately curating relationships with thinkers whose status, influence, and cutting-edge work fit into his obsession with power, status, intelligence, and social engineering.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Dr. Robert Soiffer took an interest in medicine at an early age when he played a physician in his first-grade play.  Today, he is a leading physician, researcher, and teacher at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, a world leader in oncology.  In this episode, Dr. Soiffer describes the incredible pace of change in the field of cancer research and treatment and the detection tools and cures that are right around the corner.  He also reflects on how he maintains a positive and optimistic outlook despite the many times he's forced to deliver terrible news to patients and families.  While he tries hard not to bring these tough times home with him, he also stresses the importance of keeping his humanity and treating his patients and their families as people, not just statistics.     Chapters:  02:29 Dana-Farber's Special Mission  Dr. Soiffer discusses what makes Dana-Farber Cancer Institute unique, emphasizing its focus on cancer patients and the common purpose among all staff.   05:50 Evolution of Cancer Treatment  This segment details the seismic shift in cancer treatment over the past 40 years, from nonspecific chemotherapy to targeted therapies focusing on specific mutations.   10:25 Bone Marrow Transplants and Graft vs. Leukemia  Dr. Soiffer delves into the history of bone marrow transplants, highlighting the Nobel Prize-winning work of E. Donald Thomas and the intriguing concept of graft versus leukemia effect.   15:02 The Role of Medical Education and Mentoring  This chapter emphasizes the critical role of medical education and mentoring in shaping the future of medicine, drawing from Dr. Soiffer's experience as chief medical resident and mentor. He discusses the mutual learning process between experienced physicians and younger generations, and the importance of continuous learning.  19:50 Personal Impact of Oncology Work  Dr. Soiffer reflects on the emotional challenges of his work, balancing optimism with realism and honesty while treating patients facing life-threatening situations. He discusses the difficulty of compartmentalizing emotions and the importance of maintaining humanity and connection with patients and their families, even when outcomes are not positive.  24:57 The Value of Clinical Trials  This chapter explains the critical role of clinical trials in advancing cancer treatment, from early-stage phase I trials to comparative studies. Dr. Soiffer describes patients participating in these trials as brave pioneers, highlighting how targeted, immune, and cellular therapies would not exist without their contributions.  28:39 Global Collaboration in Medicine  Dr. Soiffer discusses the extensive global collaboration in medical and scientific fields, emphasizing the shared mission to develop therapies for suffering patients.   35:33 Future of Cancer Treatment and Prevention  Looking ahead, Dr. Soiffer predicts less toxic and more precise cancer treatments with improved therapeutic ratios, focusing on overcoming resistance and early detection. He discusses the potential of preventing progression to full-blown malignancy through early intervention and the growing understanding of germline predispositions to cancer.  41:26 Conclusion and Call to Optimism  The episode concludes with Bill Burke thanking Dr. Soiffer for his time and invaluable insights, highlighting the rapid pace of change and innovation in cancer research. He also expresses hope and optimism for the future of cancer care. 

Yascha Mounk and Al Roth discuss what we miss when we separate economics from human emotion. Alvin E. Roth is the Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics at Stanford University and the George Gund Professor of Economics and Business Administration Emeritus at Harvard University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2012. His latest book is Moral Economics: From Prostitution to Organ Sales, What Controversial Transactions Reveal About How Markets Work. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Al Roth discuss the impact of moral disgust on solving economic problems, whether we should allow financial payments for organ donation, and what the rise of OnlyFans tells us about changing attitudes towards the self and economic transactions. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Economic markets are efficient ways of deciding fair prices, at least in ideal circumstances of perfect competition, information, and choice. But there is more to life than fair prices. Two people might decide on a fair price to carry out a contract killing, but society generally frowns on the idea. Many examples of morally contestable markets feature less consensus than that one: sex work, drugs, selling organs, adopting children. In his new book Moral Economics, economist Alvin Roth investigates how we should reason through such tricky cases, and what we can learn from them. Get twenty percent off your first purchase at Fast Growing Trees when using the code MINDSCAPE at checkout. Mindscape listeners get free shipping and 365-day returns on clothing from Quince. Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2026/05/11/353-alvin-roth-on-the-economics-of-morally-contested-markets/ Support Mindscape on Patreon. Alvin Roth received his Ph.D. in operations research from Stanford University. He is currently the Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics at Stanford University and the Gund Professor of Economics and Business Administration Emeritus at Harvard. He was President of the American Economic Association in 2017. He and Lloyd Shapley shared the 2012 Nobel Prize in Economics for "the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design." Stanford web page Google Scholar publications Amazon author page Wikipedia

In 1957, eight young engineers walked away from one of the most important laboratories in America and, in doing so, helped create the modern technology industry.  Their break with a Nobel Prize-winning inventor physicist set off a chain reaction of innovation, investment, and entrepreneurship that transformed a quiet region of California into Silicon Valley.  The companies they founded and the people they inspired would shape everything from computers to smartphones, and their influence can still be felt today.  Learn more about the Traitorous Eight and the birth of Silicon Valley on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Sponsors Newspapers.com Honor the past by uncovering its stories at Newspapers.com  Promo Code EVERYTHINGEVERWHERE Samsara Don't wait for the next accident to take action. Head to Samsara.com/EVERYTHING ButcherBox Get your choice between chicken breast or top sirloin for a year OR ground beef for life, PLUS $20 off when you go to ButcherBox.com/everything Quince Go to quince.com/daily for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order! Mint Mobile Save 50% on Unlimited premium wireless plans starting at $15/month at MintMobile.com/EED Audible Listen to Project Hail Mary Audible.com/hailmary Fast Growing Trees Get 20% off your first purchase when using the code DAILY at checkout at fastgrowingtrees.com/daily Subscribe to the podcast!  https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/ -------------------------------- Executive Producer: Charles Daniel Associate Producers: Austin Oetken & Cameron Kieffer   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere Discord Server: https://discord.gg/Ds7Rx7jvPJ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingeverywheredaily Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/  Disce aliquid novi cotidie Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

