Podcasts about Nuno

https://soundcloud.com/milio-101 https://soundcloud.com/nunodossantos https://soundcloud.com/sohaso https://soundcloud.com/viaviarecords https://www.delayed.nyc Follow us on social media: 

 https://soundcloud.com/itsdelayed 

 https://www.instagram.com/_____delayed 

 https://www.facebook.com/itsdelayed 

https://www.youtube.com/@_____delayed Contact us: info@delayed.nyc

Bragging rights secured. Time to unpack a huge Black Country derby win. James Bird and Dave Edwards break down Wolves' victory over West Brom and explain how aggression, patience and tactical control helped Wolves dominate their local rivals. Then there's a very special guest. Romain Saïss joins the pod after watching the derby at Molineux alongside Rúben Neves. He shares his verdict on the current team and takes us inside the Wolves glory years, including promotion under Nuno, that famous Middlesbrough win and his favourite memories in gold and black. And after six years at Wolves, Romain explains why Molineux will always feel like home. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

El periodista revela en La Tribu los planes que tenía Cristiano Ronaldo con Portugal y relata la reunión de emergencia para intentar solucionar el enfrentamiento.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

El periodista revela en La Tribu los planes que tenía Cristiano Ronaldo con Portugal y relata la reunión de emergencia para intentar solucionar el enfrentamiento.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

No episódio, Ana Frazão conversa com Nuno Garoupa, Economista, Professor de Direito na George Mason University, Presidente da Associação Europeia de Direito e Economia e uma das maiores autoridades mundiais no assunto. O professor explica o que é exatamente essa área de pesquisa e como a economia pode ajudar no desenho de regras jurídicas e também no seu enforcement. Dentre os tópicos explorados, estão a relação entre as análises econômicas e a economia neoclássica, as outras áreas da economia que precisam estar no radar de juristas atualmente, como a economia comportamental e a economia institucional, bem como as diferenças entre a análise positiva e a preditiva, inclusive para o fim de reconhecer o lado ideológico das últimas. O professor Garoupa ainda trata das dificuldades e limitações das análises econômicas, tais como os desafios para predições, a suposta neutralidade e as restrições dos métodos quantitativos. Por fim, o professor reflete sobre se e em que medida a utilização de critérios econômicos nas decisões judiciais leva a decisões mais pro mercado e como encontrar um caminho de equilíbrio entre a racionalidade econômica e a racionalidade jurídica.

Find out more about our Stay Tuned fundraising campaign with CALM here: ⁠⁠https://www.justgiving.com/page/analytics-united-stay-tuned-2026⁠⁠ Cal & Darcy break down West Ham's attack so far this season, discussing the transition from a counter-attacking side in the Premier League to a more possession-dominant approach in the Championship, if Nuno needs to take more risks going forward, just how valuable set-pieces are for a side at the top of the table and much more. Timestamps: (00:00) Intro (02:50) Has West Ham's transition into a possession-dominant side been successful? (08:00) How Nuno's tactics have evolved this season (12:24) Balancing risk and reward (17:59) Are West Ham arriving in the final third enough? (23:31) Should West Ham take more risks going forward? (25:24) We're taking part in Stay Tuned 2026 this month! (28:11) Comparing West Ham's chance creation to other Championship sides (33:41) West Ham's problems breaking down compact defences (41:37) Maintaining threat on the counter (44:12) The value of set-pieces (50:23) What do West Ham need to improve on/continue for the rest of the season? Support the show and get more from Analytics United: ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/AnalyticsUnited⁠⁠ Please do leave us a review and subscribe to the podcast to catch every episode. You can follow the pod (and our other work) on Twitter: Main: @AnalyticsUtd_ Jack: @jackelderton Cal: @WHU_Analytic Darcy: @futpysche Charlie: @ATopLad Theme music: "Emotional Chill Electronic Vlog Music | Sunset" by Alex-Productions (https://onsound.eu/) Promoted by: https://www.free-stock-music.com Creative Commons / Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC BY 3.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Nuno de Sá, cofundador e diretor artístico da Lisbon Film Orchestra — a única cá dedicada a bandas sonoras - traduziu e dirige “Come from away”, um musical sobre estranhos que se tornam família.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Leão XIV passou o terceiro dia da sua deslocação a França em Lourdes, onde a agenda ficou marcada por dois temas particularmente sensíveis para a Igreja: o fim da vida e os abusos sexuais cometidos no seu seio. Entre os peregrinos que se deslocaram a Lourdes, a paz foi uma das principais intenções. No santuário de Nossa Senhora de Lourdes, o Papa defendeu o desenvolvimento dos cuidados paliativos e da investigação médica, rejeitou a ideia de uma "morte programada" e lembrou que os doentes e as pessoas com deficiência não são um peso para a Igreja. "Sei que, para alguns de vós, devido a determinadas patologias e a dores por vezes insuportáveis, o horizonte pode parecer sombrio, incerto e sem saída. Mas nenhuma lei humana deve fazer-vos perder a certeza da vossa dignidade", afirmou Leão XIV. "Em nome dessa dignidade inalienável da pessoa humana, a tentação de provocar a morte sob o pretexto de uma falsa compaixão deve ser firmemente rejeitada. É impossível considerar normal provocar a morte. O que é legal não é necessariamente moral." O Papa foi ainda mais longe ao afirmar que "ninguém tem o direito, com base em algoritmos laboratoriais, de decidir sobre a vida de determinados embriões ou de determinadas pessoas idosas". E deixou uma afirmação peremptória: "Nunca a medicina deverá tornar-se na serva de uma morte programada." Durante a visita a Lourdes, Leão XIV abordou também os abusos sexuais cometidos na Igreja. Num encontro à porta fechada com os bispos franceses, exortou a Igreja de França a prosseguir a sua acção perante o "flagelo" dos abusos sexuais e, durante a missa dominical, lançou um apelo à conversão para curar as feridas provocadas pelos erros cometidos no seio da própria Igreja. "É hoje e não amanhã que nos devemos converter", afirmou. "Essa exigência da conversão envolve a própria Igreja na sua peregrinação terrena. Ela deve ter coragem de viver essa conversão em primeiro lugar, para curar as feridas profundas, as infidelidades e os desvios causados pelos erros cometidos em seu seio." Leão XIV pediu ainda à Igreja que reconheça as suas próprias falhas: "Devemos colocar-nos humildemente sob o olhar purificador do Senhor, reconhecer as nossas próprias falhas, o que é indispensável para o nosso progresso espiritual". O tema dos abusos sexuais continua a ser particularmente sensível para a Igreja francesa, cinco anos depois de um relatório ter estimado em 330.000 o número de vítimas menores no seio da Igreja desde 1950. Em Lourdes, Leão XIV manteve também um encontro privado com sete vítimas de abusos sexuais cometidos por membros do clero. No final da reunião, durante uma conferência de imprensa, as vítimas descreveram um Papa simples e disponível para as ouvir, manifestando esperança de que o encontro possa representar o início de um processo de mudança. Entre os peregrinos que se deslocaram a Lourdes, a paz foi uma das principais intenções. Nuno, que vive em Lourdes, considerou a visita do Papa um acontecimento raro para a comunidade local. "Como somos católicos, temos o gosto de receber o Papa na nossa vila. Esperemos que acabem com a guerra e que tenhamos mais paz." Questionado sobre os erros cometidos pela Igreja, nomeadamente os abusos sexuais, reconheceu: "Sim, sim, isso é verdade." Sónia, a esposa, defendeu a necessidade de enfrentar directamente os abusos: "Eu penso que sempre existiram essas coisas na Igreja, não é? Só que agora é mais falado. E eu acho que se tem de lutar mesmo contra isso. Enfrentar o problema." Edivânia veio de Carcassonne para ver o Papa e levou consigo um pedido pela paz. "A paz no mundo. Que acabe a guerra e que todo o mundo abra o coração para Jesus." Para esta peregrina, Lourdes representa sobretudo uma mensagem de fé: "A grande mensagem que ela deixou para nós: escutar sempre o Filho dela, Jesus, sempre rezar o terço e fazer sacrifício pela conversão dos pecadores." Neuza, que já no sábado tinha passado o dia inteiro no santuário, este domingo chegou às cinco da manhã e não escondeu a emoção quando o Papa passou mesmo à sua frente: "Eu senti uma alegria tão forte que eu queria dar um beijo nele, mas não deu. Ele parou aqui, pegou em duas crianças, deu um beijo nelas. Foi uma emoção muito grande." Carlos, vive em França há cerca de dez anos, viu pela primeira vez um Papa. "Sente-se uma alegria muito grande para as pessoas católicas como eu. E foi bom ver o Papa. Nunca tinha visto o Papa em toda a minha vida. Então, foi bom vê-lo." Entre os pedidos que trouxe a Lourdes estão "ter sucesso na vida como qualquer pessoa", mas também "que o mundo tenha um pouco menos de guerras e que sejamos um pouco mais compreensivos do que o que somos hoje em dia". Para o padre Vítor Gomes, sacerdote da paróquia de Orthez, na diocese de Bayonne, a visita de Leão XIV foi marcada por uma mensagem de paz e também pela preocupação com as vítimas de abusos. "Para nós é uma grande felicidade e uma grande alegria. Uma mensagem de paz, de fazer Igreja e também um pensamento para as vítimas que sofreram muito." Sobre o encontro do Papa com as vítimas, considera que "é muito importante, para dizer que nem todos os padres são assim, e para dizer também a compaixão da Igreja pelas vítimas que ficam marcadas toda a vida". Oliver, estudante brasileiro que vive actualmente em Portugal, fez questão de viajar até Lourdes depois de saber da visita do Papa. "Quando soube que ia passar o semestre em Portugal e soube que o Papa viria a Lourdes, eu tive de vir para cá. Fiz questão de passar aqui o fim-de-semana com ele e participar em todos os eventos." Sobre a mensagem de Leão XIV, fala em esperança. "São palavras de muita esperança também para os jovens, para o povo francês e também para o mundo. De continuar firmes na Igreja, na fé, nunca desistir." E acrescenta que o Papa colocou como intenção "que cessem as guerras do mundo". Questionado sobre o papel da Igreja no combate aos abusos sexuais, Oliver considera que a instituição deve continuar a actuar. "A Igreja sempre tem de lutar contra todas as violências. Tem lutado. É difícil. A Igreja é santa. Os homens não." Na sua perspectiva, é necessário "acolher e punir o que acontece e tentar prevenir". José e Amália, um casal português residente em França há décadas, também se juntaram aos peregrinos. "Somos portugueses a 100%, mas vivemos em França, o meu marido há mais de 50 anos. Gostamos muito de vir a Lourdes." Sobre a mensagem do Papa, dizem ter ouvido sobretudo um apelo à união e à paz: "Ele fala da paz, que as pessoas sejam unidas e falou que a miséria deve acabar e que todo o mundo viva em paz." José destacou a importância das palavras de Leão XIV num mundo marcado pelos conflitos. "Eu acho que ele é um Papa moderno. Um Papa moderno que quer a paz. Que não haja guerra. Porque vivemos num tempo muito difícil." E recorda a experiência pessoal da guerra: "Eu já fiz a guerra, sei o que é tudo isso, fiz a guerra na Guiné. E sei o que é o bem e o mal-estar. E é triste sofrer. Matar pessoas inocentes. É triste. É triste." O domingo de Leão XIV terminou em Lourdes com uma procissão de velas entre a gruta de Massabielle, local onde, segundo a tradição católica, ocorreram as 18 aparições da Virgem Maria a Bernadette Soubirous, em 1858, e a grande esplanada do santuário.

"2001" fue un punto de inflexión en la historia del arte. Por eso dejó un legado cultural que permite entender muchas cosas de nuestra sociedad y de otras obras. Analizamos este fascinante tema con Bor de "Los retronautas" y Nuno de "Los archivos secretos del Dr. Orloff". Cerramos así nuestra mega especial sobre "2001". Como siempre ¡esperamos que os guste! La música presente en el programa tiene licencia Creative Commons ("Into the Storm" por Brandon Lew y "Endorphine" por The Easton Ellises. ENLACES RELACIONADOS —Pódcast sobre la novela de "2001": https://www.ivoox.com/12-x-19-2001-una-odisea-espacial-el-audios-mp3_rf_175938958_1.html —Pódcast sobre la película de Kubick: https://www.ivoox.com/12-x-20-2001-una-odisea-espacial-la-audios-mp3_rf_176938530_1.html https://www.ivoox.com/12-x-21-2001-una-odisea-espacial-la-audios-mp3_rf_177625403_1.html —Pódcast sobre la carrera espacial: https://www.ivoox.com/podcaliptus-8-x-03-la-carrera-espacial-audios-mp3_rf_75280140_1.html —Pódcast sobre la Ciencia ficción de Charlton Heston: https://www.ivoox.com/podcaliptus-8-x-28-charlton-heston-la-audios-mp3_rf_81843270_1.html —Pódcast sobre la Inteligencia Artificial en la Ciencia ficción: https://www.ivoox.com/10-x-08-la-inteligencia-artificial-su-audios-mp3_rf_117890967_1.html —Pódcast (y vídeo) sobre "Nueva Dimensión": https://www.ivoox.com/11-x-01-la-ciencia-ficcion-la-audios-mp3_rf_133741504_1.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEmos2s3pEM —Vídeo sobre la colección "Otros Mundos": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAUPZonm9hM&pp=0gcJCS8MAYcqIYzv —Canal "Epic Rap Battles": https://www.youtube.com/@ERB —Pódcast sobre "Contact" (Podcaliptus y Torpedo Rojo): https://www.ivoox.com/10-x-24-contact-libro-pelicula-audios-mp3_rf_125219148_1.html —Pódcast sobre "Control": https://www.ivoox.com/videojuegos-son-tambien-para-verano-control-audios-mp3_rf_180098394_1.html

É já esta semana que podemos matar saudades dos Placebo em dois concertos Antena 3 - em Lisboa e no Porto. Nuno Calado mete-nos a lição em dia.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

No programa de hoje iniciámos com:As Escolhas de Luís Dill - Incidente em Antares, EricoVerissimo (Editora Companhia das Letras)Prosseguimos com- Na voz de Isabel Costa – O Tesouro, Selma Lagerlöf (Editora Cavalo de Ferro)Na voz de Luís Filipe Borges – Correios, Charles Bukowski (Editora Antígona)

Neste episódio 224 do podcast Ciência da Bola, João Vítor conversou com Nuno André Nunes, professor e pesquisador da Southampton Solent University, sobre os desafios da formação de treinadores de futebol no mundo.Nuno é co-autor de um artigo editorial publicado em 2026 na revista Football Studies, que propõe uma reflexão sobre o futuro da formação de treinadores.Nuno também compartilha experiências pessoais em sua formação e apresenta caminhos para tornar o processo de desenvolvimento dos treinadores mais individualizado e conectado à realidade do futebol.Link do artigo: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3051268926000073

“Temos de congregar esforços para nos voltarmos a sério para o mar”, diz Nuno Galhardo Leitão, diretor do Museu-Aquário Vasco da Gama, o mais antigo do mundo e 1º de acesso universal.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, I sit down again with Rodolfo Carvalho and Nuno Batista, the first eXp Icon agents out of Portugal, for a five-year check-in on the discipline, consistency, and marketing obsession that took them from 35,000 in GCI to a projected 10X this year. Rodolfo and Nuno break down exactly what changed in their mindset and their daily habits, why they call it the honey badger approach, and how shifting from “best agent” to “best marketer” unlocked a level of growth most teams never reach. We also get into what real estate looks like outside the US and Canada, and why having the right mentor matters no matter where you're doing business.Key Topics Covered* The Honey Badger Mentality — why discipline and consistency beat talent every time, and how Rodolfo and Nuno used it to chase a 10X year* Green Blocks and Daily Non-Negotiables — Nuno's exact time-blocking system for prospecting, follow-up, and content creation* Thinking Like a Marketer, Not Just an Agent — how that mindset shift unlocked growth neither of them expected* Celebrity Positioning and Local Authority — billboards, consistent video, and building recognition in a smaller market* Sell It, Reinvest It — why reinvesting into marketing before it's comfortable is non-negotiable for scaling* Real Estate Outside the US — how Portugal's lack of a shared MLS changes the game, and why listings (not buyers) drive predictable income* The Value of a Mentor — why guidance matters more than access to tools alone“Discipline and consistency will outperform talent every single time. The honey badger doesn't care.” — John KitchensConnect With UsReady to build a plan for more freedom in your business? * Head to 7figurecall.com and schedule your call today.* Download the AI & Leverage Toolkit now and uncover your biggest leverage opportunities at audit.7FigureBP.com* Follow us: Instagram @johnkitchenscoach · LinkedIn @johnkitchenscoach · Facebook @johnkitchenscoach This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit johnkitchenscoachpodcast.substack.com

Find out more about our Stay Tuned fundraising campaign with CALM here: ⁠https://www.justgiving.com/page/analytics-united-stay-tuned-2026⁠ Cal and Jack break down Millwall 2-2 West Ham, discussing what went wrong for Nuno's side in the first half The Den, what changed in the second half to inspire the comeback, Mohamadou Kanté's eventful cameo appearance and much more. Timestamps: (00:00) West Ham 6-0 Wrexham match review (03:39) Man of the Match & Goal of the Game (09:42) Morato & Solomon's relationship (13:37) Piroe & Castellanos' growing connection (21:33) We're raising money for CALM this month! (25:34) How West Ham are evolving out of possession (29:24) Could West Ham press more aggressively? (33:09) The data behind West Ham's press (36:29) Comparing West Ham's press to Middlesbrough's high intensity (40:14) Were West Ham right to keep Nuno? (45:19) Can Nuno coach a dominant side? (47:36) What does the data say? (53:32) The squad's quality Support the show and get more from Analytics United: ⁠https://www.patreon.com/AnalyticsUnited⁠ Please do leave us a review and subscribe to the podcast to catch every episode. You can follow the pod (and our other work) on Twitter: Main: @AnalyticsUtd_ Jack: @jackelderton Cal: @WHU_Analytic Darcy: @futpysche Charlie: @ATopLad Theme music: "Emotional Chill Electronic Vlog Music | Sunset" by Alex-Productions (https://onsound.eu/) Promoted by: https://www.free-stock-music.com Creative Commons / Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC BY 3.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We learn the history of the Rochester Jeffersons, who last played in 1925 and may have been covered by Nuno. Also, injuries were the storyline from the Bears & Commanders yesterday. Which team has a better chance to make the playoffs still? Then, ESPN CFB Reporter Heather Dinich joins the show to react to Ole Miss beating LSU, and much more. Plus, did Deshaun Watson earn the Week 3 start? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We learn the history of the Rochester Jeffersons, who last played in 1925 and may have been covered by Nuno. Also, injuries were the storyline from the Bears & Commanders yesterday. Which team has a better chance to make the playoffs still? Then, ESPN CFB Reporter Heather Dinich joins the show to react to Ole Miss beating LSU, and much more. Plus, did Deshaun Watson earn the Week 3 start? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Neste episódio, recebemos Nuno Pereira, meio-fundista do Sporting Clube de Portugal, campeão da Europa de sub-20 nos 1500 metros e presença nos últimos Mundiais de Tóquio. Com 1.46 nos 800 e 3.32 nos 1500 aos 25 anos, Nuno tem um palmarés que já lhe garante um lugar entre os melhores de sempre em Portugal nestas distâncias. A conversa começa nas origens: o triatlo na Madeira aos sete anos, o ano em que quase desistiu de tudo, e a decisão de apostar a 100 por cento no atletismo depois dos primeiros resultados nacionais.Um dos fios condutores da conversa é a mudança para Lisboa e o que isso significou na prática. Nuno descreve sem rodeios que uma semana de treino no continente valia duas na Madeira, sobretudo pela companhia e pelo nível dos atletas à volta. Falamos da estrutura semanal com double threshold, do peso crescente do trabalho de ginásio orientado especificamente para a corrida, que aponta como um dos fatores decisivos no salto de 3.36 para 3.32, e de todo o aparato de recuperação, do sono e da sesta às massagens, banhos de contraste e palmilhas feitas à medida. Há também uma passagem franca pelo historial de lesões, incluindo a banda iliotibial nos dois joelhos e uma fascite plantar, e sobre como um ano limpo é frequentemente o verdadeiro segredo por trás de um recorde pessoal.A parte mais interessante para quem gosta de pista é a explicação de como se vive uma prova de 1500 por dentro: como se lê o ritmo desde a partida, onde é preciso estar no momento certo, e o que acontece quando se hesita e se perde o comboio. Nuno conta o que correu bem e o que correu mal em Tóquio, e reconhece com honestidade que taticamente poderia ter feito diferente. Fechamos com os objetivos: baixar dos 3.30, a qualificação por ranking para os Europeus, e Los Angeles 2028 como o grande sonho, num contexto em que as mínimas de qualificação estão em níveis que obrigam quase toda a gente a passar pelo caminho dos pontos.RecomendaçõesLucy Charles-Barclay | The Performance Secret Nobody Talks About (Performance People) - Podcast -  (YouTube)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnDBmBHXjasHow to Build Immense Inner Strength | David Goggins (Andrew Huberman) - Podcast (YouTube) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDLb8_wgX50Parcerias e como ajudarem este projeto

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nuno Figueiredo, porta-voz da DECO PROteste, alerta que medidas do Governo não chegam para travar aumento do custo de vida. Sugere, por isso, implementar o IVA 0 no cabaz alimentar e nos combustíveis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Find out more about our Stay Tuned fundraising campaign with CALM here: ⁠https://www.justgiving.com/page/analytics-united-stay-tuned-2026 Jack and Darcy break down everything you need to know about West Ham's next opponents, Millwall. They discuss what makes Alex Neil's side good on the counter, their strength at set-pieces and weakness on the floor, the key players Nuno needs to target to get the 3 points and much more. Unearth the hidden gems of the beer world and claim your free case here: ⁠https://www.beer52.com/UNITED Timestamps: (00:00) Intro (02:14) How does the Fulham loss change the preparation for Millwall (03:40) What has changed at Millwall? (07:05) Millwall In Possession report (07:50) Possession (12:21) Chance creation (14:20) Millwall Out of Possession report (15:46) Pressing (17:30) Box defending & duels (20:21) Key player: Caleb Taylor (21:24) Key player: Jake Cooper (22:03) Key player: Camiel Neghli (23:08) New signing: Taïryk Arconte (24:11) New signing: Lyndon Dykes Support the show and get more from Analytics United: https://www.patreon.com/AnalyticsUnited Please do leave us a review and subscribe to the podcast to catch every episode. You can follow the pod (and our other work) on Twitter: Main: @AnalyticsUtd_ Jack: @jackelderton Cal: @WHU_Analytic Darcy: @futpysche Charlie: @ATopLad Theme music: "Emotional Chill Electronic Vlog Music | Sunset" by Alex-Productions (https://onsound.eu/) Promoted by: https://www.free-stock-music.com Creative Commons / Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC BY 3.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Análise do jogo frente ao AC Milan a contar para a J1 da fase regular Liga Europa.Com participação de João Paulo Silva, Sérgio Engrácia, João Nuno.

Antevisão do jogo frente ao AC Milan a contar para a J1 da fase regular Liga Europa.Com participação de Sérgio Engrácia, João Nuno.

Find out more about our Stay Tuned fundraising campaign with CALM here: https://www.justgiving.com/page/analytics-united-stay-tuned-2026 Cal and Darcy break down West Ham 6-0 Wrexham, talking how Nuno's side completely pulled apart Phil Parkinson's promotion hopefuls. They discuss the growing partnerships on the pitch, with Piroe and Castellanos running the show up front and Morato and Solomon pulling the strings on the left. They analyse West Ham's press so far this season, looking into the Hammers' data and comparing it to a high-pressing Championship favourite in Middlesbrough and, after 3 wins in 6 days, ask whether Nuno can coach a dominant side in the Championship in 2026. Timestamps: (00:00) West Ham 6-0 Wrexham match review (03:39) Man of the Match & Goal of the Game (09:42) Morato & Solomon's relationship (13:37) Piroe & Castellanos' growing connection (21:33) We're raising money for CALM this month! (25:34) How West Ham are evolving out of possession (29:24) Could West Ham press more aggressively? (33:09) The data behind West Ham's press (36:29) Comparing West Ham's press to Middlesbrough's high intensity (40:14) Were West Ham right to keep Nuno? (45:19) Can Nuno coach a dominant side? (47:36) What does the data say? (53:32) The squad's quality Unearth the hidden gems of the beer world and claim your free case here: www.beer52.com/UNITED Support the show and get more from Analytics United: https://www.patreon.com/AnalyticsUnited Please do leave us a review and subscribe to the podcast to catch every episode. You can follow the pod (and our other work) on Twitter: Main: @AnalyticsUtd_ Jack: @jackelderton Cal: @WHU_Analytic Darcy: @futpysche Charlie: @ATopLad Theme music: "Emotional Chill Electronic Vlog Music | Sunset" by Alex-Productions (https://onsound.eu/) Promoted by: https://www.free-stock-music.com Creative Commons / Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC BY 3.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Nuno Andre Santos may not be famous, but the Kayak's that he helps produce are. Nuno is the CEO of Nelo Kayak's and if you look back over sporting history, multiple Olympic athletes and medal winners were using Nelo Kayaks. Nuno chats to Dylan about, amongst other things, Portuguese craftsmanship, Portuguese people and their curious relationship with the ocean, what he loves about his country and why just about everybody can feel famous in Portugal. FOLLOW OUR GUESTNuno on LinkedinNelo KayaksABOUT PORTUGAL THE SIMPLE LIFE PODCAST:   "Portugal - The simple life”, an insider's perspective to Portugal.  We already know about Portugal's fantastic weather, food and people. In this podcast, we go deeper to meet the people who make this country so wonderful.Dylan, who has made his life in Portugal, shares an insider's perspective on what makes Portugal the unique, beautiful and fantastic country it is. Join him and his guests weekly as they shed light on the incredible people, culture, history and lifestyle that make Portugal so appealing. A country where everyone feels like they belong.    Don't forget to subscribe to our Podcast to receive more stories about living and moving to Portugal!   SPONSOR:Portugal Realty, a Leisure Launch group company, sponsors this episode. 

Nuno Rogeiro é uma presença familiar. Todos o conhecemos como senhor da guerra e houve um tempo em que até passava por espião. Esta é uma história que desmente essa teseSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nuno Rogeiro apresenta-nos um programa especial dedicado às comemorações dos 25 anos do 11 de Setembro. A conversa percorreu a arqueologia histórica do atentado, desde a primeira tentativa de destruição das Torres Gémeas em 1993, passando pela criação da Al-Qaeda e pela fatwa declarada por Bin Laden em 1998, até aos alertas ignorados — entre os quais um relatório classificado elaborado em 1994 pelo analista Marvin Strom, que descrevia com detalhe a possibilidade de aviões serem usados como armas contra Nova Iorque e Washington. Nuno Rogeiro aborda ainda as falhas de coordenação entre a CIA e o FBI, que, tendo cada um parte da informação crítica, nunca chegaram a cruzar os dados que poderiam ter impedido o ataque. Na segunda parte do comentário, a análise centrou-se nas consequências do 11 de Setembro, desde a guerra no Afeganistão — com destaque para a participação portuguesa — até à criação da prisão de Guantánamo, passando pela evolução da Al-Qaeda e pelo surgimento do Daesh. O Leste/Oeste foi exibido a 13 de setembro na SIC Notícias. A sinopse deste episódio foi criada com o apoio de IA. Saiba mais sobre a aplicação de Inteligência Artificial nas Redações da Impresa.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Four draws in six games...Wrexham failed to see off bottom-of-the-table Burnley and Andy and Tim are here to dissect exactly what went wrong.We break down the positives, including standout performances from Jacques Ekomie, Anthony Patterson and the peerless Callum Doyle - alongside the pressing negatives:Is the midfield too static?Are we giving Kieffer Moore the service he needs?Have we got the right balance with our attacking midfielders?We also discuss the appointment of new sporting director Steve Nickson and whether he can fix the balance in the next transfer window and what his priorities are.Then, we turn our attention to West Ham. Geo from Hammer Chat joins us to cover:West Ham's struggles on and off the pitch & a fascinating look at their ownership battleTheir strengths and weaknesses following three wins in a rowHow Hammers fans really feel about manager Nuno and life at the London StadiumFinally, we check in on the prediction game standings and give our score predictions for the big match.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Enjoy this Fat Boar-sponsored episode? Please consider buying us a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/fearlessidzineCheck out our new website: fidpodcast.comGet tickets for our next live night in November: https://www.mghall.co.uk/events/thursday-26th-november-fearless-in-devotion-live-podcastTo subscribe to our Wrexham is the Game newsletter visit: https://wrexhamisthegame.substack.com/Find us on socials: https://linktr.ee/fearlessidzine Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Unearth the hidden gems of the beer world and claim your free case here: www.beer52.com/UNITED Jack and Darcy break down West Ham 3-0 Derby as well as the Hammers' summer transfer window in detail. They discuss the growth we're now starting to see in Nuno's side, the structural change that's helping West Ham and more from the London stadium before moving onto assessing the now complete summer transfer window. They talk all of West Ham's incomings and outgoings, breaking down each transfer and ultimately asking whether we're happy with where West Ham's squad stands going into a promotion-chasing season. Timestamps: (00:00) West Ham 3-0 Derby match review (00:48) Most pleasing aspect of the Derby game? (02:19) Build up: How West Ham's rhythm is improving (08:09) Rest defence: The structural change that's helping West Ham (16:20) Winning it in the first half hour (19:58) Reviewing West Ham's summer transfer window (20:38) Did West Ham achieve what they needed to this summer? (22:48) West Ham's outgoings (23:02) Mateus Fernandes (28:28) Crysencio Summerville (31:07) El Hadji Malick Diouf (33:37) Freddie Potts (34:37) Callum Marshall (35:38) James Ward-Prowse (36:32) George Earthy (37:23) Callum Wilson, Adama Traoré, Łukasz Fabiański & Krisztián Hegyi (37:33) The loans: Niclas Füllkrug, Aaron Wan-Bissaka, Jean-Clair Todibo & Kaelan Casey (40:35) Assessing West Ham's outgoings as a whole (42:04) West Ham's incomings (42:07) Arne Engels (46:13) Edvin Austbø (47:49) Manor Solomon (49:39) Keiber Lamadrid (50:44) Joël Veltman (52:01) Adama Boiro & Morato (54:18) Joël Piroe (55:34) Divine Mukasa (56:23) Youth promotions: Mohamadou Kanté, Lewis Orford, Joshua Ajala, Airidas Golambeckis, Finlay Herrick, Daniel Cummings & Mason Terry (58:00) Are we happy with the squad? (59:07) Rating West Ham's transfer window out of 10 Support the show and get more from Analytics United: https://www.patreon.com/AnalyticsUnited Please do leave us a review and subscribe to the podcast to catch every episode. You can follow the pod (and our other work) on Twitter: Main: @AnalyticsUtd_ Jack: @jackelderton Cal: @WHU_Analytic Darcy: @futpysche Charlie: @ATopLad Theme music: "Emotional Chill Electronic Vlog Music | Sunset" by Alex-Productions (https://onsound.eu/) Promoted by: https://www.free-stock-music.com Creative Commons / Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC BY 3.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Myself and Nuno have a chat about what we've played, along with any board gaming news that has caught our attention, before moving on to this episode's topic: Board Games Ruined My Ignorance Our 2 sponsors of the show are The Bored Gamer and 3Desiggnie. You can get all their links from our sponsors page. My new YouTube channel ‘The Lone Zombie Hunter‘ is now online to watch…and subscribe to

PHP Podcast – September 2, 2026 Hosts: Eric Van Johnson & Joe Ferguson John’s out, Joe jumps in at the last second, a brand-new intro gets debuted mid-flight, a new PHP Foundation podcast gets announced, Frank’s database issues (not production), and somebody’s selling 37 elePHPants to fund a startup and open-heart surgery. New Intro, New Scenes, and a Last-Second Co-Host Eric kicked off the episode still tinkering with a brand-new intro and scene setup live on air, complete with a fresh montage that (thankfully) still includes Duck Nizzle. With John unavailable, Joe Ferguson jumped on at the last second to keep the show moving, and the two spent the opening minutes wrestling with scene sizing while Joe appeared comically small on screen. The pair caught up on client work: Joe pulled off an Elastic Beanstalk environment flip that nobody noticed (which is exactly how you want those to go), while Frank got thrown right under the bus for deleting the wrong database. Fortunately, it wasn’t production, and the conversation turned into an appreciation session for point-in-time recovery on AWS RDS and DigitalOcean’s managed databases, both of which have saved plenty of bacon during cowboy-hat coding sessions. The PHP Foundation Community Podcast Joe announced a brand-new podcast launching on the same PHP Architect channel, hosted by Elizabeth Barron and focused entirely on contributing to PHP. The first guest is Matt Stauffer, who recently published a fantastic post on the Foundation site about contributing to PHP, with recording set for September 10th. The plan is one Foundation Community Hour per month, plus the Joe, Holly, and Sarah show on weeks when Eric and John aren’t around. Eric and Joe used the moment to clear up a common misconception: people often conflate PHP internals with the Foundation, but they are not the same thing. The Foundation pays people to work on internals rather than steering the language itself. Its whole reason for existing is to get structure and funding around an old open-source project that billion-dollar companies have built empires on while contributing little back downstream. They also touched on recent Foundation board turnover: Roman’s term ended, and he’s rotating off, with Brent Roose joining as JetBrains’ representative — a great fit given Brent’s reach and the volume of PHP content he pushes out. Unlocking the PHP Architect Magazine Back Catalog The hosts made a pitch for the magazine, noting that an active subscription unlocks the entire catalog going all the way back to the very first issue — December 2002, which covered PHP 4.3. Eric got nostalgic about first discovering the print magazine right when PHP 4 came out, when knowledge was scarce, YouTube didn’t exist, and you had to buy O’Reilly books and beg your manager’s education budget for a subscription. Big news for existing accounts: John has opened up everything published before 2022 to anyone with an account on the system, even without an active subscription. Log in, head to magazines, and check what you now have access to. The team also reminded listeners that the magazine pays every contributor, that they’ve built a solid roster of regular columnists, and that PHP Architect is a consulting group available to augment teams, evaluate systems, and more. Where Developers Fit in an AI World Eric put Joe on the spot with a big question: What does a developer’s role look like going forward, given where AI is? Joe leaned positive on the tooling — Claude is excellent at parsing logs, spotting anomalies, and navigating large legacy codebases he isn’t in every day. He described real workflows like running AWS bill reviews for clients and comparing “what does your Claude say” with Frank to catch ridiculous bugs, all while distilling the output down as the human in the loop. But Joe was candid about his concerns too: AI feels force-fed in a way CSS or JS frameworks never did, with a real fear of being replaced by “a bunch of Claude agents in a trench coat.” He raised ethical and environmental concerns, pointing to accusations about his own city’s AI data center and the ripple effects on hardware — RAM prices spiking 400–500%, with Apple reportedly paying far more for iPhone RAM, a cost that always flows back to consumers. Eric compared the AI moment to crypto: a genuinely good technology released to the masses too soon, leading to misuse and eventual regulation. He shared a concrete win, though — using Claude to single-handedly bring a Laravel project shelved since COVID up to date, then using it to generate effort estimates (roughly three years of work) that helped set realistic expectations with a client who didn’t want to hear it. The pair debated whether those estimates accounted for AI-assisted velocity and stressed the importance of guardrails — especially for juniors, since even skilled devs leave S3 buckets open and AI is dangerously confident in its word guessing. TypePHP: Interesting, But Not for Everyone Eric dug into TypePHP, the ahead-of-time compiler from the Swoole team that translates PHP source into C++ and then native machine code. On the surface, he likes the idea — it’s something he wanted decades ago — but he questioned its relevance today: the compiler’s habit of catching bad code before it runs matters less now that PHPStan, linting, and a strong testing culture already fill that gap. Joe pointed out the bigger practical problem: there’s far more talk about TypePHP than actual code being written in it, and it’s clearly geared toward long-running CLI processes rather than web requests. That excludes the kind of PHP most developers actually write, and as Nuno noted in the chat, it isn’t going anywhere until it works with Laravel and the rest of the ecosystem. The hosts agreed the real value would be extracting any gains and folding them back into native PHP, à la HHVM/Hack, and noted transpiling already solves the “I want a different syntax” itch. Joe also pushed back on the “runs everywhere” selling point, arguing that Docker and Podman containers already make PHP CLI tools trivially portable — better than PHARs ever were. Eric landed on a mature take: he wants PHP everywhere and is happy to see it evolve, but he’s come to terms with the fact that he won’t personally use every direction it grows, TypePHP included. ElePHPants, Laracon Archives, and Free Talks A Reddit post caught the team’s attention: someone is selling their 37+ elephpant collection to fund a startup and help offset the cost of upcoming open-heart surgery. Joe noted the PHP tech elephpants are wildly undervalued compared to others in the listing — you can grab an OG PHP Architect orange Archie for under a hundred bucks. Eric showed off his own big Elvis (a gift from Sarah) and eyed the coveted Star Trek elephpant that John once nabbed in a trade at Longhorn. Eric also highlighted the new Laracon Archive project, which collects Laracon conference talks across regions (US, EU, Online, India) with a clean year-by-year interface — great work for anyone who tries to manage conference content. He closed by plugging phptech.tv, which hosts PHP Architect conference talks, including a batch of free talks and even a full free conference this year, with the same back-catalog-unlock model as the magazine. Links from the show: Longhorn PHP 2026 — October 15–16 PHP Foundation — Contributing to PHP blog post PHP Architect Magazine — Subscribe & unlock the back catalog PHPTech.tv — Conference talks, including free ones Host: Eric Van Johnson X: @shocm Mastodon: @eric@phparch.social Bluesky: @ericvanjohnson.bsky.social PHPArch.me: @eric Joe Ferguson Mastodon: @joepferguson@phpc.social PHPArch.me: @svpernova09 Streams: Youtube Channel Twitch Connect & Hire PHP Architect Website Twitter/X Mastodon Hire PHP Developers Looking to hire PHP developers? Email support@phparch.com – Joe and the team are available for consulting, infrastructure work, Ansible playbooks, and code review. Partner This podcast is made a little better thanks to our partners Displace Infrastructure Management, Simplified Automate Kubernetes deployments across any cloud provider or bare metal with a single command. Deploy, manage, and scale your infrastructure with ease. https://displace.tech/ OurCVEs Your security posture, on autopilot with OurCVEs CodeRabbit Cut code review time & bugs in half instantly with CodeRabbit. PHP Architect Consulting Your PHP codebase deserves a partner, not a contractor PHP Architect provides long-term technical partnerships for organizations that need senior-level PHP expertise that you can depend on https://www.phparch.com/consulting/ Music Provided by Epidemic Sound https://www.epidemicsound.com/ Join Us Live Next Week Youtube Channel Got feedback? Join us on Discord at discord.phparch.com The post The PHP Podcast 2026.09.02 appeared first on PHP Architect.