• Podmasters is 10 years old! Get an extra 10% off a year's Patreon support – that's 20% in total.  Amid the rubble of last week's elections, Keir Starmer announces he's suddenly getting real and ready to win back voters. But is it all too little, too late – and after months of drift, will anyone believe him anyway? Plus, were the Reform and Green surges really as unstoppable as an overwrought media want us to believe? Friend of the pod and psephology don Rob Ford of Manchester University joins us to dig deep on the elections… and whether Labour gets what really happened.   NB Andrew apologies for his hoarse voice. He'll be back to normal next time.  • Questions for But Your Emails? Thoughts? Comments? Email us at ogwn@podmasters.co.uk.  ESCAPE ROUTES • Raf recommends By The Sea,  Abdulzarak Gurnah's Nobel Prize-winning novel of escape and migration. • Rob Ford recommends The Emperor by Ryszard Kapuczinski, concerning the downfall of Haile Selassie.  • Ros recommends the TV drama Believe Me about John Worboys, streaming on ITV.  • Andrew recommends 30 Rock with Tina Fey, now finally on Netflix.  www.patreon.com/ohgodwhatnow Presented by Andrew Harrison with Ros Taylor and Rafael Behr. Audio Production by Robin Leeburn. Art direction: James Parrett. Theme tune by Tom Taylor and Simon Williams. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. OH GOD, WHAT NOW? is a Podmasters production. www.podmasters.co.uk  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

William Green chats with David Epstein about his groundbreaking new book, Inside the Box. In this conversation, David shares practical strategies & research-based insights to help you flourish professionally & personally. In a world of infinite choices & complexity, this episode directs your focus to what matters most. IN THIS EPISODE YOU'LL LEARN: 00:00:00 - Intro 00:01:05 - What David Epstein learned from a brilliant Nobel Prize-winning economist 00:04:14 - Why it's smart to aim for “good enough” 00:05:59 - How a brutal injury led David to life-changing breakthroughs 00:20:14 - What he does to preserve his attention 00:25:58 - How Isabel Allende illustrates the powerful benefits of silence & structure 00:35:59 - How to identify bottlenecks & tackle limiting factors 00:50:42 - Why one of the world's hottest start-up companies flamed out 00:54:51 - How a structured system made Pixar a creative & financial trailblazer 01:03:01 - How to balance a grand vision with practical steps along the way 01:07:16 - What a dead blues guitar hero can teach you about focused learning 01:12:14 - Why limitless autonomy may not make you as happy as you expect 01:16:46 - How to identify values that give meaning & coherence to your life 01:22:35 - What David learned from his most inspiring role models Disclaimer: Slight discrepancies in the timestamps may occur due to podcast platform differences. BOOKS AND RESOURCES Join the exclusive ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Mastermind Community⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Inquire about William Green's ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Richer, Wiser, Happier Masterclass⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. David Epstein's books: Inside the Box, Range, The Sports Gene. William's book, Richer, Wiser, Happier. Follow William Green on ⁠X⁠. Related ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠books⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ mentioned in the podcast. Ad-free episodes on our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Premium Feed⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. NEW TO THE SHOW? Get smarter about valuing businesses through ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Intrinsic Value Newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Investor's Podcast Starter Packs⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Follow our official social media accounts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠X⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Try our tool for picking stock winners and managing our portfolios: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Finance⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Enjoy exclusive perks from our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠favorite Apps and Services⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn how to better start, manage, and grow your business with the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠best business podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. SPONSORS Support our free podcast by supporting our ⁠⁠sponsors⁠⁠: ⁠HardBlock⁠ ⁠Human Rights Foundation⁠ ⁠Plus500⁠ ⁠Netsuite⁠ ⁠Shopify⁠ ⁠Vanta⁠ References to any third-party products, services, or advertisers do not constitute endorsements, and The Investor's Podcast Network is not responsible for any claims made by them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm

NEW BOOK -- The Price of Becoming Buy it -- www.LearningLeader.com/Becoming The Learning Leader Show with Ryan Hawk This is brought to you by Insight Global. If you need to hire one person, hire a team of people, or transform your business through Talent or Technical Services, Insight Global's team of 30,000 people around the world has the hustle and grit to deliver. Jim Collins is the author of some of the most influential business books ever written — Good to Great, Built to Last, and Great by Choice. His concepts have become part of the leadership vocabulary. Level 5 Leadership. The Flywheel. First Who, Then What. The Hedgehog Concept. He spent more than a decade at Stanford as a professor and has advised CEOs, four-star generals, and heads of state. His new book is What to Make of a Life: Cliffs, Fog, Fire, and the Self-Knowledge Imperative. It is the product of ten years of research and is the most personal thing he has ever written. We flew to Boulder, Colorado, to record this one in person with Jim. Key Learnings Jim's grandfather wrote his own death story. Jimmy Collins was a test pilot in the 1930s. He told Jim's grandmother, Dolores, that if he died, she should pull the last chapter from his desk and publish it. He died in a test crash. After the service, she pulled out the chapter. The title was "I'm Dead." The last chapter, written in first person, described the plane coming out of the sky, the screaming wings, the crash. The final words, by his own pen: "I am dead now." For seven decades, his grandmother never cried. When Jim asked her in her nineties to tell the story of his grandfather, she cried and said, "Thank you for that. I've never cried before." She'd been a single mom in the middle of the Depression. Of all the things Jim feels good about in his life, asking her to tell that story before she died at almost 100 years old is one he's most proud of. A cliff is an event that alters the trajectory of your life and forces you to reconstruct everything that comes after. Jim's first big cliff: he lost his father while his father was still alive. Jim's father took the family to San Francisco in the 1960s. They lived a few houses down from Haight Street. When a man was shot dead on their doorstep, Jim's mom moved them to Boulder. They lived in a cold basement with cots and a hot plate. They couldn't afford a Christmas tree, so Jim and his brother rolled a boulder into the basement and called it their Christmas rock. The Greyhound bus moment. In high school, Jim took a Thanksgiving turkey on a Greyhound bus down to New Mexico, where his father was living in an adobe hut with a dirt floor. He had this romantic vision: they'd cook the turkey, share Thanksgiving, bond as father