Claudio Echeverri, reforço para a época 2026/2027.Este episódio conta com a participação de João Nuno e Sérgio Engrácia.

João Palhinha, reforço para a época 2026/2027.Este episódio conta com a participação de João Nuno e Sérgio Engrácia.

Análise a Souffian El Karouani, reforço para a época 2026/2027.Este episódio conta com a participação de João Nuno e Sérgio Engrácia.

It`s been a busy week for the Hammers with a win against Southampton and a draw against Watford. It`s about to get even busier as it`s also transfer deadline day! Who's going to come and who's going to go? What do we think of the business so far? With chants of your getting sacked in the morning at Vicarage road, is Nuno already on borrowed time? So much to talk about including surviving Reading festival before getting news from Ex and answering questions from Patrons of The West Ham Way…..To unlock the full show and a range of other benefits, you need to be a Patron of The West Ham Way. You can become one here: www.patreon.com/thewesthamwayThis Podcast was created and published by The West Ham Way. Views on this show are not necessarily shared by talkSPORT.@DaveWalkerWHU@ExWHUemployee Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In June, the most capable American AI models stopped shipping as public launches and started shipping through a government gate. Six weeks later the gate is open again — and the real fight has moved to the layer no gate can touch. A Chinese open-weight model rattled trillions out of chip stocks, Washington pivoted from gating American closed models to threatening bans on Chinese open ones, the industry mounted its largest-ever policy counter-mobilization, and an American frontier model literally broke out of its lab and hacked another company. Knee-jerk reactions, or the beginning of real AI governance? Navigation: Intro The Gate Opens The Kimi Shock The Escape The Counterstrike and the Petition Interlude — The Low-Background Books The Investor Reckoning Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to Tech Deciphered Episode 80. This one, once again, will be all about AI, government, frontier models, and open weight counterstrike. A lot has been happening in the regulation space, in cybersecurity, in the launch of new models in the past, maybe just 6–8 weeks. It’s actually pretty insane how much happened. We believe it was time to do an episode to talk about where we are and maybe where all of this is going. Maybe let’s start with a summary of where we stand, all that June and July saga, so you, our listeners, can get up to speed if you are not already there. You want to start with some points? Nuno The Gate Opens Yeah. Again, to your point, the gate swings. The gate had closed. We had to prepare an episode for the gate closing, and then the gate reopened. Now we have a different episode. This will probably change again as we’re seeing there’s news every day. Let’s start maybe with the first 19 days of the gate closing. There was an executive order on June 2nd from President Trump that asked frontier labs to share models with the government, 30 days pre-release. It inferred the protected frontier model designation into that. Basically, it was effectively a de facto licensing agreement defined by an executive order of the President as of June 2nd. On June 9th, Anthropic launched Fable 5 and the famous Mythos 5 or Mythos. I’m not sure how you actually say it in English. Then on June 12th, there was an export control directive banning access by any foreign national. Since there’s no way to verify nationality in real-time, Anthropic had to switch the models off for everyone worldwide. Bertrand On this point, you could argue that there are possibilities to check IDs. Many services let you check IDs online. You can pre-check a flight by showing your ID. There are ways, it’s just that if you don’t want to follow what’s already available, because guess what? Maybe it slowed down your revenue growth, maybe it looks bad on you or whatever. My point is that there was actually an option. I think it’s already a decision from Anthropic to say it’s either on or off, but nothing in between. Nuno I think the point is they had no way implemented of doing it. If they implemented it, to your point, it would have hampered use in general. A lot of people wouldn’t have gone through that trouble of doing it. Anyway, long story short, in June 26th, the White House apparently asked OpenAI to limit GPT-5.6, so Sol, Terra, Luna, to only 20 vetted partners. Now, apparently, the trigger for a lot of these things that have been going on was that there was a jailbreak that was found by Amazon researchers. All of that led to this jumping around of, let’s close the gates. You have foreign nationals, and therefore, Anthropic got it out and said, “Hey, then we’re going to switch the models off until we can sort this out.” OpenAI was asked also to only allow it for certain vetted partners, et cetera. The government came in, closed the gates effectively, and said, “From now on, we need to be involved in this thing.” De facto regulation, there’s no doubt that this has imposed de facto regulation, certainly on the top players in the market. But then came the reversal. Bertrand, do you want to talk about the reversal, the gate swinging the other side? Bertrand Maybe I just wanted to say that as a user of Anthropic products, ChatGPT products, for the brief moments, a few days where Fable 5 was made available to the public before it was closed the first time, I immediately started using it. I must say it was a real issue to use it because the guardrails were pretty crazy. It would keep saying that my code was not okay, there was cybersecurity risk and stuff when I was doing absolutely reasonable development with absolutely no connection whatsoever to any cybersecurity risk, attack, detection, anything. Still, it would keep blocking me, degrading me to Opus 4.8 at the time. I just want to say this was already very hardcore what they were implementing, and not just hardcore, but in some ways, plain stupid for something that’s supposed to be super smart. It was totally unable to classify properly some of my work. I must say I was already disappointed. On top of it, the costs were insane. Half a day, I would reach my limits when I had the best plan you can get from Anthropic. My point is that there were some real serious issues when they launched Fable 5, even at that point. Nuno I had a similar issue. I used Fable 5 as well before they had to take it offline or take it off. I think the issue was really not that the guardrails failed. As you said, maybe the guardrails were actually too aggressive, but it was this jailbreak that caused the recall, apparently caused this knee-jerk reaction. Bertrand But my point is that it seems that it was not working either way. It would either overclassify something that’s absolutely not doing anything wrong, and it might fail to classify something that is actively trying to do some cybersecurity work. It’s a real issue of quality for a company that’s supposed to be at the forefront of quality of AI and everything. I think for me, there are already signs that something is deeply wrong. Nuno Then it’s reversed, right? We went the other way around. The government came out on June 26th and approved redeploying Mythos 5 to US organizations defending critical infrastructure, and then the export controls were effectively lifted on June 30th. July 1st, Fable 5 came back online for all of us to use. Shocking enough, with strings attached, that were different. They had some time to revise their commercial deployment of it along the way because it came back with some, “Now you have usage credits, but you have some limits on plan use, et cetera.” I’m like, “You guys, this was blocked. But meanwhile, you did have some time to do some commercial stuff around it.” Bertrand It was crazy. I’ve never witnessed any such crappy launch of any service whatsoever in 30 years in tech, it was so bad. Every day, they would change the terms of service. They would tell you it’s part of the plan. It’s not part of the plan. It’s part of the plan for three more days, and then it’s excluded. You have a special discount now, but then it goes back to full price. It was a total nightmare. I’ve never felt myself being so much mistreated by a company. I guess you saw the same, but when I started using the newest version of Fable 5, it was even worse, actually, I think. I couldn’t do any work with this crap. I let it go and work on the work I wanted it to do. It was simply not working. On top of it, you never know how long you are supposed to lose your credit, how fast. It was burning credit like crazy. Me, personally, I can say, very quickly, I actually stopped using it. I was like, “No, I cannot deal with this shit. My main model is back to Opus 4.8. I’m going to use Fable 5 for code review, but not anymore to control anything because I cannot trust it would do the job without stopping or changing models and stuff. I just cannot trust it.” Back to Opus 4.8 as my main model, I can say that my life was much easier. I use Fable 5 as a review mechanism, as a support mechanism, but not as the main mechanism. Suddenly, the guardrails were not so horrible anymore because it was used in a much lighter way, I guess. As a pain as a user, I think it was really bad. I don’t know your experience, but me, for me, it was unacceptable. Nuno I wouldn’t say it was as bad as yours in terms of just end-user experience. I think the terms of service switching back and forth, which went one further step, because then when they then launched Opus 5, they started making comparisons between Opus 5 and Fable so that people would migrate more and more to Opus 5 themselves, which is interesting. It’s like they’re saying “This is much cheaper. This is whatever. You’re not going to run of credits. You should use Opus 5,” kind of thing effectively. To your point, I don’t think they managed well the launch. They didn’t really manage it well. We’re moving people around. A lot of people are using this for stuff that’s like daily tasks, hourly tasks, anything that relates to code and co-work. It’s like, we need to have visibility on what your terms of service are going to be. Should I be using this new model or not? What’s happening to the other model? I don’t see it as negatively as you, Bertrand, but I see your point. It was clearly mishandled in terms of how they deployed it, how they were redesigning effectively their pricing scheme and their terms of service almost on a daily basis, at a certain point in time. We’re like, “Dude, there’s millions of people using this. You guys are making a lot of money.” Just moving it as it is. At this point in time, at the scale that these guys are at, it’s calling in people to say, how about we think through a class action suit at some point around pricing? Because you guys are changing the rules of the game all the time, right? Bertrand I don’t know if I need the class action, but for me, that joke that, “Let’s not rush too fast. The model is dangerous.” But still, they rushed the launch because it’s very clear that if they had enough compute capacity and stuff, they would not have to limit so much. They would not have to put so much cost per token and all of this. You can see that actually when they launch Opus 5, literally like 2, 3 weeks after, by most benchmark at launch, they tell you basically that, “You know what? Actually, Opus 5 is better than Fable 5 on 80% of the metrics.” They’re like, “What? Seriously? You couldn’t wait 2 weeks? Why did you even launch Fable 5 in the first place?” That’s another part for me that is quite literally insane, to be frank. It’s like, “Why? Why do you make us go through so much pain if it’s only to tell us after 2 weeks to…” “This new model, by the way, has less issues, less stuff, because 2, 3 times less is part of your plan, and it’s actually better by most metrics.” It’s like, “What’s going on here? What’s going on? Are you guys mad?” I don’t know. It was crazy. Personally, I still use Opus, now 5, as my main system and platform, Fable 5 for review, code reviews and the like. I don’t want to run into its stupid guardrails. I can see Fable 5, from my perspective, seems quite a bit smarter. I don’t know why they do this stupid benchmark showing you it’s actually worse than Opus 5. I guess they should have better benchmark if they want to demonstrate why you are supposed to pay 2, 3x more for a model versus another if it’s actually worse by most benchmark. Again, I still think it’s a huge mess from a marketing perspective, customer perspective. Me as a user, I really feel that they don’t want my money, and they couldn’t care less about me. This is even before everything else we’re trying to talk about. Nuno Yes. Maybe just to close the cycle on the reversal on the door opening the other way, finally, Commerce lifted the GPT-5.6 restrictions on July 8th, and then on July 9th, general availability across ChatGPT, Codex, and the API as well. What has this proved? It proved that now we have gating mechanisms, and certainly for closed models in the US, for sure. We had frontier models that were switched off worldwide in hours, and it took a couple of days, in this case, 19 days to restore them. There were concessions. Now we know that there were concessions around effectively institutionalizing that gate. Early government access to future models is, I think, now a given, certainly in the US. New safeguard frameworks are probably now having to be put in place. There are some stage limits now on who gets access to what for new models and how it happens. This voluntary executive order, so to speak, not really sure, has become effectively regulation enforcement path. It’s de facto regulation that now has been put in place. It has affected not just to the points we were making before, the access to these models, but also who gets access to these models, and actually potentially even pricing access to the models. It has probably some commercial implications as well as we just discussed along the way. Very significant. This is very significant. This is regulation, de facto at the table, imposed on the two largest players in the market by far by one government, in this case, the US government. This is significant. Actually, you could even allege it was imposed by the President because this was coming as part of executive orders. Really incredible. Pretty significant, fast, aggressive. It has created a regime that you could say it’s a regulatory regime, it’s a de facto regulatory regime. It has some significant pricing and licensing and commercial implications. It goes even beyond your classic regulatory framework. Very, very, very significant. Bertrand I don’t know if it goes beyond a classic regulatory framework. Nuno I think it does, because it has implications on who do you give access to? When government is saying you can only give access to these players, right? Bertrand Defense industry. It’s all over the defense industry. You cannot sell an F-35 like this. Nuno No, but that has commercial implications, Bertrand. That’s like you’re saying these are your customers, you go and use them. Bertrand That’s the defense industry. You cannot sell to Iran your F-35. No, that’s exactly the same story for me. Nuno No, no, no. It’s beyond that. These guys are saying when they came back, and they said, “For Mythos, you can make them available to these entities,” they were saying the first entities that are going to have access to the model. It has commercial regulatory implications. You’re saying these players are the first players that are going to have access to it. It’s no longer just defense concerns and these governments don’t have access to this. No, no, no. You’re saying to a company that is a private company, your models are only going to be used by these guys because I’m telling you so. It’s the other way around. It’s not even that you can’t sell it to Iran or whatever. It’s like you can only sell it to these guys. Bertrand Again, in the defense industry, if you’re a private company, do you think you can buy F-35 like this? No. Nuno No, no, no. But this is a private company, Bertrand. This is not a defense agency and a plane that is on whatever, with IP from the US, right? Bertrand Boeing is a private company, and they cannot sell the military equipment they manufacture. Nuno No, no, no. But the development of their IP was subsidized by agencies that belong to the US, right? That’s a different matter. It’s a matter of IP, right? This is not, right? Anthropic, their models are not owned by the US government. There’s no IP granted to the US government, to my knowledge. This has significant commercial implications. Bertrand Maybe, yes. Maybe on this. But I think there are already regimes to limit who you can sell to, and that’s decided by the state or the DOD. Nuno It’s the export control logic. The export control logic? Bertrand You have export control, and export control is Commerce. My point is that they are using existing tools, part of the government, to limit what can be sold. Selling chips, NVIDIA was limited in terms of where it could sell its chips. It’s not different either, but still there were limitations. If you are an ASML, you cannot sell to a private company in China. Many private companies cannot buy ASML products. This is a foreign company. This is a foreign company under pressure from US government. Nuno I understand, and I’m not a lawyer, but it feels different to me when you say you cannot export, this is export controls, to these countries, to these entities, et cetera, because they’re foreign et cetera. Then to say, “No, no, no. On top of that, these guys get first access.” That’s, for me, a significant shift. Again, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m sure there’s very intelligent people right now looking at this stuff and saying, “You can’t do this stuff, or not, or they can.” I don’t know. But it feels to me, it goes beyond the remit of export controls. It’s like you’re defining initial clients for specific use. Bertrand My impression is more like, “We can do this situation where we’re going to forbid you to give access to anyone outside the US or even in the US or limit even more.” Basically, it was, I guess, some gesture to go beyond that. That’s how they probably defined these 20 authorized companies. I don’t know. Apparently, there was also restrictions because I remember seeing that Anthropic had their own list of companies they would authorize access to Mythos early on. That’s apparently another thing that pissed off state government because there were companies in there that were considered close to the Chinese government. They were extremely unhappy that Anthropic didn’t ask, actually, for any guidance from the state government, but used basically their own perspective on who they should allow or not. I guess that was also part of why they got these serious restrictions. Nuno Anyway, now we have a regulatory environment that’s very interesting and exciting. Talk about the US not regulating. Bertrand To be clear, I don’t know you, but I’m not saying that I agree with any of this, to be very clear. I’m trying to explain and share some perspective, but I’m not in agreement on a lot of this. Nuno Yes, we were just describing what happened to the best of our knowledge. We’re having a discussion on what we think actually is happening and how it’s happening. We’re not really right now saying we agree or disagree with this. I think later in the episode, we can share some perspectives on what we think is actually happening and how there’s dimensions to this which are very geopolitical and very complex, which quite literally probably only God knows what’s going to happen. That was the gate swinging. There was a gate closing, then there was a gate reopening, and all of a sudden we have a gatekeeping system that has been created along the way. The Kimi Shock Along the way, moving to our Act 2, the world has changed, and we now have so-called open-source plays out there that are creating massive, massive shifts in the market. The Chinese models, in particular, with Moonshot AI launching Kimi K3, which is the largest open-weight model ever released. We’ll come back to the discussion around open-weights. I’m not sure all our listeners understand what that means, because there’s a debate now, should models be open weight or not, and how does that work? There’s been a petition as well signed along the way. Right now, we have open weight models that are out there that are huge. What that actually means very pragmatically is we now have open source models, lack of a better word. I know open weight and open source are not the same thing. You guys will have to bear with us during this episode. We’ll explain at some point the differences. But we have models out there that are open source that are significant. That are catching up with the closed source models, with the models by OpenAI, Anthropic. That’s significant because most of those models are Chinese. This is where the geopolitics starts getting really frazzling and we start playing 3D chess. Because everyone’s like, “These models are 5, 6 months behind.” Now people are saying, “Maybe they’re actually just 3 months behind, 2, 3 months behind.” If we, for example, decided to stop or slow down our model releases in the US by the closed source guys who are leading, it might mean they’ll catch up. What are the implications of that? Again, for you and I that are not necessarily experts in model development, well, the implications as a use case is if you want to use the latest models, and the best models start becoming these open source models, you’re going to use those models. Then you start using Chinese models. If you’re an American company, maybe you’ll have restrictions on the use of those Chinese models. But if you’re a European company, you probably won’t. What happens after that? Is the world going to be in the hand of Chinese models? Will that constitute effective competition to the closed models in the US? Will we have open models in the US that will scale as well? What’s going to happen? Bertrand I think it’s a really big question. It goes to some of the core of the issue. It’s that ability of Chinese models to basically challenge frontier models, not just being 6, 12 months late, but being 6 weeks late. Basically, no gap. Some will say that, yes, but OpenAI and Anthropic have even better models that are not shared and stuff. Yes, sure. But maybe the Chinese have the same models that they are not sharing right now. We don’t know. What is clear is that one is that open weight, as you said, two, there is a question of how it is marketed in the sense of, can anyone use these weights? Is there a license to use them? Yes, what we can see is that, for instance, typically there is a license for some of the biggest Chinese open-weight models you have to abide with. You might have a need for a commercial license if you are acting as a company leveraging this model to provide AI-informed services. If you use it internally by yourself, you’re okay. If you use it internally for your own internal company needs, maybe you are okay if it’s not your main business to do AI work. Anything else, a much bigger corporate providing AI services and stuff, you will probably end up having to pay a fee to be able to provide services around this model. My point is that it’s not just 100% free. Some of the Chinese models are 100% free to use, MIT license, Apache 2.0 license. But the biggest ones with the biggest weight that are truly frontier typically have a different license if you want to scale these models, providing AI in front. That’s one thing to keep in mind. Nuno Maybe just to make a very quick point, because people are like, when you talk about open models, what does it mean right now? In the context of this episode, open models mostly will mean open-weight models. How do those differ from open source? Open weight means that you release the weights to the public, which means that anyone can download, fine-tune, and run the model on their own hardware. It doesn’t normally mean that you also have access to training data, training code, or a truly open license. That’s the distinction to open source. Open-weight doesn’t mean that. For example, we’ve talked about Meta’s Llama in the past, and we also discussed in the past that their license agreement does have restrictions, certain players can’t use it, et cetera. The open model definition and open weights are really open-weight models that we’re talking about here, and they are closer to freeware binaries than to Linux, for those who understand the difference between that. It’s binaries that you can use and then use your own weights on it versus actually I can change code on it. I’m not going to be able to change code on this. When we, for the purposes of this episode, talk about open, we mention open weight, just to clarify that point to everyone that’s listening right now. Bertrand Yes, that’s a great point. One of the only players, as far as I know, who is truly open source is actually NVIDIA with their Nemotron-3 models. They’re actually following a special license to achieve that. They provide you the data, they provide you all the processes and tools, so you can easily post-train. NVIDIA is a big, big exception. It’s a very interesting player, by the way. We might not talk much about it in this episode, but I think for intermediate-size models built in the US, where you have access to everything in the deployment, it’s a very interesting alternative and maybe one of the best choices if you are a US company or a big corporate, and you want something trusted. Another piece of the puzzle to clarify is that when you use open-weight, it means that you can run them by yourself, or you can use a US provider to run them. If we are talking about Chinese open-weight, you can use the APIs they provide, but then the service is running in China, they might have access to your data. But because it’s open weight, if you run it by yourself or if you use a third-party provider based in the US to run it, then there is no access to your data by China or Chinese players. I think that’s a pretty important gap to understand. It means that these models are actually very, very low risk from that perspective if you run them on your premises or in the US by a US player. I think that’s something to keep in mind. You can also fine-tune easily these models to make sure they will behave in a way that, for instance, is not going to represent the line of the Communist Party on some topics. There are ways to make these models more neutral in their output as well. There are a lot of ways to make good use of them. By default, they’re already very safe, but you can make them even more safe. I think that’s some things to keep in mind. But again, it depends ultimately on the license and what you’re authorized to do and some fees you might end up having to pay. Nuno Why did this matter so much? Immediately there was a reaction from the market because people are like, well, if there’s much better stuff out there that’s much more efficient than it’s open, then it might be that all the demand that we are taking into account, for example, for chipsets actually isn’t real. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index fell into bear market territory. It went down by as much as 20% plus from the late June peak. The worst chip week since April 2025. Taiwan’s benchmark initially fell 6% plus, Japan’s 4%, TSMC dropped dramatically despite beating earnings and rising guidance. Basically, a huge amount of effect. Now, there’s a little bit the aftermath of this where apparently Moonshot ran out of GPU capacity. Maybe… Bertrand In just 48 hours. Nuno In 48 hours. Great for them, but at the same time, not great in the sense that maybe there was a misread by Wall Street of the Kimi effect, so to speak. Bertrand Completely. For me, that’s such a joke. It’s like, because you have an open source model, so what? I mean, you still need to run it. This is not a small one. 2.8 trillion parameters. Good luck running that in your garage, by the way. Nuno They misread supply, basically. Tough luck, right? All of that basically happens. Bertrand Maybe you want to talk about the Jevons paradox, because I think that’s a big part of the puzzle as well. Its one is they might not have the GPUs to run the inference on the model. They might have enough to build a model, but not enough these days to run inference, especially given how much with intelligent models, thinking models, you need way more inference than before. But on top of it, the cheaper you make it, the more you get to the Jevons paradox. Nuno Yes, Jevons paradox, for those who don’t know, is an economic term. It describes an economic phenomenon where technological improvements that increase the efficiency of a resource lead to an increase rather than a decrease in the total consumption of that resource. What that means is, for example, for chipsets, chipsets become so much better, and they are so much more efficient. You’re like, well, maybe normally in resource terms, that leads to decreased usage of that resource. But in this case, it actually leads to an increased use of that resource rather than a decrease. There’s more and more consumption of that resource. You need more and more chipsets because people actually need to do more and more stuff with it, although there are great efficiencies going into it. There’s the efficiency gain, there’s the cost reduction, and there’s the price-elasticity element to it. But basically, the adoption just continues going through the roof along the way. Bertrand In some ways, it’s like the price of energy. Coal went cheaper and cheaper, and people were asking the same question 150 years ago, now that it gets cheaper, there is not much money. No, no. Actually, what happens is that people find more and more use for coal. Homes are getting heated more. You have ships now using coal. You have manufacturing using coal. The cheaper it gets, the more use case you can develop, and therefore, you don’t need less of the stuff, you need more of the stuff. By going at scale to get more of the stuff, you also decrease price, making even more demand. It’s a very interesting phenomenon, but it’s not new. It is what happened for a while in the energy sector and some other sectors. Nuno We already started talking about the Chinese logic and what’s happening. Getting a little bit of a reality check on this. The Chinese models, and these are numbers from Open Router in July, Chinese models are at 46.4% of routed tokens and 35.7% for US origin. Again, more than a third of global AI usage now seems to be running on Chinese open models. This is significant, and it has a huge impact on the geopolitical scale of everything that’s happening. Also, the whole Chinese field is converging on open. Open seems to be a strategy, not just a nice thing that’s happening. It seems to be a Chinese strategy, so much so that you have players like Moonshot, DeepSeek, our old friends DeepSeek, Z.ai’s GLM 5.2, Minimax, and even Alibaba seems to be reversing and going open with Qwen. It feels to me this is becoming policy as well. Xi Jinping has personally endorsed the building of open-source AI, if it’s really open source, if it’s just open weight anyway, and this feels to be a jab at Washington, DC and the fact that the big closed models are coming from the US. This is now geopolitical 4D chess, right? We didn’t need this stuff. Bertrand To be clear, it’s the usual in tech. If you are not number one, you are number two, number three, your alternative is to go open source because that’s another angle that your competitor usually cannot follow without destroying its own business model. That has been the alternative for the past 20 years of most software projects. Here, what’s different is that it’s not the number one or number two player. It’s the US number one as a country, China number two as a country. That’s where it’s new. For me, what’s very interesting is the endorsement by Xi Jinping. I was waiting for something official, and it certainly didn’t disappoint. As you said, there was an immediate U-turn of Alibaba, who in the past… Nuno Surprisingly. Bertrand Yes, a little more like, “yes, we are going to close and stop open source. It was good while it lasted.” Just a few days ago, Qwen 3.8 Max was launched, and we are supposed to get the weight in a few days. We talk about the US administration policy and stuff. Yes, let’s not forget that in China there is similar stuff. Sometimes it’s totally invisible because you don’t see the directives, but they exist as much. Sometimes it’s more visible. Here it was quite visible. The difference in China is that if you don’t abide by the directive, on top of it, you might have to fear for your personal safety. It’s a different game, and that’s probably why the reaction is pretty quick, usually. That’s pretty interesting for me because it means that now you can bet for a while that China is going to play that game up to a point. I guess the point is if it’s truly frontier scale, you will have a special license that, yes, technically the weights are open, but you can not do everything you want with it. Two, you have a player like NVIDIA that I think will feel more pressure to provide even more high quality, larger models at scale going forward. Their largest Nemotron-3 Ultra model was, if I remember well, only around 500 billion parameters. I would not be surprised for NVIDIA to go into the two, three trillion range at some point. Because I think the US need a very clear US-born alternative open source. I think NVIDIA might be the best player for that. We will see if Meta goes back to open source. I think NVIDIA is one, very well positioned, but two, it’s also in their best interest. Because NVIDIA for now depends on just a few big hyperscalers as clients. If they can expand their clients to every S&P 500 companies, selling them directly hardware because now these companies can run a model made by NVIDIA, I think there is a very clear value proposition for NVIDIA to go in that space. Again, if you are number two, your differentiation, open source is often the answer. There is a true business as a business model for companies, because if it’s truly not just open weight, but open source, you can tweak it as much as you want, you can change it, you can change even the pre-training process. Because there is a lot of stuff you can do that really benefits you as a corporate, and you can reach a much better value by having more control on the model. Nuno We won’t spend a ton of time on it today, but like, again, if there’s a view that we are in a bubble, that the valuations cannot be sustained in chipsets, infrastructure platforms, applied AI, et cetera, today, this might be that beginning, where the valuations start being destroyed because you can’t keep a premium on just charging people for tokens and all that stuff if you have models that become more and more efficient and cheaper to use. Maybe just to close a little bit the geopolitical part of the discussion today, we won’t go into all the announcements from China because there were many, a lot of go back and forth with Alibaba by then. Xi Jinping made some announcements. You guys can check it online. Let’s move quickly to Washington’s reaction, which was from gating the US closed models to banning the Chinese open ones. There’s been as strong affirmations as one can get from the Office of Science and Technology Policy Director, Michael Kratzios, mentioning that they have information that Moonshot AI distilled Anthropic’s Fable. Basically, there’s been reverse engineering and stuff in the market. They’re basically copying. Bertrand I’m sorry to interrupt, but it feels like so much bullshit. It’s coming from Anthropic who has basically gotten access at scale to all the knowledge made by humanity, copyrighted or not. We’ll talk more about what they did with books. Then to claim after that that others cannot do to you what you did to everybody else. For me, it’s pretty big. It’s clearly unacceptable. The other piece is that everyone is doing distillation. It’s a very typical approach of every business model. You try other software when you are competing with somebody else. You try other datasets, you check what’s happening. It’s part of doing business for decades. Suddenly it’s not good for Anthropic. I personally have a lot of trouble to accept that. I think it’s totally unacceptable. The other piece of the puzzle will also go back. If these guys are so smart, if these guys have so much of the best model, why can’t they block by themselves distillation at scale? The only answer is that either they are morons, probably not, or they simply don’t want to because it’s going towards their business model. Suddenly, you book less revenues and stuff, or you put more friction, and therefore your customers don’t like it. Instead of doing it yourself, you ask the government to protect you, go out of business practice that is very typical. For me, it’s really, really, really not good. Sorry, we are going more in the opinion side, but I had to put that on the table. Nuno Yes, Fable went public finally again on July first. Question marks on whether distillation would only be possible from July first onwards or not. But a 15-day distillation to frontier, which is K3, launched on July 15th, would have been a Guinness World Record, as one of Moonshot employees actually mentioned. It’s very implausible and unlikely. Bertrand Or they shared the Mythos 5 with the wrong companies, who themselves shared with Chinese companies. We go back to maybe they didn’t have a good list. Again, it goes back to maybe they didn’t want to hurt their business model. Nuno Anyway, under the threat of sanctions, Moonshot, in any case, open-sourced the full K3 weights and technical reports. They open weighted it to become the largest open weight model in the world in terms of parameters. Beijing’s MOFCOM brands US threats as basically the US wanting to fundamentally control and be monopolistic around AI along the way. The administration bans Chinese hardware with an eye on the AI race, and Beijing warns of retaliation. That was July 27. Now we’re in a war between Beijing and DC. Bertrand Just to finish maybe on China, it’s important to know that they are building their own GPUs now. Huawei has pretty good, not to NVIDIA level, but pretty decent GPU hardware that they’re able to manufacture by themselves. A Chinese player of memory just got IPO’d a few days ago, CXMT. China is also developing their own memory. Again, not to the same level of quality that you can get from the West. But China is moving. It’s not just that they are building great models, it’s also that they are building GPUs and memory. That might be a few years late to the latest standards in the West, but there are definitely improvements. I also read, even on the tools to make manufacturing like ASML equivalent, there is definitely some work going on, and some improvements and some stuff will be visible. In some ways, the genie starts to get out of the bottle from the Chinese perspective. Nuno I’ll put a stick on the ground. I don’t think it’s a matter of if, it’s a matter of when will China surpass and have a lot of this tooling on their own side, and not just the software layer, not just the frontier models. I think it’s also going to be around infrastructure and platform. Good luck to everyone. Let’s see how the race continues. But it’s definitely this is a geopolitical thing right now. It’s definitely a race. The Escape Maybe moving to what happened in just 2 weeks or a week and a half. The escape, there was some jailbreaking going on, and the narrative on safety has totally switched. It’s not still significant enough that’s like, “Oh, we saw a nuclear plant going, whatever.” No. But still, it is significant. Hugging Face, the AI company, disclosed an intrusion, and it was driven end-to-end by an autonomous AI agent system at machine speed, running for days before detection. Now, this is where it gets really cool. OpenAI takes attribution on that. They initially said it was just a little bit, sorry. Then they said, actually, it was worse than that. “Oh, it broke out of an isolated sandbox.” “Oh, no, actually, it was more than that, and it went into other systems as well.” Bertrand Truly, the genie out of the bottle. Nuno No, but this is where it gets really cool, Bertrand, right? Because it actually, Hugging Face contained the intrusion by running a Chinese open-weight model, GLM 5.2. This is beautiful, right? Bertrand Yes. You know why? Because they couldn’t even run their own defense because both Anthropic and OpenAI would not let them access their latest models with the guardrails off. When they tried using it for defense, the latest from Anthropic, from ChatGPT, they would tell them, “No, this is too dangerous what you’re asking us to do.” Preventing an intrusion, helping defend you. No way we are going to do that. Nuno No. Let’s use the Chinese models on our infrastructure. Bertrand We have no choice but to use the Chinese models to run. More than that, we don’t let you use our models to defend yourself, but our not yet released models that run without guardrails, they can attack you. This is probably the most insane from that perspective. Nuno The Chinese models came to the rescue. Bertrand For me, that’s a perfect example because Hugging Face is a very visible company in AI in open source. But anybody who is not at that scale is not going to get some support from OpenAI or Anthropic when this happens. Maybe these guys won’t even recognize they did anything wrong. You will be left to defend by yourself because they won’t accept to support you. Because remember, if you want the better model that is able to defend you from cybersecurity perspective, no way. If you are not one of the few top 20 companies or so, as defined, you are left defenseless. Again, we are going back to opinion, but for me, it’s so shocking what’s happening right now. I’m very glad we have alternative open source to be able to defend ourselves because right now, good luck getting defense services if you are a smaller business and individuals, and you need support from Anthropic, OpenAI. Nuno Now, even self-described AI optimists are saying, “This is scary now.” Like Walter Isaacson, who wrote all the famous biography books. There’s now discussion around the AI Kill Switch Act, bipartisan thing that’s coming across from Texas and California, a potential bill that’s coming in. We’ll see if that works. Now let’s get an off-switch. I’m like, “Cool.” As if that’s going to solve the problem, because you have open-weight models on the other side catching up, right? Bertrand Yeah, sure. Bring in clueless politicians from Congress to solve our problems. Yes, sure. Nuno Anthropic came to the table, helped build and said they built some regulatory machine on their side, and now they’re getting bitten by it, and they’re part of the offending players in that market. Now there’s all this debate and all this discussion around open weight and around slowing down AI and et cetera, which is our next section. You wanted to say something, Bertrand. Tell us. Bertrand Don’t forget, because this advertisement for OpenAI was just too good. Our AI attacked some other companies, and not just one, but three, actually. Let’s not forget the progress. Great ads. Then I came and said, “You know what? AI also hacked businesses.” You’re not the only one hacking around with a crazy AI out of control. You’re not the only one. We want our advertising. For me, it was shocking that on one side, unreleased models that you let run wild. On the other hand, you have released models that you put crazy guardrails on top of it, so the defender are defenseless. I’ve never seen anything like it, and I really hope that there will be as little regulation as possible, quite frankly, to make sure anyone can defend themselves and have the best tool at their disposal, not just a few well-connected big corporates. This is really, really shocking. The Counterstrike and the Petition Nuno Now the empire strikes back, so this is counterstrike, the petitions. In several days, we have now a bunch of petitions. The first one was the open weights letter. Bertrand, do you want to explain to us what the open weights letter is? Bertrand Yeah. I think it was great. This was released by Jensen Huang, first ever post on X, 11 million views. Congrats, Jensen. Co-signed with Microsoft, Meta, c actually was probably the initiator of this letter. Very good letter saying, “Hey, we need open weight. This is not a joke. We need that. You cannot block open weight.” Because that’s the rumor we are getting that potentially open weight could get blocked. I think they are making the case, “You know what? Hey, we absolutely need that as an alternative. You cannot block it.” They can keep their closed models, but don’t force a closure of the open weight models. As I said before, it’s actually a great model for NVIDIA because NVIDIA doesn’t want, probably rightfully so, to be dependent on just a few frontier models, their best customers. They want a variety of customers. They have a big interest actually to defend open weight and to invest even more. They have great researchers, are a great company. If one company is about to do really kick-ass work, I think it’s them. They are defending. What’s great is that it’s not just them. It’s basically most of big tech in the US and outside the US, from a Linux Foundation to a Microsoft, the Palantir, an IBM, a Dell. It’s a who’s who of the industry except Anthropic. Anthropic didn’t sign that. I guess they hate open source so much. If I look at 20 years ago, it feels like Microsoft, after all, was very kind to open source. You remember what was said by Microsoft at the time. It’s clear there is one company against open source. OpenAI signed the letter. Honestly, I don’t know what to think. Do they really believe in it or was it just a way to show that they are not like Anthropic? I don’t know. But for the rest, I think it’s genuine because it’s actually in their best interest. I hope they will be heard. Then a second letter came, the Open Secure AI Alliance, NVIDIA-led and again, the big tech companies from Microsoft, IBM, Palo Alto Networks, Databricks, Palantir, all those, but not present, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. Here it’s to say, “Hey, we need a secure approach to AI. Open should be part of the equation.” guess what? The worst AI-caused security incident to date was actually caused by closed frontier models that were not even available to the public. While again, not providing you access to even the latest closed model for cybersecurity use case. Nuno I would highlight the NVIDIA open source NOOA framework, Apache 2.0 licensing agreement, Microsoft contributed the MDASH, SpaceX AI contributed Grok Build. Cool stuff. There’s some cool stuff happening around that. This is more than a letter. This is an alliance. Apparently, they’re contributing all this stuff, we’ll see. Yeah, cool stuff. Same day. Same day, Amodei has an answer, right? Bertrand Yeah, same day. They say, “We never advocated for a ban,” which, again, opinion on my side is entirely bullshit. This guy has been crying wolf against everybody else, and especially against open source. You can see him doing testimony in Congress against open source. I think they are doing everything they can behind the scene to block open source in the US or in the world if they could. I think, yeah, obscurity is not good safety. I’m a big fan of open source in general, and I’m also a big fan in AI. I think it’s now Anthropic, mostly against the rest of the world. I think OpenAI is mostly on their side, to be frank. They don’t want to acknowledge it so much, but they have shared interest, and they have shared probably position. Nuno Why would you? I don’t feel as strongly as you because I think Anthropic is a private company, right? The same thing with OpenAI. OpenAI, you could say it’s a nonprofit that has a for-profit. There’s still that complexity in there. Bertrand No, they can do what they want with their own product. But to block others is where I’m not okay. That’s the part I’m not okay. Nuno What Dario Amodei is proposing is more enforcement, right? He’s basically saying you need to do even tighter controls on advanced chips flowing to authoritarian states, enforcement against industrial-scale distillation, whatever that means, right? Bertrand Yeah, which he could do, but all by himself. He doesn’t need the government to do that. Nuno Mandatory safety testing for all sufficiently capable AI, open and closed, right? He’s basically saying, “Okay, I don’t agree with the open weight stuff effectively,” right? He’s just putting it under a different banner. “I agree with this extra regulation.” then obviously, David Sacks responded and say, “Hey, it’s like, bans don’t work for weights. Why do they work for chips?” It’s like, magically, chips are more controllable and bannable. Whatever that is. Then our friend Mark Zuckerberg, just to be clear, goes on the other side as well, because he also has to have a view. He has to have a view that is the rebuttal of both of the other guys. Bertrand I feel he’s a bit flip-flopping because he was very pro open source 2 years ago, and the latest Meta models went closed source. Now I think he’s back open source. I don’t think he has a very strong spine on the topic, but it’s good to see that he’s not a doomer. That for me is great. He’s showing how AI can be a source for progress, a source for entrepreneurship, source for freedom. I think that’s very exciting to hear that. We need to hear more of it. By the way, that’s not what you hear in China, for instance. AI is very positive in China. It’s in the US with the doomers that you hear this discourse, and people get worried as a result. I’m glad that he was pushing for a more positive vision and for support of open weight, open source initiatives. But let’s see what they really truly open weight going forward. Nuno But that’s been his position because I guess he’s standing behind. He thinks open weight is going to be the best way to compete, right? Bertrand Yeah, but he closed his latest model, so let’s see. Nuno Yeah, so it’s flip-flopping, as you’re saying. Then we see the latest petition from last week. Bertrand The true Empire striking back. Nuno Yeah, the true Empire striking back as of late last week. Maybe this is Return of the Jedi, where we discover the father, “I’m your father, Luke.” That’s the pacing petition. The pacing petition is we need to pace AI. There you have initially employees from OpenAI and Anthropic that circulate this petition. Actually, Dario did sign this petition originally. It wasn’t signed originally by Anthropic, but by him. But you’ve heard that now Anthropic and OpenAI as companies have also signed this petition, right? Bertrand I think they have signed as companies now. It started mostly by Anthropic researchers with some OpenAI researcher and a tiny part from other companies. But it was mostly Anthropic internally led, at least potentially internally. Maybe it was controlled by Anthropic all along, I don’t know. But it started officially as Anthropic employee-led letter. Nuno What does this letter actually say? Is Anthropic and OpenAI, are they willing to slow down themselves? Or are they asking President Trump to go around the world and tell President Xi that he needs to slow down and ask his guys to slow down? What’s the play of this letter? Bertrand It’s crazy, but for me if you want to slow down yourself. Do whatever you want. Don’t force others. Don’t use the power of the government to control others. Of course, it’s easy to push others to slow down when you are yourself at the very top. You have most money, most resource. You know you are going to win any regulatory framework because that’s how it works with this type of framework. It’s purely self-interested. You are probably not thinking well about these topics. If you truly think it’s a good idea, from a personal perspective, you are well instrumentalized if you sign this sort of stuff, because at the end of the day, they would be the winners. I certainly, personally, don’t want a company dictate what is my future in AI as an individual, as a business person. I don’t want them to control me. I want competition. I don’t want them to unfairly control AI because they managed to do some regulatory capture. I feel that’s exactly their game plan. These guys believe in their stuff, and they want the regulator to end up being the one deciding for us. Sorry, we go back again on the opinion piece, but it’s tough not to share an opinion on this topic because it’s, from my perspective, very scary. Nuno I think this is a push to further regulation, not less. All these letters and alliances, this is definitely a push for more regulation. In that environment, just to be very honest with you, we’ll talk about the investor impact in just a bit, et cetera. But in that environment, again, China has a huge advantage. In that environment, if it’s all captured in regulation capture so soon in this battle where OpenAI and Anthropic have an advantage in the US, et cetera, I’m like, what happens to all the other frontier labs and all the other players that are coming around? Bertrand What’s crazy is to even think that, yeah, maybe you can regulate capture in the US. But then how do you do that to Europe? How do you do that to China? Europe probably will always welcome regulatory capture because they love regulations. But China is going to build to their advantage to the max. They are not crazy. They are smart on that perspective, they won’t accept this type of, quite frankly, dimwit argument, or you can call it regulatory capture. We’ll see. But for me, this makes no sense from a global competition perspective. This can make some sense from capturing the revenue in the US market. But then that means you are going to destroy the US AI environment compared to China. That is not acceptable. That also means that you are going to destroy our freedom as individuals, as business owners to develop and live in a business world that ultimately is controlled by one or two business companies that didn’t win the marketplace through their own business success, but won it through regulations. That for me is really not acceptable. Interlude — The Low-Background Books Nuno Now, maybe for an interlude, and we have to cue in the music, imagine like Severance music, like hallway or a bit of a palate cleanser from all the policy stuff that we’ve been talking about, all this policy heaviness. Let’s move to another kind of heaviness, one of your favorite topics, which you, Bertrand, discovered, I had no clue this was going on, around books and around Anthropic. Bertrand It’s so horrible. From a company that keeps presenting themselves as the adults in the room, the careful ones, the ones that know better than you about what to do in this complex AI and dangerous world. What we discover is that actually all along, they were buying and destroying books. They will buy books, scan them, destroy them, all of them. They will do that with any books, including rare books. Of course, this was not supposed to come to the public’s attention. This was one of these top secret projects, but obviously it came out. Yes, they were scanning books, millions of them, including rare books, and they didn’t care about destroying them at the end of the process. Because from a regulatory perspective, if you destroy the books, it’s not considered a copyright infringement, apparently. This is coming on the back of some judgment a few years ago that were showing that it’s okay for you as a corporate to scan and use the result if you don’t keep a copy of the book. It’s one of these crazy regulations happening based on a single judgment that push you to do. For me, it’s like, you know this book from decades ago, Fahrenheit 471? We’re talking about book burning. It’s book destroying, crunching. It’s so shocking. Nuno There are two things, right? First, the legal strategy, which is what you’re saying, because by purchasing a physical copy and converting it into one private digital copy and discarding the original, Anthropic pursued this cleaner legal argument for fair use copyright compliance. As you said, there was a federal judgment at some point on this. The other reason is actually operational. If you disassemble the book, and you feed loose pages, it’s much faster to scan books. You are destroying the book effectively anyway operationally. I think to your point, probably this came from a legal standpoint, not just the operational one. But even from an operational standpoint, it does make sense that they would have disassembled the book. Bertrand But some people have shown you can go very fast without destroying the book. It’s really not so critical. Two, you could make an exception if the book is rare. For that 1% of book that is rare, I’m not going to have this approach. I’m going to have another approach. But for that, you will have to care about books and not just care about building AI. Nuno This is the episode, as you guys have heard by now, that we’re trying to spit stuff at Anthropic. Bertrand To go back this is the same company saying, “Hey, guys, it’s bad to distillate my work. I’m the one scanning book at scale without asking author permission, without asking publisher permission, to be clear.” Nuno But just to be clear, Bertrand, we’re pissed off at everyone. We’re pissed off at Anthropic, we’re pissed of at OpenAI as well, right? We’re just pissed off in general at this moment. Bertrand At this stage for me, the more clear-cut company that is in the wrong is, from my perspective, at least, is Anthropic. OpenAI might be a fast follower, but I will say so far, they tried to be a bit more. Nuno But at this pace, Bertrand, who knows? Maybe next week we’ll be more pissed off at OpenAI. Something will come out. This episode is a mix of tragicomedy, like a Greek tragedy with some comedy in the middle or the other way around. It’s a slapstick thing that will end up in tragedy. I’m not sure. The Investor Reckoning Anyway, maybe switching to our final act, which is the investor perspective. What does this mean for investors like ourselves? There’s a lot of things going on. There’s the debate around the IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI, which now, with all this uncertainty, might be under significant weight. There’s a lot of other discussions that we browsed through that there’s potential IPOs going forward on companies like the Moonshot AI company actually IPO-ing in the next 6 months as well. It’s very unclear what the IPO landscape looks like. Bertrand There’s been a lot of Chinese IPOs, actually, when you look at what’s happened in the past few months. Nuno Anthropic, OpenAI as potential IPOs, there’s all this question marks now. When will that happen? How will it factor in? All that’s happening around regulation as regulation is moving at the speed of light, which is for once something that’s very different than what we’ve seen before. There’s obviously SpaceX AI, which is already taking into account that price. It’s already a public company in there, and it’s under SpaceX, which is now a public company. Obviously, that’s already being factored in some ways. Bertrand Yeah. SpaceX AI has been very smart to acquire Cursor. It was a very smart move because Cursor is one of the leading companies in terms of automated code source development with AI. They had great models on their own. They’re bringing development data to SpaceX AI Grok. I think it was a great move. Nuno We have now people like Google delaying Gemini 3.5 Pro in terms of launch window. There’s stuff actually happening in the market where things are taking their own path. There’s uncertainty commercially, there’s uncertainty at regulation level. You have new players that have come out of nowhere that are making all these waves like Moonshot. We have all these… We had calculated probably a month and a half, 2 months ago, there had been 67 new frontier labs funded. All of these, we haven’t seen any much coming out of them. When some of this stuff starts coming out, will that also create disruptions in this market? Who knows? Bertrand Look at Thinking Machines, for instance. Thinking Machines led by the previous CTO of OpenAI, they released some pretty interesting open source models, actually. Very good quality for a first launch. Now it looks funny to say, but nearly on par with the top Chinese open source models. Nuno We have several investments in the space. humans& has made some recent announcements, which is quite interesting as well. We’ll see what actually happens in the market, but even more disruption probably will come in actual products in a form of product and commercial, on top of all the geopolitical mess that we discussed through the entire episode. If you’re an investor, how the hell do you underwrite an investment right now in early stage, mid-stage, late stage, et cetera? I think my answer is very carefully is how you underwrite it. Bertrand On your advice of being very careful to underwrite it, let’s not forget what happened to our boy wonder, Leopold Aschenbrenner of Situational Awareness. I guess he didn’t listen to you in terms of being careful because part of the instability in the stock market was actually coming from his hedge fund. These guys were leveraged 3, 4x going after the hottest of the hottest AI stocks, and margin calls, and all their public investment is gone just to answer their margin calls. I think it’s clear that the AI bet is… Personally, I’m very excited, and I think it’s the future, and you need to spend time and think about and invest in it. At the same time, it’s a bet that is not an easy one to follow. We go from GPUs to memories to equipments to power generation. All of this is not transitioning in an easy, organized manner. It would be boom and bust going there. He’s probably one of the first big-scale fatalities. The other big-scale fatality was the stock market in Korea, plunging 40% in a month. Definitely, all of that we discussed about was, on the background, you had the stock market going up and down pretty crazily the past few weeks. Nuno Everyone’s being affected. Everyone, you have your 401(k), you have your pension fund dependent on these equity stocks. Everyone’s seeing the effects of this volatility right now very aggressively. We do wish Leopold… Hopefully he’s on honeymoon right now because he got married, I think, this weekend. Hopefully there will be… Bertrand To none less than an Anthropic Chief of Staff. Nuno His wife is the Chief of Staff of Dario, is that it? Bertrand To Dario, yes, as far as I unders