and son. The whole weekend, his father had no interest in him. He spent it trying to convince Jim to convince his grandmother to give him money. On the bus ride home, looking out the window into the fog, Jim realized: there will never, ever be a father there. No male role models. No frameworks. No guidance. "I've got this one life. What do I do with it?" The inflection point in Jim's life is Joanne. They got engaged four days after their first date. He'd admired her from afar for years but never had the courage to ask her out. Once they were together, Jim began a conscious process: I need to become a person worthy of being married to her. He didn't know exactly what that meant or how to get there. But he knew that was the work. Forty-six years later, it's still a never-ending journey. What Joanne does brilliantly: she sees what needs attention. Jim is encoded to hear it. Someone once asked Joanne what she thought Jim's greatest strength was. She said: "Jim takes critical feedback better than any person I've ever met." Joanne sees what needs attention. Jim hears it. Then they adapt and adjust. That's the inner flywheel of their marriage. Circle the wagons together. Guns pointing out, never at each other. When life gets really difficult, whether it's disease or other cliffs. You are always together. Always on the inside of the wagons. Never aimed at each other. Joanne won the 1985 Hawaii Ironman by 92 seconds. With a hamstring injury that limited her running training to 16 miles a week, she came off the bike with a 10-minute lead. Then mile by mile, the lead shrank. Nine minutes. Eight. Seven. With a few miles left, she stopped in the middle of the lava field, massaging her legs, almost pleading with them to run. She looked up at the sky. Then her gaze fixed somewhere down the road. She started to run. You're racing for self-respect. Joanne told Jim afterward: in the end, you're racing to know that you couldn't have run a step faster. Only you'll know. If you know you couldn't have run a step faster, that's actually winning. When Jim writes, he's on the lava fields. When he finishes a book, he wants to know he couldn't have written one sentence better. When you're on the lava fields, this is the moment you want to quit. Don't. Writing is thinking. When the writing isn't working, the thinking isn't clear. Go back to the data. Find the through-line. There are three types of luck: What luck. A cancer diagnosis. A guitar left in an empty house. An event that breaks your way. Who luck. The people who walk into your life. Joanne. Morten Hansen. Jerry Porras. Bill Lazier. Zeit luck. When what you're doing intersects with the surrounding zeitgeist. Jimmy Page was in Surrey when the British rock explosion happened. Luck is an event you didn't cause, with significant consequences, and an element of surprise. The big winners weren't luckier. They had a higher return on luck. What you do with luck events matters more than the luck itself. Bill Lazier: the closest thing to a father Jim ever had. Jim ended up in Bill's class at Stanford because the class he was trying to take was full. The random course-sorting mechanism threw him into the first class Bill ever taught. Pure WHO luck. Jim did not cause that.  Discover your encodings. An encoding is a durable capacity of your intrinsic construction that resides within, awaiting discovery through the experiences of life.  Jim has done over 300 online courses on every imaginable subject. Constitutional law. Napoleon. World War I. The history of China. He started them to learn how to teach. Then his curiosity took over. That's what an encoding looks like in the wild. You have a constellation of encodings. Like stars. When your life captures a bright set of those encodings, you're in frame. When it doesn't, you're out of frame. The same person can look amazing in frame and not very amazing out of frame. The most important finding from this book: don't follow anyone else's advice. Their advice is well-meaning. It may have worked beautifully for them. But it worked for them because it flowed from their encodings. And their encodings are not your encodings. Barbara McClintock and Grace Hopper. Two women who won the Nobel Prize and shaped computer science. McClintock was encoded for solitary work. She didn't even have a phone. She heard about her Nobel Prize on the radio. Hopper was encoded to work through people. She kept a pirate flag in her office and once stole furniture for her team in the middle of the night. Two completely different encodings. What they shared: their lives were in alignment with their encodings. Leadership is the art of getting people to want to do what must be done. It's not a trait. It's a choice. Anyone in any organization can lead, depending on their desire to make a difference. Nobody needs to wait for a title. Ryan's encoding is "the relentless persistence of invitation." Jim observed that Ryan has incredible encodings for what he'd describe as attractive persistence. Not pushy. Not aggressive. But persistent and welcoming. The invitation never goes away. The way you lead should be different from everyone else. Because you are encoded differently. Trust your encodings, not their playbook. Roger Sherman saved the U.S. Constitution. Twice. He created the bicameral legislature compromise. He insisted the Bill of Rights be amendments, not rewrites. Yet most people don't know his name. He almost never spoke. He listened in committees and waited for the precise moment to introduce just the right point to turn American history. Quiet. Behind the scenes. Uncharismatic. Unglamorous. Enormously effective. That was his encoding. You should largely ignore what other successful leaders did. It's marvelous to listen to. It might give you ideas. But everything that worked for them reflected their encodings, not yours. The work isn't to copy their playbook. The work is to discover your encodings and trust them. The color of Jim's fire changed. When he was younger, his fuel was rage, fury, and a sense of terror with no safety net. He used to worry that if he ever lost it, he'd lose his drive. What replaced it was a different kind of fire: the joy of curiosity, of being lost in giant projects, of marvelous conversations, of sharing what he's learned. His drive is higher than ever. It just feels a lot better now. The 3x3 reflective practice. After almost any conversation, teaching moment, or significant interaction, Jim writes down three things that went well and three things he could have done better. He's done it for years. He's now systematizing it. He doesn't pause to celebrate. He pauses to learn quickly and move on. At the top of Jim's notes for this conversation: "The biggest reminder for today, reconnecting with an old friend." That's the celebration. What could be a better celebration than reconnecting with somebody you've had marvelous conversations with? Reflection Questions What is your most significant cliff? What did you reconstruct on the other side, and what are you still rebuilding? What are your encodings? Not what you've been told you should be, but what genuinely flows from your intrinsic construction. When have you felt most in frame? Like Jim with Joanne, is there a person or purpose you are actively trying to become worthy of? What would that work look like this week? More Learning #397: Jim Collins - Creating Your Generosity Flywheel, Make the Trust Wager (Part 1)#398: Jim Collins - Creating Your Generosity Flywheel, Make the Trust Wager (Part 2) #216: Jim Collins - How to Go From Good to Great  