Unearth the hidden gems of the beer world and claim your free case here: www.beer52.com/UNITED Cal and Jack break down what's going wrong at West Ham at the moment, discussing the roots of the problems both attacking and defending, if Nuno can adapt to managing a side that's expected to dominate a league and much more. They also talk West Ham's sixth summer signing, Edvin Austbø from Viking, breaking down what we can expect to see the Norwegian winger this season, why he's such an exciting signing and how important it is that the Hammers' have added yet another title winner to the squad. Timestamps: (00:00) Intro (02:50) West Ham sign Edvin Austbø from Viking (03:49) Why Austbø is an exciting signing (07:31) Austbø is another title winner (10:08) Austbø's biggest strengths (15:19) Our reaction to West Ham's season so far (21:35) Are West Ham too cross-reliant? (23:55) A deeper conversation about West Ham's attacking woes (33:03) Why Lewis Orford needs to start (38:10) Watford's goal: Bad defending or good finish? (42:26) The HOL HOG: Alessio Dionisi (43:42) Can Nuno adapt to managing a side aiming to win the title? (47:06) West Ham's defence isn't good enough (52:12) The counter-press problem Support the show and get more from Analytics United: https://www.patreon.com/AnalyticsUnited Please do leave us a review and subscribe to the podcast to catch every episode. You can follow the pod (and our other work) on Twitter: Main: @AnalyticsUtd_ Jack: @jackelderton Cal: @WHU_Analytic Darcy: @futpysche Charlie: @ATopLad Theme music: "Emotional Chill Electronic Vlog Music | Sunset" by Alex-Productions (https://onsound.eu/) Promoted by: https://www.free-stock-music.com Creative Commons / Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC BY 3.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Things get weird with Nick Cage and the TV Junk Podcast. Sean, Dax, Nuno and Greg sit down to discuss Spider-Noir. They breakdown each episode and discuss the Spider-Verse, peak Nick Cage, the amazing look of The Spider's costume and Dax throws Greg under the bus. The crew also have a small discussion around Spider-Man: Brand New Day. Check it out at the link or download and subscribe wherever you find your favourite podcasts.