Jeffrey Epstein appeared to gravitate toward a very specific category of scientist and intellectual during the later decades of his life: elite researchers working at the cutting edge of fields tied to human intelligence, genetics, artificial intelligence, physics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and transhumanist-style theories about the future of humanity. Epstein surrounded himself with prominent academics from institutions like Harvard University, MIT, and other major research centers, often portraying himself as a patron of advanced scientific inquiry. He seemed especially drawn to scientists studying cognition, human behavior, reproductive science, and technological transformation, areas that aligned with his fascination with elitism, genetic legacy, and the idea of shaping future generations through intelligence and selective breeding. Numerous researchers later acknowledged attending dinners, conferences, or meetings funded or organized by Epstein, sometimes years after his 2008 conviction.Critics later argued that Epstein used the prestige of science and academia as both social camouflage and a gateway into elite institutional circles that could rehabilitate his public image. By attaching himself to celebrated thinkers, Nobel Prize winners, futurists, and influential researchers, Epstein cultivated the appearance of being a serious intellectual benefactor rather than a convicted sex offender attempting to re-enter polite society. Several scientists who interacted with him later faced backlash after the depth of those relationships became public, particularly as details emerged about private dinners, funding arrangements, advisory connections, and visits to Epstein's homes and properties. The pattern led many observers to conclude that Epstein was not randomly collecting famous names, but deliberately curating relationships with thinkers whose status, influence, and cutting-edge work fit into his obsession with power, status, intelligence, and social engineering.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Today the WNBA season tips off, but Dallas Wings veteran forward Alysha Clark has already won a high-stakes competition. She – and a Nobel Prize winning economist – were on the team that negotiated a ground-breaking contract for the players. And Alysha wrote all about it in her journal.Alysha is the oldest player in the league – and when she started she was making a yearly salary of about $36,400. The players flew economy, the rookies in middle seats. They doubled up in hotel rooms. The league was just starting out, wasn't bringing in money, and, as Alysha says, “That's just what you got.”Jump forward to 2025 and fans are crowding into stadiums, games are on primetime TV, and the WNBA has a 3.1 billion dollar media rights deal.  So when the players' contract came up for renewal, they had a once in a generation opportunity to change the future for all of women's basketball. Maybe all of women's sports. Today on the show, we hear Alysha's minute by minute account of what it's like to be a rookie doing high-stakes bargaining. It came right down to the buzzer. Our book: Planet Money: A Guide to the Economic Forces That Shape Your Life is in stores now. Subscribe to Planet Money+Listen free: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app or anywhere you get podcasts.Facebook / Instagram / TikTok / Our weekly Newsletter.This episode was produced by Emma Peaslee and Willa Rubin. It was edited by Marianne McCune. It was fact-checked by Vito Emanuel and engineered by Jimmy Keeley and James Willets. Alex Goldmark is our executive producer.Music: NPR Source Audio - "Nights Like This," "Funk Dive," and "Tropical Heat"See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

With all of the black-and-white moralizing in our world today, we decided to bring back an old show from 2011 about the little bit of bad that's in all of us...and the little bit of really, really bad that's in some of us.   Cruelty, violence, badness... in this episode we begin with a chilling statistic: 91% of men, and 84% of women, have fantasized about killing someone. We take a look at one particular fantasy lurking behind these numbers, and wonder what this shadow world might tell us about ourselves and our neighbors. Then, we reconsider what Stanley Milgram's famous experiment really revealed about human nature (it's both better and worse than we thought). Next, we meet a man who scrambles our notions of good and evil: chemist Fritz Haber, who won a Nobel Prize in 1918...around the same time officials in the US were calling him a war criminal. And we end with the story of a man who chased one of the most prolific serial killers in US history, then got a chance to ask him the question that had haunted him for years: why? EPISODE CREDITS:  Reported by - Pat Walters and Latif Nasser Produced by - Pat Watlers with help from - Carter Hodge. Sign up for our newsletter!! It includes short essays, recommendations, and details about other ways to interact with the show. Signup (https://radiolab.org/newsletter)! Radiolab is supported by listeners like you. Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab (https://members.radiolab.org/) today. Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @radiolab, and share your thoughts with us by emailing radiolab@wnyc.org. Leadership support for Radiolab's science programming is provided by the Simons Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

This episode of The Rizzuto Show starts with what might genuinely be one of the greatest confidence scams ever attempted: a French professor allegedly invents an entire prestigious academic award, buys himself a medal, gathers actual respected intellectuals, and somehow convinces everyone he's basically the LeBron James of language studies. Honestly? Kind of inspirational. The gang immediately realizes that most awards are basically made up anyway, which quickly escalates into creating fake international honors like “The Grand Cross of the Order of the Toasted Ravioli.” Because if you say anything confidently enough with enough gold trim attached to it, people will apparently clap.From there, the show takes a hard left directly into psychological warfare after King Scott introduces one of the most cursed “Would You Rather?” questions in show history: permanent Cheeto fingers… or taste buds in your butt. Yes. Really. The discussion somehow gets worse when Rafe introduces the horrifying concept of “the second tasting,” permanently ruining food, digestion, and probably several listeners' lunch breaks. It's the kind of conversation that could only happen on a daily comedy show powered entirely by sleep deprivation, bad decisions, and unchecked access to microphones.Rafe's E-Memoriam segment also delivers pure chaos this week. The crew says goodbye to Ask Jeeves, the once-beloved internet butler who politely helped people search embarrassing questions before Google became the all-knowing digital overlord living inside everyone's phones. The nostalgia spiral includes Geocities, LimeWire, Rotten Dot Com, terrible internet decisions, and the realization that the early internet somehow survived entirely on flashing skull gifs and confusion.Meanwhile, Rafe continues his quest toward honorary membership in the Blackfoot Nation, which now involves fingerprinting, Canadian bureaucracy, Wayne Gretzky references, and an unexpectedly spiritual trip to a UPS Store kiosk. What should have been a simple government process becomes an epic fantasy journey involving sacred scanners, sweaty palms, and “Hakuna Moscato” novelty packing tape. It's impossible to explain properly because this daily comedy show exists in a dimension where every normal story mutates into folklore by segment three.The episode wraps with real RIPs including Alex Ligertwood from Santana and media giant Ted Turner, proving The Rizzuto Show can somehow balance heartfelt moments alongside conversations about whether your butthole could identify ranch seasoning.If you love comedy podcasts, funny stories, weird news, sarcastic humor, pop culture commentary, St. Louis radio chaos, and hearing grown adults emotionally unravel in real time, this episode delivers everything you could possibly want from a daily comedy show… and several things you absolutely did not ask for.Follow The Rizzuto Show → linktr.ee/rizzshow for more from your favorite daily comedy show.Connect with The Rizzuto Show Comedy Podcast online → 1057thepoint.com/RizzShowHear The Rizz Show daily on the radio at 105.7 The Point | Hubbard Radio in St. Louis, MO.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In 1985, three scientists at Rice University discovered a carbon molecule so structurally perfect it eventually earned them the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. What nobody anticipated was what would happen when researchers gave it to rats — a 90% extension in lifespan, the longest longevity result ever recorded in mammalian history.Chris Burres has been manufacturing this molecule since 1991, five years before the Nobel Prize was awarded. He joins Dr. Brandon Crawford to break down how ESS60 (Carbon 60) works at the mitochondrial level, why it functions as a buffering oxidative stress system rather than a conventional antioxidant, and what the growing clinical evidence suggests about its effects on sleep, inflammation, cognition, and long-term healthspan.ResourcesMyVitalC Exclusive Offers: 40% discount on 6-bottle bundle, $30 coupon, and 18 free biohacking tips when you use the link myvitalc.com/crawfordLive Longer and Better by Chris Burres and Jerome Corsi (autographed copies available with proceeds supporting Operation Underground Railroad)Operation Underground Railroad — Non-profit combating child exploitation (100% of autograph fees donated)Live Beyond the Norms Podcast hosted by Chris BurresFollow MyVitalC on Instagram2012 Baati Study — Peer-reviewed research showing 90% lifespan extension in Wistar rats SES Research Inc. — Manufacturing and research company (since 1991, Houston, Texas)‍Products528 Innovations LasersNeuroSolution Full Spectrum CBDNeuroSolution Broad Spectrum CBDNeuroSolution StimpodSTEMREGEN®Learn MoreFor more information, resources, and podcast episodes, visit https://tinyurl.com/3ppwdfpm

Juan Maldacena is a theoretical physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study whose 1997 paper remains the most cited in the history of theoretical physics. We cover: -why wormholes and quantum entanglement may be the same thing -what actually happens to information when you throw something into a black hole -the reason Hawking radiation accidentally gave cosmologists the equation that explains why the universe has structure -whether science-fiction wormholes are ruled out by the laws of physics -the one unsolved problem Juan says matters more than black holes. The most important problem in quantum gravity is understanding the beginning of the Big Bang — not black holes. TIMESTAMPS 00:00 What If Einstein's Two Strangest Ideas Were One? 01:15 Juan Maldacena: The Most Cited Physicist Alive 03:25 What Would Einstein Most Want to Know Today? 07:45 The Holographic Principle Explained 09:20 What Happens When You Throw a Laptop Into a Black Hole? 11:00 Is Information Actually Lost Forever? 12:25 The Problem Juan Wants to Solve Before He Dies 13:50 Why Real Black Holes Don't Emit Hawking Radiation 15:25 How Black Hole Physics Accidentally Explained the Universe 17:00 Could Primordial Black Holes Be Dark Matter? 18:30 Real Observers Solving Imaginary Problems 21:15 Why Imaginary Numbers Keep Being Right 25:00 The Origin Story of AdS/CFT 27:05 Do We Actually Live in AdS Space? 29:00 Are Wormholes Real or Just Science Fiction? 32:10 Could AI Have Helped Einstein? 33:00 Can Science and Religion Coexist? ———

We begin with a widowed mother in a quiet English spa town wakes up in the middle of the night to find herself no longer alone. She desperately wants to dismiss what happened as nothing more than a nightmare  but that will quickly prove to be impossible to do. Then, a practical, no-nonsense governess is visited by something. Something that will change and appear to be very, very alive. Or at least, be very sentient despite being dead or unrecognizable as far as life as we know it. Then, a tale about a family all experiencing things in a Colombian apartment, unaware of each others encounters. Next up, a call back to an episode from 2020 about Sue Hardy- kind of. Lastly, the ghost of Katie- was it an imaginary friend or something sinister?  Wet Hot Bad Magic Summer Camp 2026: Have you heard?! We have some amazing friends joining us at camp! Astonishing Legends and True Crime Campfire will both be bringing their shows to the live stage this summer! If you want to see them and us, get your tickets at badmagicproductions.com  Do you want to get all of our episodes a WEEK early, ad free? Want to help us support amazing charities? Join us on Patreon! Want to be a Patron? Get episodes AD-FREE, listen and watch before they are released to anyone else, bonus episodes, a 20% merch discount, additional content, and more! Learn more by visiting: https://www.patreon.com/scaredtodeathpodcast. Send stories to mystory@scaredtodeathpodcast.com Send everything else to info@scaredtodeathpodcast.com Please rate, review, and subscribe anywhere you listen. Thank you for listening! Follow the show on social media: @scaredtodeathpodcast on Facebook and IG and TT Website: https://www.badmagicproductions.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/scaredtodeathpodcast Instagram: https://bit.ly/2miPLf5 Mailing Address: Scared to Death PO Box 3891 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816 Opening Sumerian protection spell (adapted): "Whether thou art a ghost that hath come from the earth, or a phantom of night that hath no home… or one that lieth dead in the desert… or a ghost unburied… or a demon or a ghoul… Whatever thou be until thou art removed… thou shalt find here no water to drink… Thou shalt not stretch forth thy hand to our own… Into our house enter thou not. Through our fence, breakthrough thou not… we are protected though we may be frightened. Our life you may not steal, though we may feel SCARED TO DEATH." Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of Scared to Death ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Your biological age can drop by over three years in just eight weeks, and the tools to do it are already in your kitchen. This episode breaks down the cutting-edge science of methylation, polyphenols, Yamanaka mimetics, and epigenetic reprogramming that is rewriting what we know about anti-aging, longevity, and human performance. -Watch this episode on YouTube for the full video experience: https://www.youtube.com/@DaveAspreyBPR Host Dave Asprey sits down with Dr. Kara Fitzgerald, ND, IFMCP, a leading voice in functional medicine and epigenetic aging research. Her award-winning clinical studies published in Aging (2021, 2023, and 2025) proved that targeted diet and lifestyle interventions can measurably reverse biological age on validated epigenetic clocks. She is the author of Younger You, an IFM faculty member and Certified Practitioner, and one of the most rigorously credentialed researchers working at the intersection of functional medicine, nutrition, and longevity science today. Together, they go deep on Yamanaka factors, the Nobel Prize-winning discovery that can wind back a 90-year-old cell to its 20s, and the emerging class of compounds called Yamanaka mimetics, polyphenol-based supplements that may replicate some of those same cellular rejuvenation effects without the risks. They cover why polyphenols do the heavy