Producer Nuno thinks that he's a genius. Lane Kiffin & Ryan Day defended their pursuits of NFL players who are returning to college football. Should they be allowed to play? Also, Two-a-Days roll along with the Dallas Cowboys. Then, ESPN NFL Analyst Jason McCourty joins the show. Plus, I'm Over It! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Producer Nuno thinks that he's a genius. Lane Kiffin & Ryan Day defended their pursuits of NFL players who are returning to college football. Should they be allowed to play? Also, Two-a-Days roll along with the Dallas Cowboys. Then, ESPN NFL Analyst Jason McCourty joins the show. Plus, I'm Over It! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support the show and get more from Analytics United: https://www.patreon.com/AnalyticsUnited Cal and Jack break down West Ham 1-2 Charlton in the Hammers' first home game of the Championship campaign. They discuss where exactly it went wrong for West Ham, Taty's controversial penalty miss, what Nuno need to change in order to beat counter-attacking sides and, ultimately, ask whether we should be concerned about the poor form we've seen so far. Timestamps: (00:00) West Ham 1-2 Charlton review(06:00) Taty's penalty miss: Should Castellanos have taken it? Nuno's comments after.(07:58) What went wrong?(11:47) The Biggest Takeaway: First phase attacking has to be better(15:20) Final Third Problems: How should West Ham be creating chances?(24:31) The HOL HOG: Nicky Hayen & Nathan Jones(25:45) Arne Engels debut review(30:23) Joël Piroe debut review(36:37) How can West Ham get the best out of Piroe & Engels?(40:57) Style mismatch: How West Ham can solve the issues we've seen against counter-attacking sides(45:27) Lewis Orford has to play(48:55) Getting better outcomes: Circulate faster, rotate more(51:18) Are we worried? Please do leave us a review and subscribe to the podcast to catch every episode. You can follow the pod (and our other work) on Twitter: Main: @AnalyticsUtd_ Jack: @jackelderton Cal: @WHU_Analytic Darcy: @futpysche Charlie: @ATopLad Theme music: "Emotional Chill Electronic Vlog Music | Sunset" by Alex-Productions (https://onsound.eu/) Promoted by: https://www.free-stock-music.com Creative Commons / Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC BY 3.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en_US Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Balanço eclético Benfiquista , com a participação de Álvaro Ferreira, João Nuno e Sérgio Engrácia.

Our first home league game of the season ends in defeat to London rivals Charlton Athletic. How? Why? Despite dominating a large part of the game and creating chances, we come away with nothing. Can that still be classed as a decent performance? Why did Taty take the penalty? Is Piroe the Striker we`ve been craving? What did we think of the other debutants? And just how much pressure should Nuno be under at this early stage? All that and more before getting news from Ex and answering questions from Patrons of The West Ham Way….To unlock the full show and a range of other benefits, you need to be a Patron of The West Ham Way. You can become one here: www.patreon.com/thewesthamwayThis Podcast was created and published by The West Ham Way. Views on this show are not necessarily shared by talkSPORT.@DaveWalkerWHU@ExWHUemployee Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Análise a Circati, reforço para a época 2026/2027.Este episódio conta com a participação de João Nuno e Sérgio Engrácia.

Tom Rennie looks back at the Community Shield, where Arsenal thrashed new look Manchester City. And a short rant about Nuno, because nobody was there to stop him. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pour écouter 5000 ans d'Histoire en entier, sans pub et avec les bonus, pour 2€ par mois :https://m.audiomeans.fr/s/S-tavkjvmo Aujourd'hui, retour sur le 14 août 1385, jour où le Portugal sauve son indépendance. En ce dimanche 14 août, de l'an de grâce 1385, près du village d'Aljubarrota, au centre du Portugal, l'air est lourd, la tension maximale. Deux armées font face, d'un côté les troupes portugaises, mal équipées, peu nombreuses mais déterminées, de l'autre la puissante armée castillane, soutenue par des chevaliers français, sûres de sa victoire. À leur tête, deux prétendants à la couronne du Portugal et un enjeu bien plus grand, l'indépendance du royaume. Parce que depuis la mort du roi Ferdinand Ier, sans héritier mâle, le trône est disputé, le roi de Castille, Jean Ier, revendique la couronne par mariage. Mais le peuple portugais soutient un autre Jean, Jean de Portugal, fils illégitime du roi précédent, maître d'Aviz. Ce jour-là, les dés sont jetés. Les Portugais, bien conseillés par le génial stratège Nuno Álvarez Pereira, choisissent le terrain, creusent des pièges, attendent, et, déjouant tous les pronostics, ils anéantissent l'armée castillane. C'est une victoire nette, éclatante, fondatrice. Le roi Jean d'Aviz est reconnu comme souverain légitime sous le nom de Jean Ier du Portugal, et la dynastie d'Aviz commence. Grâce à cette bataille, le Portugal reste libre, et le restera. La bataille d'Aljubarrota, c'est l'acte de naissance d'un Portugal souverain et bientôt conquérant. Un royaume petit, mais tenace, qui refusera toujours de plier devant ses grands voisins. Le 14 août 1385, dans la poussière et le sang, une nation s'est affirmée, elle s'en souvient encore. A demain dans TIME SHOT pour une nouvelle Minute Histoire. Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

PHP Podcast – August 13, 2026 Hosts: Eric Van Johnson & John Congdon Eric and John reunite after weeks apart to talk Laracon in Boston, more diverse voices coming to this time slot, CPX finally giving PHP an npx, a stripped-down PHPStorm Light, and PHP Tek’s extended CFP. Stepping Back to Make Room for More Voices Eric and John open by explaining a shift in the show: they’re not disappearing, but they’re stepping back a little so more people from the PHP Architect team can take the mic. As John put it, the goal is “more diverse voices of the community,” and folks like Joe, Sarah, and Holly have been stepping into this time slot. Eric and John have committed to appearing at least once a month, since they have the most holistic view of what’s happening across the company. When they’re on, expect the “inside baseball” episodes — the behind-the-scenes look at what PHP Architect is up to. The rest of the time, this slot will keep going with other hosts, so the show never goes dark. They also reminded listeners there’s both a live stream and an audio RSS feed. Some folks apparently only recently discovered the audio version, while longtime audio listeners never realize the show streams live. Either way, head to phparch.com, click on podcasts, and you’ll find every way to subscribe. Eric’s Laracon Boston Recap Eric attended Laracon in Boston and, as always, has a love/hate relationship with it. On the plus side, it’s where he catches up with a lot of friends, and the talks were solid — Pauline Voss gave a great presentation on JJ (Jujutsu) and atomic commits, and Nuno showed off Pest 5. Eric noted the framework itself is moving much slower now, which is actually a good thing for anyone running a business on it, even if it makes the conference less essential-viewing than it once was. The venue was industrial and good-looking with a fantastic stage setup, but seating was a genuine problem this year. Eric arrived late to Nuno’s talk and there was nowhere to sit; the team scrambled to bring in more chairs. When it rained on day two, they ran out again. Despite that, staying in the same hotel as folks like Eric Barnes, TJ, Jake Bennett, and Michael Dorinda made for the kind of hallway-and-breakfast camaraderie he values most. Eric also hit the social events he usually skips — he sat out dodgeball (bad knees, slip-on shoes, and being a big target), but went to the Laracon Prom, which required an RSVP and an approved request. It turned out to be way cooler than expected, with people fully decked out, DJs, and an after-party plus a VIP dinner where Laravel’s marketing team worked the room. He also caught up with folks like Matthew Weier O’Phinney of Zend/Perforce and had a chat with Taylor. Running the Laravel Magazine Site and Taylor’s Blessing Eric shared that PHP Architect is now running the Laravel Magazine website, which previously belonged to Marijn (Marion) Pop. He’s been publishing tutorials, keeping things current, and making changes to the site he’s proud of. The articles are short, quick reads — and one of the Laravel wrap-up pieces mirrors the same article on the PHP Architect site. At the after-party dinner, Eric took the opportunity to run the name past Taylor directly, since he wasn’t sure the original owner had ever gotten official approval to use the Laravel name for a magazine. Taylor’s response was essentially “that’s fine, don’t worry about it” — so Laravel Magazine lives on. Eric even set up a newsletter signup, though he admits he’s not sure yet whether he’ll actually send a newsletter. CPX — A PHP-World npx One of Eric’s favorite discoveries from Laracon was CPX, essentially the PHP equivalent of npx. Just as npx lets you run JavaScript packages without installing them into a specific project, CPX lets you run tools without a global composer install or a per-project dependency. Eric already swapped his global PHP CS Fixer and Laravel Pint setup over to CPX aliases, so he now always runs the latest version without dependency headaches. John pushed back a bit, pointing out that tools like PHP unit and Rector usually live in your vendor directory anyway because your CI pipeline depends on them. Eric agreed that’s a valid workflow, but framed CPX as ideal for the occasional-use tools and for lowering the barrier for people outside the PHP world who want to dip in without fully committing. Chat chimed in with Rector as a great CPX use case, and they walked through examples like spinning up a fresh Laravel app. Laravel LSP and PHP Storm Light Eric was genuinely excited that Laravel now has its own Language Server Protocol. Most IDEs had already built their own Laravel-aware workarounds, but for Eim’s Neovim setup, the LSP finally makes things like jumping from a route to the view it points to work correctly — something PHP Storm had solved long ago but Vim hadn’t. He also spotted something called PHP Storm Light at the JetBrains booth: a trimmed-down, experimental build with faster startup, lower memory, and fewer features. It’s available through the Toolbox app as an EAP, so it’s free and explicitly experimental. John, who’d been hitting memory limits in regular PHP Storm, decided to install it on the spot, and Joe mentioned using it for one-off file edits — sparking a conversation about whether it fills the gap left by JetBrains’ old standalone editor. PHP Tek CFP Extended + Ticket Options John announced that the PHP Tek call for speakers has been extended through October 31st. The team experimented with opening the CFP very early this year to help attendees whose fiscal-year approvals depend on a locked schedule, but the community felt it was too early to know what would be relevant next April. So they extended the window and made cfp.phptek.io point straight to the call for presenters (thanks to a suggestion from A. Woods). On tickets, they’ve broken out a bundle that includes hotel nights so attendees can hand their boss a single lump-sum figure (airfare not included). There are also food-and-beverage-only tickets for partners and kids, single-day track options, and dedicated days for Laravel, JavaScript, and DevOps — one track each, with the other two tracks running the usual PHP Tek content. John flagged a possible issue with DevOps being the default CFP track, since it’s pulling in a flood of generic, seemingly AI-submitted talks he’ll need to sort through. Links from the show: PHP Tek — CFP extended through October 31, conference + hotel bundle available PHP Tek Call for Presenters OurCVEs — watch your repos and servers for CVEs Host: Eric Van Johnson X: @shocm Mastodon: @eric@phparch.social Bluesky: @ericvanjohnson.bsky.social PHPArch.me: @eric John Congdon X: @johncongdon Mastodon: @john@phparch.social Bluesky: @johncongdon.bsky.social PHPArch.me: @john Streams: Youtube Channel Twitch Connect & Hire PHP Architect Website Twitter/X Mastodon Hire PHP Developers Looking to hire PHP developers? Email support@phparch.com – Eric, John, and the team are available for consulting, team augmentation, direction, code review, and even mobile development work. Partner This podcast is made a little better thanks to our partners Displace Infrastructure Management, Simplified Automate Kubernetes deployments across any cloud provider or bare metal with a single command. Deploy, manage, and scale your infrastructure with ease. https://displace.tech/ OurCVEs Your security posture, on autopilot with OurCVEs CodeRabbit Cut code review time & bugs in half instantly with CodeRabbit. PHP Architect Consulting Your PHP codebase deserves a partner, not a contractor PHP Architect provides long-term technical partnerships for organizations that need senior-level PHP expertise that you can depend on. https://www.phparch.com/consulting/ Music Provided by Epidemic Sound https://www.epidemicsound.com/ Join Us Live Next Week Youtube Channel Got feedback? Join us on Discord at discord.phparch.com The post The PHP Podcast 2026.08.13 appeared first on PHP Architect.

Hairy Potter and the Cloak of Inbicilibility - Bax, Spaniard, and Nuno talk about the weekend, movies, as Nuno tries his hand at sound proofing his room....it's a whole thing!  RIP to Glen Hansard, we lost a good one. Check out his indie film "Once".  www.TheLifePodcast.net TheHooliganCorp@gmail.com  