lifting in biological age reversal, how AI is accelerating longevity research, and why the dark matter of nutrition may matter more than macros, carnivore protocols, or ketosis for long-term health. They also get into oxalates, mitochondria, fibroids, ovarian rejuvenation, and why the original Horvath clock may be more relevant than scientists thought. This is essential listening for anyone serious about biohacking, longevity, supplements, functional medicine, anti-aging, brain optimization, human performance, and using smarter not harder strategies to take control of your biology. You'll Learn: How diet, supplements, and meditation reversed biological age by over three years in eight weeks in a randomized controlled trial What Yamanaka factors are and why scientists are calling partial cellular reprogramming the future of anti-aging Which polyphenols do the heaviest lifting for epigenetic rejuvenation, including EGCG, urolithin A, rosemary, marjoram, and yarrow Why the Horvath epigenetic clock may actually be touching on programmatic aging rather than just exposomic wear and tear How AI is unlocking patterns in longevity data that no human researcher could find alone The problem with high-oxalate superfoods and how to get polyphenol benefits without the inflammatory downside Why ovarian rejuvenation may be the highest-leverage Yamanaka application for women's longevity and brain health How compounds like AKG, sodium butyrate, and forskolin may act as Yamanaka mimetics already available today What the PRC2 polycomb clock reveals about programmatic aging and why it matters more than second-generation clocks Why perimenopause does not have to be painful, and how functional medicine addresses it at the root Thank you to our sponsors! - Screenfit | Get your at-home eye training program for 40% off using code DAVE at https://www.screenfit.com/dave. - Viome | Check it out at viome.com and use code 10DAVE for 10% off. It's time to stop guessing and start knowing your body. - STEMREGEN | Go to stemregen.co/dave30 Use code DAVE30 for 30% OFF your next order. - Caldera + Lab | Go to https://calderalab.com/DAVE and use code DAVE at checkout for 20% off your first order. Dave Asprey is a four-time New York Times bestselling author, founder of Bulletproof Coffee, and the father of biohacking. With over 1,000 interviews and 1 million monthly listeners, The Human Upgrade brings you the knowledge to take control of your biology, extend your longevity, and optimize every system in your body and mind. Each episode delivers cutting-edge insights inhealth, performance, neuroscience, supplements, nutrition, biohacking, emotional intelligence, and conscious living. New episodes are released every Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Sunday (BONUS). Dave asks the questions no one else will and gives you real tools to become stronger, smarter, and more resilient. Keywords: Kara Fitzgerald, biological age reversal, epigenetics, DNA methylation, Yamanaka factors, polyphenols, EGCG, urolithin A, anti-aging, longevity, biohacking, functional medicine, supplements, mitochondria, epigenetic clock, cellular reprogramming, AKG, sodium butyrate, methylation, Steve Horvath, Vittoria Sebastiano, coleus, perimenopause, ovarian rejuvenation, pluripotent stem cells, PRC2, dark matter of nutrition, TRIM study, dihydroxyflavone, BDNF, Prenuvo, chemical cellular rejuvenation Resources: • Learn more about all of Dr. Fitzgerald's work at: https://www.drkarafitzgerald.com/ • Get My 2026 Clean Nicotine Roadmap | Enroll for free at https://daveasprey.com/2026-clean-nicotine-roadmap/ • Dave Asprey's Latest News | Go to https://daveasprey.com/ to join Inside Track today. • Danger Coffee: https://dangercoffee.com/discount/dave15 • My Daily Supplements: SuppGrade Labs (15% Off) • Favorite Blue Light Blocking Glasses: TrueDark (15% Off) • Dave Asprey's BEYOND Conference: https://beyondconference.com • Dave Asprey's New Book – Heavily Meditated: https://daveasprey.com/heavily-meditated • Join My Substack (Live Access To Podcast Recordings): https://substack.daveasprey.com/ • Upgrade Labs: https://upgradelabs.com Timestamps: 0:00 – Trailer 1:28 – Explaining Study 3:45 – What Is The Diet 6:49 – Age Reversal 8:17 – Polyphenols vs. Supplements 9:27 – Food vs. Supplement Dosing 12:41 – Oxalate & Polyphenol Trade-offs 18:41 – Yamanaka Factors Explained 28:59 – Chemical Cocktails 32:15 – PRC2 Clocks & Programmatic Aging 40:28 – Seasonal Eating 43:40 – Carnivore Diet: Short vs. Long Term 45:31 – Inuit Diet 46:39 – Flavones & Brain-Crossing Compounds 48:50 – Why Only Men in the Study? 51:05 – Women, Perimenopause & the Protocol 53:20 – Fibroids & Gaps in Women's Research See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, we return to Iain McGilchrist as he spirals upwards from his binary hemispheric model into full cosmic spirituality. The rule is simple: everything McGilchrist likes is due to the subtle, nuanced, and deeply sophisticated right brain, while the left brain (pffft) is responsible for reductionism, modernity, and most of the problems in your life.From this neuroscientific foundation, the theory expands with admirable ambition. Civilisations rise and fall depending on which hemisphere they inhabit. Ancient societies were properly attuned to the right brain, while the modern world has gone mechanical and spiritually bankrupt. The details are, of course, very complex, but the moral is clear.Scientific evidence features occasionally, mostly in a decorative capacity or as parables of scientists being baffled by mystical forces. Hence, we learn that decapitated worms retain perfect memories, Nobel Prizes have been awarded for demonstrating a mystical direction powering evolution, and near-death experiences establish that memories form when the brain isn't functioning.Alongside this hard science, McGilchrist also ventures into more spiritual realms, where we learn that artificial intelligence is likely to be channelling demons, schizophrenia might be caused by malign spiritual forces treating our brains as a luxury resort, and recently exorcised demons prefer to communicate via text message. No really...Ultimately, what matters is that McGilchrist's bespoke theology, bespoke metaphysics, bespoke biological teleology, and bespoke panentheist philosophy are really very impressive. And if you don't find any of it compelling, well, we are sad to inform you that this itself proves you are stuck in the wrong mode of thinking and failing to recognise true profundity.And if that doesn't work, then let's just say it was all a metaphor anyway!LinksAlex O' Connor: Why Evolution Gave You Two Brains - Iain McGilchristJonathan Pageau: Artificial Intelligence, Possession, and Mental Illness - Dr. Iain McGilchristThink Faith: Philosopher Iain McGilchrist DEBATES neuroscientist Anil Seth on God & minds | Uncommon GroundSpezio, M. (2019). McGilchrist and hemisphere lateralization: a neuroscientific and metaanalytic assessment. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 9(4), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2019.1604416Corballis, M. C. (2014). Left brain, right brain: facts and fantasies. PLoS biology, 12(1), e1001767.Carson, A. (2010). The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. By Iain McGilchrist. Yale University Press. 2009. US $38.00 (hb). 608 pp. ISBN: 9780300148787. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 196(6), 498-498.De Haan, D. (2019). McGilchrist's hemispheric homunculi. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 9(4), 368-379.Shomrat, T., & Levin, M. (2013). An automated training paradigm reveals long-term memory in planarians and its persistence through head regeneration. Journal of Experimental Biology, 216(20), 3799-3810.

Legacy, Nobel Snubs, and the Fringes of Science Following the confirmation of the Big Bang theory, the cosmic microwave background was measured at approximately 2.73 degrees Kelvin, a discovery that George Gamow spent his final years advocating for as a validation of his 1940s work. Gamow, whose health declined due to heavy smoking and alcohol use before his death in 1968, frequently reminded the scientific community that his earlier calculations with Ralph Alpher had correctly predicted this radiation, using the metaphor that a lost and found penny is still the same penny. While the Big Bang gained universal acceptance, Fred Hoyle faced a professional crisis when the Nobel Prize for stellar nucleosynthesis was awarded solely to William Fowler, excluding Hoyle and his other collaborators, Margaretand Jeffrey Burbidge. This snub, which some speculate was due to a misunderstanding by nominator Hans Bethe or Hoyle's increasingly controversial reputation, led Hoyle to sever ties with Fowler and retreat to the Lake District. In his later years, Hoyle moved toward the fringes of science, championing the theory of "panspermia"—the idea that life and diseases such as AIDS and Legionnaire's disease originated in space and arrived on Earth via comets. He also drew the ire of the scientific establishment by arguing that Darwinian evolution was impossible due to the Earth's age, a stance that ironically gained him support from creationist groups despite his own atheism. Paul Halpern characterizes both Gamowand Hoyle as "seat of the pants" thinkers who relied on flashes of intuition rather than slow, methodical archival work, though Hoyle was notably more stubborn in defending his unconventional ideas. Ultimately, both men are remembered as brilliant storytellers who made the complex physics of the 20th century accessible to the public while fundamentally shaping our understanding of the universe. Guest Author: Paul Halpern. (4/4)DECEMBER 1951

What if everything you see, feel, and experience isn't the real world at all, but instead a meticulously rendered simulation? In this episode of Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu, we dive deep into one of the most mind-bending questions in science and philosophy: Are we living in a simulation? Join Speaker A as they break down the latest Nobel Prize-winning physics experiments that challenge our basic assumptions about reality itself. From the quantum strangeness of the double-slit experiment to the mind-boggling implications of entangled particles, we explore why the universe may operate just like a video game—and what that means for everything you think you know. Get ready to have your understanding of existence turned upside down and discover why the odds that you're living in “base reality” are vanishingly small. What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: If you want my help... STARTING a business: join me here at ZERO TO FOUNDER:  https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show SCALING a business: see if you qualify here.:  https://tombilyeu.com/call Get my battle-tested strategies and insights delivered weekly to your inbox: sign up here.: https://tombilyeu.com/ ********************************************************************** If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast, Tom Bilyeu's Mindset Playbook —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you. ********************************************************************** FOLLOW TOM: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu Blinkist: Start your free trial at https://blinkist.com/impactQuince: Free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/impactpodShopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/impactKetone IQ: Visit https://ketone.com/IMPACT for 30% OFF your subscription orderQuo: Try for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months at https://quo.com/impactAT&T Business: Switch to AT&T Business at business.att.comNetsuite: Right now, get our free business guide, Demystifying AI, at https://NetSuite.com/TheoryMonetary Metals: Future-proof your wealth at https://monetarymetals.com/impactIncogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code IMPACT at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/impact Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What if everything you see, feel, and experience isn't the real world at all, but instead a meticulously rendered simulation? In this episode of Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu, we dive deep into one of the most mind-bending questions in science and philosophy: Are we living in a simulation? Join Speaker A as they break down the latest Nobel Prize-winning physics experiments that challenge our basic assumptions about reality itself. From the quantum strangeness of the double-slit experiment to the mind-boggling implications of entangled particles, we explore why the universe may operate just like a video game—and what that means for everything you think you know. Get ready to have your understanding of existence turned upside down and discover why the odds that you're living in “base reality” are vanishingly small. What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: If you want my help... STARTING a business: join me here at ZERO TO FOUNDER:  https://tombilyeu.com/zero-to-founder?utm_campaign=Podcast%20Offer&utm_source=podca[%E2%80%A6]d%20end%20of%20show&utm_content=podcast%20ad%20end%20of%20show SCALING a business: see if you qualify here.:  https://tombilyeu.com/call Get my battle-tested strategies and insights delivered weekly to your inbox: sign up here.: https://tombilyeu.com/ ********************************************************************** If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast, Tom Bilyeu's Mindset Playbook —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you. ********************************************************************** FOLLOW TOM: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu Blinkist: Start your free trial at https://blinkist.com/impactQuince: Free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/impactpodShopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/impactKetone IQ: Visit https://ketone.com/IMPACT for 30% OFF your subscription orderQuo: Try for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months at https://quo.com/impactAT&T Business: Switch to AT&T Business at business.att.comNetsuite: Right now, get our free business guide, Demystifying AI, at https://NetSuite.com/TheoryMonetary Metals: Future-proof your wealth at https://monetarymetals.com/impactIncogni: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code IMPACT at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/impact Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you buy fruits and vegetables, how much pesticide residue is actually on them? Is it something you should worry about—or not? And does buying organic really make a meaningful difference? Recent findings