Competing in a Future World of Infinite Intelligence Navigation: Intro From Knowledge Workers to Judgment Workers The AI-Native Company: Org, Hiring, Culture The Human Element: Are We Underestimating It? Scenarios Our Take Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show:   Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Introduction Welcome to episode 79 of Tech DECIPHERED. Today, we take a leap into the big unknown. This is a thesis episode, not your classic analysis, in-depth sharing episode. The big idea for this episode is that we may be approaching the cognitive age, and how would one, or how would a company compete in a world of infinite intelligence? The big idea, again, is that intelligence, which has been mostly scarce and expensive for all of human history, might become abundant and cheap. If that happens, what happens to work, what happens to companies, what happens to society? This episode will be really framing a lot of these discussions. From knowledge workers to judgment workers, addressing the AI native company and how does that change, going into the human element and whether or not we’re underestimating it, and finally, ending up going into scenarios, feasible scenarios of a future where, well, intelligence is abundant. Intelligence is quasi-infinite or infinite itself.Bertrand Schmitt Yes. Big questions for this episode 79. From Knowledge Workers to Judgment Workers We can start with from knowledge workers to judgment workers. Let’s go back first to how came the knowledge worker. It’s a 20th-century invention from Peter Drucker in 1959. The idea here is that that category might be splitting. The production of knowledge itself is on its way to being commoditized by AI. However, our perspective is that judgment around production of knowledge is not disappearing and is staying for a bit control managed by humans. What’s your take on this, Nuno? Do you agree with this split?Nuno Gonçalves Pedro I think it’s a little bit more profound than that. It’s not just judgment. Definitely, human judgment will be needed. We’ve seen agents perform all sorts of funny things in the wrong way when left alone to their own devices. Even some very well-known AI researchers coming forward and saying, “Hey, I tried to use this myself, and actually I messed up some of my systems,” or “I messed some of my code. I messed up some of my flows for a period of time.” I think just having human-in-the-loop from a judgment standpoint will be needed for a significant amount of time. That is something you can’t just delegate into machines, into algorithms, et cetera. The second part is, ultimately, there needs to be contextualization, and that contextualization, I think, comes from two forms. One from actual data, where the machine, I think, at some point will catch up, or the machines will catch up. The algorithms, at some point, on the data analysis will get better and better and have probably the closest to the truth that you can get, minus all the biases that are in the data, just to be clear, because data has a ton of biases. We’ve looked at this in the past and discussed it at prior episodes. But maybe on that, I think the machine has a chance to catch up, or the machines have a chance to catch up, so there’s less of distinctiveness from the human standpoint. But then, on just the attributes, the ability when you’re judging some situation, you’re in the middle of the situation. You’re judging the person and how it’s acting, in some ways, a lot of the things that end up happening, end up happening because there’s human interaction. There’s someone on the other side. I see how they’re delivering the message, how they’re implicating. We’ll talk about it later in the context of the organization and what changes in companies. I don’t think it’s just judgment. I think there’s a little bit more than that. One of the reasons I went to the dark side of management early on in my career from being an engineer was Peter Drucker and this notion of the knowledge worker, which he later on reemphasized with the publishing of his book, which for me was seminal and defined a lot of my career in life, the post-capitalist society, which is this notion that information rich and information poor is going to be the key distinctiveness that will happen in the world. The two big camps, information rich, information poor, which links back to this invention of the term knowledge worker, that knowledge is going to be key in some ways. I think that’s what we’ve seen for the last decades. Again, I think judgment is not going anywhere, but I think it’s beyond judgment. There’s elements of humanity and involvement that won’t go away anytime soon, where human-in-the-loop are particularly critical. We’ll discuss later some scenarios, but for me, that’s my stick in the ground. I think human-in-the-loop is going to be critical for many decades to come.Bertrand Schmitt While we are talking about all of this, and we share some possible scenarios, there is always that question. This is moving so fast right now. If you think about AI 10 years ago, AI 5 years ago, AI with the launch of ChatGPT 3, and then AI the past 2 years, now we have agents that are running at scale. Things are moving very fast. I can tell you, me in 6 months, the change has been pretty dramatic in terms of what I can use AI for. There is always that question that whatever we are thinking about cannot just be connected to what we were able to do 6 months ago or even today, we have to think and project ourselves at least in the next 6–12 months. Of course, we can go beyond that, and we will do that with some future scenarios, but it’s a very fast-moving, and it’s not clear yet where are the limits.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro I think that’s a very fair point. Let me try to analyze things that I don’t think will change anytime soon for the next few years. Agreed with you that many things will change, and we’ll have a lot better tools, platforms out there. That will be difficult to predict what exactly won’t change. I think there’s elements of humanity, and some of them do relate to judgment, like having good or bad taste, having a view on it, on whether something looks good or bad. Obviously, all of this sometimes is subjective, but some of it may not be as subjective as people think it is. The elements of contextualization. I think a little bit going back to what we did at Chamaeleon ourselves, where we built this platform, Mantis, and the objective of building Mantis was not really to replace us, was that it was a core augmentation layer in some ways that we would use investment or investor judgment as humans in the loop to systematize pattern recognition and a variety of other things, but that Mantis would really elevate all that judgment, not just in terms of timing, us being more productive, but also in terms of the quality of the decisions we’re making. Think of it as a little bit like having our human judgment in the context of operating Chamaeleon at a higher altitude, where we are more aware of the things that are happening and how they actually happen. The ability to really get to the data pieces and then make decisions on top of that that generate the needed alpha in our case for investors. What I mean by this is I think there’s always going to be core elements of humanity that I do think are going to be difficult for the machines to replace. For example, the taste piece people are like, “I can figure out what’s the taste in the market.” Yeah, but that’s mainstream. That doesn’t identify what’s the next big thing, which normally doesn’t start from mainstream. It starts from something else. It could start from opinion leaders and influencers. It could start by someone having a different way of addressing a problem and having a solution that hasn’t been thought through. For example, elements of creativity, I think, in human judgment and in human operations is something that I feel the machine will still have difficulty to replace.Bertrand Schmitt Let’s not forget how today current algorithms are working by feeding them enormous quantity of data, actually as much data as we can find. Finding more data is becoming a limitation these days. What it means is that it’s very hard for AI to think beyond its training data. There is some level of logic that’s being added, but at the same time, take the launch of the iPhone. What was the opinion before launch? Is that no, it doesn’t make sense. Not enough battery life, no keyboard, no this, no that. If you just base your analysis on what’s written out there, what’s being sold out there, you would just say, “It’s going to fail.” AI might really follow that more generic advice and perspective because that’s what in the training data and that’s what they’re in volume. It’s, of course, raising a lot of questions of, how do you improve the quality of the training data? How do you separate the weed from the chaff? There are a lot of questions there, and obviously, it will get better over time. But it’s still a critical part of how it’s working today. It won’t be that easy to change. I really like your point regarding Mantis, and I will say in general, platforms that you build with AI or leveraging AI capacity. Because when we say knowledge production is going to disappear, but we’ll keep judgment, it will be a different type of judgment because the quantity and quality of knowledge we will have in front of us to build our judgment will be very different. If suddenly we have for free the work of 10 interns or 5 junior analysts or whatever, and you can run that on nearly anything you do in life or at work, it’s completely dramatic. Your judgment was not used to be exercised so often because often you were missing quality data to have a judgment. Before it was a lot of finger in the wind and trying to smell something, but you didn’t have enough to make a serious analysis. Except if you are working as a strategy consultant, as you used to do, Nuno. That part is actually quite interesting. That the judgment itself will be exercised much more often and hopefully on the base of much more in-depth analysis for a lot of things. We will work very differently.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro We will go in-depth, faster and more fact-based, more data-based along the way. The question some of you might have right now is, is there some judgment that’s going to go away? Is there some judgment? We seem to be defining that there’s this organization, we’ll talk about it later, that goes from doers more into deciders. I think there’s some nuances to that, so I’ll just hit pause on that. In terms of judgment, obviously, there’s judgment that has been hidden over the years under the pretense of being wisdom, but it’s actually not wisdom. It’s just repetitive tasking, and it’s rules-based for the most. There’s a lot of judgment done, in particular in the white-collar space, that you could say it’s just reps. People have been doing it all along like that, and so therefore to say, “I’ve done it before like this, so I’ll do it the same way.” There’s actually no best in class, no analysis, no nothing. It’s just, “I’ve done it like that before.” I think that type of judgment will disappear because, again, algorithms will be as good, if not much better at that. They’ll be better at figuring out, actually, this would be the better way to do this. That’s how you play it forward. Then the question is, if there are fundamental, wise people in the organization, people that can really take that more complex elements of judgment, how do you go from the world we have today, which is a world of apprenticeship, where people come out of college, they go and work, and they learn their way, and therefore, hopefully over time, some of them, not all of them, we know that, but some of them will develop that wisdom to be great decision makers 15, 20 years down the road? How do we do that in a world that now is saying, “I don’t need people out of college because I can do it myself, and I can do individual contributor, and I can have agents doing the work that would require some manifestation of management in the middle.” Basically, “I don’t need this stuff. I don’t need you.” It’s a little bit the story we’re in. How do you create then this apprenticeship? How do we create then wisdom? My two cents on that is that wisdom, because of what we were just discussing and what, for example, myself and Bertrand was just saying, because of more often interactions with more data-stressed information and insights, what will happen is people will get better through their own reps in whatever form they’re doing, in day-to-day life, in internships, et cetera. In some ways, that will create the accelerated growth. It’s a little bit the interactions with agents and the interactions with our beloved AI algorithms that will create that growth over time and maybe not as much with other people. That still leaves the question around social interactions, but that’s probably the way this gets sorted. Apprenticeship gets sorted through the machine and the human having more interactions in effect.Bertrand Schmitt I agree with you because when we talk about apprenticeship, in some ways a lot of time was wasted on stuff that were not that important. But in a way, that was the price you had to pay in order to be there when people make the big decision to try to get some wisdom from that one hour of interactions that’s really useful and make a difference out of your full week. But the rest of your full week was just basic stuff that you had to do like a machine in a way. Why not let a machine do that? That, for me, is a big question. You could argue there is a transition period where it could be hard. For instance, if you can work hand in hand with AI smartly while you are doing your 4, 5 years of universities, you could graduate with a very different knowledge, perspective, judgment, skill set than anyone who graduated 5 years ago. I think that part will require a question around, “How do you change education?” You see what I mean? If you keep education the same way, expecting that the output is someone that should go now into 5 years of apprenticeship, that’s not going to work because companies will be, “No apprenticeship anymore.” On the contrary, you have to come much more knowledgeable and ready to use the tools. The tools are so efficient that the bar pretty high. You need to come already very well-grounded. If the education is not doing their job, that will be trouble. That part for me, I think is often forgotten. In some ways, the new-found importance of universities as a place to, and not just universities, the trade to really deliver people who are ready for the workforce. If on the business side, the expectation can change, of course, you have to change the education on the other side. My worry probably right now is that it doesn’t look like universities are in touch with what businesses are looking for, businesses are working on. Of course, that’s very worrisome because the cost of university has increased very significantly. It’s not clear quality of education has improved at all. If anything, it could be the opposite. It’s pretty scary. Of course, it’s going to raise a lot of questions. How much is education worth in that type of situation? Maybe another point because we talk a lot about apprenticeship, how this stuff was useful, but at the same time, if we go back in time, not long ago in the ’50s, if you wanted to be a developer, for instance, ’50s, ’60s, the job was very different. There was barely any programmation language out there. You had to use punch cards. Your time truly spent doing the coding was very limited. Once you had your stuff working, then, the debugging was a total nightmare. My point is that no one is looking back to that time saying, “You know what? It was great. It was a great way to learn and to do an apprenticeship for 5 years. To do that crappy job of punching cards for the boss.” There was little value in this. Guess what? Everyone is happy it’s not being done anymore by anyone. I think we also have to see what AI is bringing in a similar way is that everyone’s job is going to become quite different. There are a lot of big parts of the job who are not going to look back with fondness. Just looking back as, “Wow, that was very machine-like type of job. I’m glad I’m done with it.” People will want to jump directly to the next step. You don’t need to go to the punch card phase to be able to be a good developer for the past 40 years. I guess it will be the same with AI.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro I think so. The difficulty we have as humans is to also visualize dramatically different scenarios and landscapes, professionally. It’s difficult for us to anticipate what are the jobs of the future. Jobs have changed a lot in the last few decades, not even the last century. What people do, the migration initially from the agricultural society to then the industrial society to then the services society, and in some ways, the shift within the services industry, and now we’re seeing another shift, so we can’t really anticipate what those jobs look like. Back to your point on education, because I think that’s a very important point. If you’re right now an undergraduate student or a postgraduate student, for that matter, and you’re not figuring out your own mechanisms of learning outside of your syllabus, outside of what your professors are telling you, et cetera, you’re going to face very difficult times. If you’re not right now using all these AI tools proficiently, all these cycles of vibe coding, co-working, et cetera, with agents in the mix, you’re going to have a really tough time. If you’re not at this point in time as proficient as someone like myself or Bertrand, and given that we’re nerds, we’re relatively proficient with a lot of these tools that are out there. On top of it, some of us have our own platforms in-house. If you’re not as proficient as we are with those tools, you’re going to have a very difficult time because then people like us won’t need you. I think that’s the sad truth. It’s like at some point, if you’re not needed, you’re not needed. Then again, you may find something else that’s more interesting for you to do. Start your own company, go join a new exciting job doing whatever it is that you need to do next, et cetera. But again, I think the bar is very high. If you’re in college right now, again, undergrad, postgraduate, this is the time of transition. This is the worst time. It’s not the best time, it’s the worst time. Because education and all these institutions haven’t adapted to it yet. You need to adapt. You need to adapt. You need to adapt. If you don’t, you’re going to pay for it, not just in the loans you need to repay, but also in terms of actually having difficulty finding your career path in those first few critical years.Bertrand Schmitt You need to be especially proactive when you’re facing this type of period where businesses are adapting as fast as they can because they all know it’s going to be survival of the fittest very quickly. Universities typically are working on a very different pace, and it’s pretty guaranteed they are not going to have adapted as fast as businesses. In time of big dramatic change, it will be trouble. It will be trouble. Yes, you will have not fun. Not saying it was part of the deal when you sign up for that loan and decided to go for university. But that’s life. There has been issues before. It’s not the first time. You have to do something about it. You talk about your perspective about, “Hey, why do we need you if you are not already fluent and very efficient with these tools and stuff?” The truth, in some ways, it’s even worse than that. Each time we spend with someone who is not efficient with all of this is less time we spend with the tools that are already providing magic for us.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Exactly.Bertrand Schmitt It’s a very big choice of, “Hey, do I spend more time training this person?” Do I just… there is an opportunity cost. Or, do I spend more time staying at light speed? Why do I slow down to do something else in the hope that maybe I will get to return versus the light speed I’m already on? It’s a lot of tension. Again, it’s certainly new. But if we want to look back, I think you talk about the switch from agriculture and society, industrial society, and now the service industry. The reality is that, yes, we have made dramatic changes in the past before. 140 years ago, we were 90% agricultural society in Europe, in the US, 90% of us. Today, it’s what? 2%. So my point is that that’s a normal evolution. There is no progress without change. Sometimes the rate of change is soft, and sometimes you have a step function. Now it’s a step function, and it’s also a pretty fast step function. Before, it could take decades to get new stuff being put in place, to have electricity come up, this or that. Now we see that the rate of investment in AI is insane, way beyond anything we have seen before. Two, in a way, a lot of the architecture behind the scene was already there to support an even faster transition. What’s new might be the pace of the transition, how unnatural it might look. But at the same time, if you put yourself in the shoes of someone who lived 150 years ago, I mean, this was also a dramatic change for them. From horses to cars to planes to rockets, pretty big change, maybe even bigger change.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Maybe the silver lining, just to bookend this section, is one, there will be new roles. There are a lot of things we can’t anticipate. There will be new roles, there will be new jobs being created, and new things that we can’t really quite grasp yet. The second part is that the rules are changing, and they’re changing, I would say, in general, for the better. If you are a decision-maker or an organization, and you still have your job, you’re probably making more important decisions with more data, with more tooling around you, with less red tape, hopefully over time. I know that will not hold true for all the big corporations out there that are listening to us, but it is starting to happen. Things are making an impact on how decision-making is made. There’s less and less red tape along the way in certain organizations. There are more and more fact-based discussions happening as we move along. The silver lining is better jobs, more jobs, different jobs in the future, hopefully as well. Secondly, the second part of the silver line is that the jobs that exist today, hopefully, will be more interesting, certainly on the knowledge space and on this judgment space that we’re now introducing as part of this episode. The AI-Native Company: Org, Hiring, Culture Switching gears, maybe to how does that shift? How does the company of the future look like? How does an AI native company look like? I feel there are a lot of discussions on, “Oh, you only need one person to run everything.” Let’s not go to that level. We’ve had a couple of episodes where we focused on AI as your co-founder and a couple of other elements that you guys can go back to. Let’s focus on a more evolutionary view of what’s happening to organizations, and maybe start with the org structure. In general, we should see more flat organizations where mid-level managers have to justify their pay in some ways because middle management are routers. They are normally routing tasks. It’s sometimes aggregating it, synthesizing it, and pulling it back up. Guess what? AI and agents in general are very good at that. The synthesis piece, et cetera, is not as well needed. One could say there are several elements of middle management that are valuable, like the coaching of people, the creation of apprentices, and the accountability that comes with some of middle management. But lo and behold, most of middle management is seen as a little bit of a thin line that doesn’t need to necessarily exist. I feel we’re moving into a world of smaller teams, more senior teams, where there’s more judgment at the top, where you’ll have people that both do a mix of what we used to call management in its new form, but also a lot of individual contribution. If you’re not used to that, if you’re not used anymore to be an individual in the future, again, and if you’re a very senior in an organization, maybe this is the right time to either reinvent yourself, find some other job that doesn’t require as much of that, which we’ll have plenty of those jobs for the next few decades, or maybe retire. I’ve actually, shockingly enough, seen people who have said, “You know what? This thing is changing too fast, too dramatically. My industry is changing quite aggressively right now. I’m about to retire in a couple of years. I’m just going to retire now.” I’ve literally met two people who have done that. Again, there’s nothing wrong about it. I think we’re, again, going through a step function and a huge shift, but figuring out where you fit in this new model of organizations, more senior at the top, smaller teams, more of a mix of individual contribution with management than ever was done before.Bertrand Schmitt I agree with you. In some ways, I’m not surprised that some people might say, “You know what? It’s now time to retire.” I feel a bit sad, maybe because it means you don’t like to keep reinventing yourself and changing your habits and thinking about new stuff. You were a creature of habits, I would say, if that’s your conclusion. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, obviously, and a way of life. I guess that’s what happened, again, at regular times in the past in terms of big change. What I can see is that the rise of, you can call it the full-stack individual, someone who will have multiple roles inside the team. Before, you had to really separate the role. Especially in the US, there is such a clear separation between every role you can have in a company. Let’s take a tech company. You will have people doing design, people doing different types of designs, people doing front-end development, back-end development, and operations. You see step-by-step hyper-specialization. I have seen that, and it’s true that the level of complexity you had to deal with at some point requires some level of hyper-specialization because it will take you 6, 12 months in order to be really, really strong on a specific topic, a specific language. God forbid, trying to go deep into something that you had no real experience into. But I feel with AI, it’s a big change, actually. It’s the opportunity to go beyond that. It’s the opportunity to do more, to touch more. You can combine designing and shipping code, product managing and shipping code, being an analyst and deploying. Of course, we have to think how it works because putting a marketer shipping code to production, maybe that will get you into trouble. But I think that there must be some change. We see it changing dramatically, how fast we can get into something, something different from what we are used to. I think it would be crazy not to take that opportunity to dramatically change the scope of many positions and put an end to that hyper-specialization. I think for me, in some ways, hyper-specialization was bad. There is only so much you want to be a specialist in because a lot of things, a lot of opportunities are actually coming from the mixing of many different ideas, many different perspectives, and you lose if you go to hyper-specialization.