offer some answers that may surprise you. https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/produce-without-pesticides-a5260230325/ We tend to believe that hard work and good decisions determine how life turns out. But luck and random chance play a much bigger role than most people realize. From career paths to relationships to financial success, unexpected events often shape outcomes in powerful ways. Mark Robert Rank, professor at Washington University in St. Louis and author of The Random Factor: How Chance and Luck Profoundly Shape Our Lives and the World Around Us (https://amzn.to/3W1mDb4), explains how luck operates in everyday life—and how understanding it can help you better navigate uncertainty and make smarter choices. Every living thing ages—but not at the same rate. Some organisms live for just days, while others survive for centuries. What determines how quickly we age? And is it possible to slow the process in humans? Venki Ramakrishnan, Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist and author of Why We Die (https://amzn.to/49KII0z), explains what science has uncovered about aging, why it happens, and what current research suggests about extending healthy lifespan. You've heard the advice to stop and smell the roses—but there may be something else just as powerful you're overlooking. Paying attention to certain everyday sounds could have a surprisingly positive effect on how you feel. https://www.treehugger.com/why-do-birds-sing-5179422 PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS POCKET HOSE: For a limited time, when you purchase a new Pocket Hose Ballistic, you'll get a FREE 360 degree rotating pocket pivot and a FREE thumb drive nozzle! Just text SYSK to 64000 RULA: Thousands of people are already using Rula to get affordable, high-quality therapy that's actually covered by insurance. Visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Rula.com/sysk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to get started. QUINCE: Refresh your wardrobe with Quince! Go to https://Quince.com/sysk for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! SHOPIFY: See less carts go abandoned with Shopify and their Shop Pay button! Sign up for your $1 per month trail and start selling today at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Shopify.com/sysk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ PLANET VISIONARIES : We love the Planet Visionaries podcast! In partnership with The Rolex Perpetual Planet Initiative. Listen or watch on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you are listening to this podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alvin E. Roth (Moral Economics, Who Gets What and Why) is a Nobel Prize-winning economist, Stanford professor, and author. Alvin joins Armchair Expert to discuss growing up in Queens with two schoolteacher parents, skipping a traditional high school path to attend college at 16, and how early academic exposure shaped his curiosity about markets and human behavior. Alvin and Dax talk about pioneering kidney exchange programs that have saved thousands of lives, the surprising ways incentives influence behavior in everyday systems, and how market design applies to everything from matching students to schools to allocating scarce resources. Alvin explains the difference between repugnance and disgust in economics, why some markets are morally contested yet necessary, and why solving complex social issues requires designing better systems rather than relying on good intentions alone.Take printer ink off your to-do list with HP Smart Tank | hp.com/SmartTankCheck Allstate first for a quote that could save you hundreds: https://www.allstate.com/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In the grand scheme, bees bring way more to the table than honey — so why are they vanishing? Jessica Wynn combs through the data on Skeptical Sunday!Welcome to Skeptical Sunday, a special edition of The Jordan Harbinger Show where Jordan and a guest break down a topic that you may have never thought about, open things up, and debunk common misconceptions. This time around, we're joined by writer and researcher Jessica Wynn!Full show notes and resources can be found here: jordanharbinger.com/1314On This Week's Skeptical Sunday:Honeybees aren't even native to North America — they're European imports from the 1600s, essentially livestock with wings. Meanwhile, the 20,000+ species of wild and solitary bees that actually belong here are losing habitat and quietly heading toward extinction, largely unnoticed.The waggle dance isn't just a cute party trick — it's a Nobel Prize-winning symbolic language bees use to communicate precise GPS coordinates through choreography. And in 2023, scientists discovered it's culturally transmitted, not instinctual, meaning some colonies are literally better dancers because they had better teachers.Every winter, 54 billion bees are trucked into California's Central Valley to pollinate almonds — woken from dormancy, fed stimulants, crammed into monoculture diets, and exposed to pesticides that scramble their navigation. The system that feeds us is simultaneously dismantling the workforce it depends on.Colony Collapse Disorder — where entire forager populations vanish without a trace, no bodies, no explanation — is the bee equivalent of a Mary Celeste mystery. The leading theory is a perfect storm: parasitic varroa mites, neurotoxic pesticides that cause bees to forget how to get home, malnutrition, and the chronic stress of life as migratory livestock.The good news: you don't need a hive or a hero complex to help. Planting native flowers, skipping pesticides, and buying local honey from non-migratory beekeepers are small moves with real impact — because wild bee populations respond directly to local habitat, and every garden is a potential waystation for the solitary bees quietly doing the work no one's paying attention to.Connect with Jordan on Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. If you have something you'd like us to tackle here on Skeptical Sunday, drop Jordan a line at jordan@jordanharbinger.com and let him know!Connect with Jessica Wynn at Instagram (and Instagram!), and subscribe to her newsletters: Between the Lines and Where the Shadows Linger!And if you're still game to support us, please leave a review here — even one sentence helps! Sign up for Six-Minute Networking — our free networking and relationship development mini course — at jordanharbinger.com/course!Subscribe to our once-a-week Wee Bit Wiser newsletter today and start filling your Wednesdays with wisdom!Do you even Reddit, bro? Join us at r/JordanHarbinger!This Episode Is Brought To You By Our Fine Sponsors: Lufthansa Allegris: Go to Lufthansa.com and search for "Allegris" to learn moreRevolve Man: 15% off: revolve.com/jordan, code JordanSimpliSafe: 50% off + 1st month free: simplisafe.com/jordanWhatnot: Start selling today: whatnot.com/sellSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.