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro I don’t think the age that is coming is the age of the generalist. I think it’s going to be the age of the multispecialist. We’re going to go into an age of multispecialization, which is a little bit, we’ve mentioned it as well in the past, what Amazon defines as an athlete or T-shaped or pie-shaped people, people that have on top an amazing ability to do general management, strategy, managing teams, et cetera, then have spikes. Spikes into business development, corporate development, product management, whatever it is. With AI and with agents, the development of those spikes, as we’ve been discussing in this episode, will actually be easier. It’s almost like a given. If you want to go deeper and deeper into a certain area, you can go much faster. I think that level of multispecialization is going to be really cool to observe. I’m not sure we’ve had an age of multispecialization over the years. Maybe people would point out, well, the Da Vinci example, people that are great across very different areas. Maybe that’s an example of multispecialization. But honestly, from my perspective, this is going to be an exciting time because of that, because you’ll have people who, instead of being just focused on this area of sales, and I only do that, they can actually and should actually do a lot of other things. So the work, as we were talking before, can be more interesting. More demanding as well, because the judgments you need to make are more complex. The context you need to actually gain needs to be gained much faster. At a level of magnitude, you haven’t been able to do it before. Talk about information overload. But actually, ultimately, the roles can be a lot more interesting, a lot more exciting, because I can jump around. If I’m an investor, in this case, we have two investors on this conversation. But if I’m an investor, one of the things that we start looking at is actually not just looking at a startup as, is this startup doing something in AI or not? Is it AI-enabled or not? Is it an AI platform or not? But actually, more fundamentally, is this an AI native startup? Meaning, organizationally, culturally, is this the company that’s already in the AI age? How is the team working? How are they defining things? It’s not just that they only have two or three people. It’s like, what are those two or three people doing? How are they doing it? What cadence are they doing it on? What tools are they using? How are they making decisions? I feel we’re still actually relatively early on that track. It’s very interesting because we’ve had all these companies raising mega rounds. First round out, we invested in one of them, but there have been many frontier labs out there raising a ton of money. But a lot of them don’t have a fundamentally different way of doing business. Of organizing themselves, of how they do the day-to-day. Although they’re working on cutting-edge stuff, with very notable exceptions, they’re actually not using it themselves. They’re not actually shifting how they do stuff themselves.Bertrand Schmitt For me, that’s very interesting because in the past, I used to be quite conservative on how you manage and run a company in the sense that if you’re already in tech, if you are already on the cutting edge of what technology can deliver, and this and that, don’t waste time trying to invent a new org structure. Just focus on delivering something great, amazing, and be great at technologies. That’s already your huge differentiator. At the time, there was no real reason to innovate on the team organization. I have seen so many teams that tried to innovate, and it was just catastrophic because there was not much to innovate on, because we had decades of optimization that we could leverage. There was no reason to invent. But here it’s very different. There is a dramatic shift in how you can organize differently a company. I don’t think there are any blueprints yet on what’s the best way to do it because it’s too new. But at the same time, I would feel very bad to invest or support a company that first is not focused on AI or AI-enabled, but at the same time is not trying to innovate on the team itself. Because if you don’t do that, you’re going to get killed by someone who is going to innovate better than you on not just the product, but on the org as well.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Indeed. The shifts are pretty substantial. If you look, for example, just at hiring, what do you hire for? Certainly, there’s this element of the multispecialized orchestrator, which normally will be someone with quite a lot of wisdom and expertise. It doesn’t necessarily mean someone who’s old, but someone who has the ability to work with all the AI tooling and platforms out there and be an orchestrator of agents. Why do they make judgments, make decisions, move stuff forward really, really, really quickly? Again, those jobs are going to be the best jobs. The second part, I think that is very interesting, around hiring, is you’re going to skew towards the elements that are potentially either very aligned with the use of AI tooling and platform, AI expertise, or being AI native, or someone who’s used to using AI. That’s one side of the fence. On the other side, you’re going to actually be optimizing to hire people that have the characteristics that will be difficult for AI to replace immediately, like taste and the notion of fundamental accountability and notion of implications, the notion of how you affect change in organizations, how you affect change in individuals, the elements of coaching, and beyond coaching. You’ll be optimizing for those kinds of hires as well. Then, last but not least, for me, I feel that there is a momentum already happening. I think it will happen even more, which is the tendency to under-hire rather than over-hire. The moment of the good old days of blitz scaling, “Oh, let me go and hire 300 people to scale my go-to-market and just land grab market.” Now, that’s not how it’s going to work. People are going to try and first get the efficiencies in-house with top talent and see if there’s, at the end, the need to hire more people or not, rather than the other way around. I think the issue here is a little bit of what we alluded to before in this episode. There is a tax on individuals. If you hire more people, you’ll have to manage people, you’ll have to work with them, et cetera. If I don’t need to, I might as well work with the agents that the tools and platforms that I use give me access to. Because that’s a world that’s much more efficient, right?Bertrand Schmitt I’m in total agreement with you on this. It’s definitely raising way more questions than before because, again, on one side, you have the product, the technology used to build products that are completely different. At the same time, all of this is also enabling new ways to design organizations and to scale differently, especially in a world where, as we have seen in 3, 6, and 12 months, stuff that you thought were impossible are suddenly becoming possible. So you’re, “Hey, I’m going to scale and burn a shitload of money for 6 months before I know if there is any return.” Versus, “You know what? Maybe I just wait 6 months. The AI has improved enough so that we don’t need this new team. We don’t need these people to do stuff.” Because actually, if you just wait 6 months, we will have stuff coming for free from either new AI models or new AI tools or this or that. If you remember, we used to say that in mobile, things were going three times as fast as on the web in terms of pace of innovation and speed of development and stuff. I mean, with AI, it’s 5X mobile.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Maybe even more. Yes, well.Bertrand Schmitt Maybe even more, maybe 10X. Every assumption around blitz scaling or scaling in general was based on past assumptions. It’s not based on how is the industry evolving today. Might make more sense for you to really grow your agents and spend more money on more tokens. I remember, of course, Jensen is selling his business interest, but he was saying, “Hey, for each one of my 450K engineers, he better spend 250K in tokens a year.” I’m not saying it’s the right way to say it, but I think there is some truth in it, and that would be something to think about. Have we maxed out the token usage per employee? I’m not talking in a stupid way because token maxing and wasting money has no value and is as stupid as it gets. But if you are truly getting a return on these tokens, can you use more? Can you generate more? Can you create more loops so that one engineer manages not just 10 agents, but 50 agents, but 200 agents? I think that’s the big question. We’re trying to add more people. More people means more management, more issues, more this, more that. That would be a fair question. Another piece of the puzzle is how do you build in a way your… I don’t know if it’s a digital twin, but more like the digital version of your companies represented by agents. How do you make sure that everything you do as a business is truly captured, is truly leveraged so that your agents are getting better and better? Not just because the model gets better, but because you are putting more data into it, because it has more opportunity to learn, and as a result, gets better at your specific business.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro The next big thing is culture. How does culture change? I think the biggest shift that I see is, why would you do meetings all the time?Bertrand Schmitt Yes.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro At least at Chamaeleon, we have a very small team, just by the way. We have a very small team at Chamaeleon. We’ve reduced by way more than 50% the time we spend on meetings between each other across the board, one-on-ones, partner meetings, et cetera. I think we’re really pushing to be more and more asynchronous. There’s stuff you can process via message. I was just asking one of my colleagues, “Can you just send me that prompt for that so I can just do that on CoWork?” Or “Can I just go on Mantis and do this? Can you tell me the cycle?” Or vice versa. Basically, it’s a little bit like you’re just going to do it. I don’t need to meet. I don’t need to meet all the time. There are some things where we still need to meet and interact, and we need to brainstorm at times, and we need to go to a different level of abstraction on the top end. Then on the lower end, there might be things that are a little bit more specific and governance-related and operational-related that we need to agree on that are more sticky. But otherwise, the culture is going to be biased towards build. “Go and do it,” rather than, “Let’s do a meeting.”Bertrand Schmitt Yes.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Async is the thing. I’m more and more like we have a couple of interns this summer. “Can we async this?” They’re like, “What does that mean?” “Can we make this interaction asynchronous?” Because synchronous interactions for me are very expensive. Can you send me something that I can process, and then I can send it back to you? We don’t waste time on you giving me context and whatever. Then I’m not ready quite yet because I need to process it. Maybe I’m in between two meetings that I’m actually thinking about other things in my mind.” Again, I feel that shifts how stuff is done. One, build rather than meeting. Two, asynchronous versus synchronous. In some way, millennials had it right when they shifted a lot to messaging and stuff like that. Let’s do more asynchronous rather than synchronous, those two elements from just an operating model of the company are significant. Maybe this is a good time for me just to put one parenthesis because there’s this thing that’s bugging me as we’re talking here. Everyone who is listening to us at this point in time might be saying, “Cool, but I work for this large organization. We’re just now…” Everything we’re saying here is contextualized by time. We’re giving you extreme situations. We’re looking into the future. Some companies that we’re talking about might be doing this already as we speak. Some of them might be in the process of doing this and might in the next couple of months be doing it like we are describing it here. Some of them might take years to get there. Then again, some of the companies that might take years might actually be destroyed in between or meanwhile, and be disrupted. Some of them might not because they’re in very legacy businesses, and it’s fine, and it’s okay. Again, don’t take everything that Bertrand and I are saying today as this is gospel, and it’s going to happen tomorrow, and why the hell are we not doing it? We think that aspirationally, this is where you should be moving to as an organization, whatever size you’re at. Speed will matter, as we discussed before, but not everyone, obviously, is going to move as fast as we’re describing it here.Bertrand Schmitt Yes. Me, for instance, take inspiration often with what some of the AI labs, frontier AI labs, are doing, the way they are working, especially in OpenAI and Anthropic. They are clearly at the top of the spear in terms of what is it that you can do because they have access to models we don’t have access to, because they have unlimited tokens they can use for tasks. They hire people who are, of course, 100% on AI. They are the best example of what is achievable if you have the top minds, if you have the latest models, if you have unlimited tokens. From there, you can take that for our needs and for our situation, and others in industries that are not as advanced. Definitely, you have some time. But as you say, things are moving fast, things are changing. Wall Street is going to expect better returns because when we discuss all of this, the conclusion is that you should be able to do more with less. That’s as real as it gets at some point. By the way, that’s what you see. You see better performance, a better business performance right now. So even if you might not get disrupted, you’d better start there. For some, it might take more time, and they might still be fine.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Maybe to bookend this section, clearly what we’re saying is organizations are going to change. Their MOs are going to change, the structures are going to change. There are elements of what we discussed before in terms of judgment that are fundamental to this. The ability that in some ways, one would say a lot of the technique of getting solutions out there, even in brainstorming or problem-solving, is going to get democratized. The algorithms are able to do that. On the other hand, having points of view and having wisdom is not necessarily democratized, necessarily by the machines. It can be facilitated, it can be more productive in achieving that level of wisdom, but wisdom still will matter at the end of the day. We’re not saying that’s out of the question. Actually, that’s going to be the asset. People who have fundamental wisdom that can come to the table and frame things. We see this even today in prompt engineering, on just creating prompts. The better your prompt is, the better the outcome is going to be, the result that you get from the algorithms. That’s not going to change, in my opinion, anytime soon. That UI interaction piece is not going to change anytime soon. Again, if you’re an organization thinking through organizational structure, culture, if you’re thinking through hiring, these are some of the elements that we think will give you an opportunity, but I would actually go one step further. On the positive side, I would say, they give you arbitrage. If you’re able to move faster than your competitors and really adapt your org faster, you’ll reap the benefits faster as well. That’s what many still say and relate to as the word innovation. That’s how innovation gets accelerated. I think there’s a huge opportunity right now for arbitrage. If you move fast, experiment, experiment on new org structures, experiment with talent, you’ll know that some of them will work well, some of them will fail miserably, so you can’t experiment on literally everything. On the other side, I think the doomsday scenario is if you don’t, if you’re on the other side and your competitor is outpacing you on trying these different organizational models, structure, hiring models, and operating models, they’ll potentially just disrupt you. They’ll do stuff that you thought you had the moat on, and lo and behold, you don’t anymore. Sometimes it comes just from org, just from injection of people with a different MRO, different operating model.Bertrand Schmitt The Human Element: Are We Underestimating It? Maybe we can move to our next section about the human elements. Are we underestimating it or are we overestimating it? The three things that are a big part of the human elements, emotion, creativity, and synthesis. Is it just soft skills, replaceable part? On the contrary, is it the durable part now that we have automated intelligence?Nuno Gonçalves Pedro I’ll start with emotion first because I think it’s probably the easiest of all the ones you’ve mentioned. Emotion is key. Many of you listening to us will know this. The way you deliver a certain message, the emotion that you have when you deliver it, just in and of itself, this could be a sentence, it’s something verbal, et cetera. Makes a difference between the person or the people on the other side actually adopting it or actually just resisting it. Emotion is critical. It’s what runs the world. Everyone talks about a bunch of things, but emotion is a currency that is still naturally human. It will be, I feel, difficult for these AI tools and platforms to recreate it fully until there’s some literally very high-definition manifestation of them as avatars or some physical manifestation of them as robots and all that stuff. It will take a while for that emotion to be manifested. Emotion, I think, is still something that we as humans have as a moat, and it’s critical. As you mentioned before, I was a strategy management consultant at McKinsey, and getting people to action is actually 80% about the delivery, communication, the emotion that you surround the project itself, more than sometimes the truth. It’s great to have the truth and to have something that is similar to the truth in terms of analysis, but in some ways, that’s not what really moves change. Change is moved by, I would argue, a significant amount of emotion and alignment on emotions.Bertrand Schmitt You could argue that’s something that most politicians have perfectly understood. If you look at most campaigns these days, everything on emotions, maybe the tagline might be one word. It’s interesting when you see from that perspective that actually it’s very little on facts, very little on all of this, but more about emotion. You could argue it’s the same for businesses in the future? That’s a fair question. I think creativity is another one that’s quite important. At the same time, it’s not so easy because I must say I’m quite amazed when I’m looking for creativity from AI, either to generate the image, to generate video, to generate audio, or to generate text. AI can be pretty creative. I still think you need to control its creativity; you need to understand what’s good, what’s bad, what’s quality, but at the same time, I can see even in creative tasks, AI can be a very strong partner. I’m talking about any creative task, like invent a name for a product, let’s brainstorm the mission for the company. AI can actually be doing a pretty impressive job. That’s the type of job where you will hire experts, where you will use some of the best people in your team to help you for days. We say, “You can do quite a lot.” It’s an interesting one because I think there is some unique human creativity, and at the same time, AI can be pretty strong at creative task as well.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro I agree. In particular, if it represents benchmarking, if it represents repetition, if it represents seeing the world and then coming up with something that presents itself as creative, to be honest, it can actually outpace humans. If it’s like genuine light bulb moments of creativity, angles that haven’t been tried before, certainly not in the same way, I think humans still have the advantage. To your point, I agree. This is not a humans-win situation. On the previous one, on emotion, still, part of it is because, also on emotion, there are exchanges. You and I might be looking at each other, and from the facial expressions and the reactions, where you judge that for AI to get there, it’s going to take a long time. There’s going to be a lot of very complex algorithmic stuff put into that for AI to be able to create synthetic emotional behaviors, but creativity, I agree with you. There are a lot more nuances to it today, where AI does have significant advantages at the end of the day. Synthesis depends. Synthesis, I feel, if we’re talking about holding a bunch of messy assumptions, contextualized inputs with different layers of data adjacent to them and then trying to create and form one coherent, fully accountable point of view that you stake something on, like a decision, a company, a business unit, whatever, I think humans have the advantage. Part of it is the complexity of what we have today with generative, pre-trained transformers, today with GPTs, where the hallucination comes through, where it’s really more statistical analysis. Over time, maybe synthesis will be a forte for AI. Right now, I think we still have that ability to really be the ultimate decision-makers and judge-makers and have that wisdom put at the table to make those decisions. Honestly, models are very good on balancing both sides, so ended up, as we say in Portuguese, neither fish nor meat. It’s to balance both sides’ answers. That’s not helpful in most cases. When you’re in a difficult position where, for example, the future of a company, company is almost dying, what do you do? I’m not sure your AI algorithms that are going to give you a great solution. Because it will give you a median or average solution, which likely will lead you to a median or average outcome, which in this case would be failure. Again, on synthesis, there are some areas of advantage for human beings. If you are looking for clearly synthesized perspectives on certain elements that are maybe less edge-focused, they’re more than the normal part of the normal distribution, then probably AI agents are brilliant at that. All the tools we have today are pretty good at that, and I think they’ll just get better over time. That’s how I see synthesis.Bertrand Schmitt I think a lot of improvements will come with a better fine-tuning of agents to what’s special about your company. Because if you just take a general agent, there is only so much. It can understand your industry, your company, and your way of working. I think that part of making sure your agents are finely trained, finely tuned on your own business, so that they can give you a really well-calibrated feedback, will have a lot of importance.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro I think that’s absolutely spot on. Maybe to end it, what is definitely different about humanity? Definitely, emotion, as we discussed, some pieces of synthesis. Creativity, maybe the light bulb creativity, not the more repeatable creativity, the one that you can put and encapsulate into processes in some ways. There are elements of us being physical, which robots can’t still recreate. That’s definitely an advantage. The embodied, we’re embodied. That’s obviously a huge advantage. With that also comes advantages because we have to interpret each other, and we have to see the complexities in physicality that land to it. Is human and the human element categorical difference? If we’re having a more philosophical discussion around this, I think it is. I think it will be for at least the foreseeable future and maybe decades to come, even in whatever scenarios we’ll discuss, which is our next section, scenarios.Bertrand Schmitt I would say projecting beyond 10 years is always pretty hard on this because, again, some of the improvements we are talking about we can imagine based on how it has evolved, but at the same time, there will be disruptions in AI. Stuff that we take for granted in terms of weakness, especially, might not be there in a few years from now. Either because it has been solved through brute force or because the field will have made significant change and improvements and discoveries, making some of our points moot. If we talk about embodiment, obviously, robots are coming. How fast, how cheap? That will be a big question. Right now, they’re not very smart. They’re usually very specialized. The more we move to a more general form factor, humanoid form factor, the more I think it will change. Also, another piece of the puzzle is that we have the assumption of agents having trouble to convince humans and stuff. At some point, we keep assuming that humans in the loop. If we’re talking about agents convincing another agent, not having embodiment might be even more efficient. That will be another perspective. Going forward, we will have not just agents we control who are doing a job and scanning the job, but agents truly interacting with other agents. You have agents controlled by one person, one team in your company, working either together or maybe not confrontationally, but trying to think and having different perspectives with another agent, controlled by other teams. I don’t think we have seen much of that now. We have seen mostly agents that are controlled by one team doing one job in one direction. Not multiple teams agents working together, or against or in parallel with another team agent. I think we will see some interesting things coming out of that.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Scenarios Switching to scenarios, we love our two-by-twos. We haven’t done one in a while. This time it’s a two by two. We have four scenarios. I think on one axis, we would have potentially the capabilities of AI. One side would be more incremental. The other side would be the extreme full AGI. I’ll define it in a bit so that we can at least have a little bit of a definitional view on what the AGI is. Then the other axis would be how gains are distributed, concentrated versus broad. Obviously, if they’re very concentrated, it’s more unequal. It only goes to a few companies, a few people, a few individuals. If it’s broad, it’s much more dispersed through society, et cetera. AGI, just to try to define it, the formal definition of it is that it’s a hypothetical AI that matches or exceeds human capabilities across virtually all cognitive and practical tasks. In some ways, AGI can learn, reason, and adapt to novel situations across any domain. Then there are several mutations on this, but there’s one notion, or rather, there are three notions that normally are across a lot of these definitions. One is generalization, ability to seamlessly transfer knowledge from one domain to another without needing retraining, which is a very impressive skill that we humans still seemingly have. Autonomy in agency, the capacity to operate independently, set goals, plan and execute complex tasks. I think AI is their issue with agents to a lot of that extent. Then, last but not least, human parity, performing economically valuable work at or above the level of a typical human knowledge worker. If you listen to one of our last episodes, you’ll realize that Bertrand and I have slightly different views on AGI, and if it’s already here or not. I think, definitionally, maybe we have slightly different views on what the definition actually is. For me, maybe AGI is a little bit more what some would call superintelligence and generalized superintelligence. Strict to census, Bertrand is more connecting to AGI as in its prime definition. It behaves as well or better than a human thing. Maybe that’s what’s leading us to differences on whether AGI has arrived or not.Bertrand Schmitt Personally, I will have a different scale where I will put AGI, as you just said, in some ways, relatively similar in performance to your average human being. On top of it, it’s able to touch different domains that most humans are not able to do. Usually, there is some level of specializations where in AI, it can be more generic. I will put ASI, Artificial Superintelligence, as clearly the step beyond. Something that, on any dimension you pick, it’s able to beat a human expert. From my perspective, I think we already discussed that, but we are at AGI already. We have AI that can do way better, not just way better, but at least as well as humans on many topics, sometimes better. Yes, there are some topics that are not for AI yet. Embodiment, for instance, to flock with your humanoid robot in 2026. For me, we are partially there or fully there in AGI. If we take the stricter definition, ASI, we are definitely not there, but my guess is that it’s moving quite fast. We might be there in a few years from now. I don’t think we are talking about multi-decades. It’s 5 years, maybe 10. Of course, there are questions because people will say, for instance, “Hey, how do you become truly super-intelligent when all your training is based on human data?” That’s not an easy one because how do you train on that? To be way better, not just a bit better, but way better. Maybe I’m going on a tangent, but some are looking at AI learning from AI, AI being taught from AI, AI fighting with AI, AI challenging AI. The same way we saw this AlphaGo moment where AI was not trained anymore, like in chess with human moves, but has been trained to play against itself. That’s when it reached superintelligence in Go. It reached superintelligence by playing against itself and basically letting go of that human baggage, if you want, and going to the next level. What I found interesting in that, actually, first, that’s what happened, but two, there was some analysis that the average level of Go players and the top players went up after AlphaGo because AlphaGo, in a way, opened doors that humans didn’t believe were open in front of them, or they didn’t see them. They didn’t see these doors, so they didn’t bother to open them. AI opened new doors, but interestingly enough, humans improved after that, thanks to AI. You see what I mean? It was an interesting, okay, that self-learning from AI was the way to go beyond the current level of human knowledge and human expertise, but at the same time, humans were able to follow up. It was not like suddenly humans are totally useless crap. They improved. Did they still beat AI? Maybe not, but it was definitely also helpful.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Back to our scenarios. We’re going to take the definitional extreme just for argument’s sake for scenarios. We’re going to talk about maybe what you were saying, ASI rather than full AGI, but like ASI. Again, artificial superintelligence as the extreme on the one hand. Let me talk about maybe the first scenario that would come to mind. Maybe we can call it the plateau scenario. All of this was great, but it was all smoke and mirrors. They were great at some cognition stuff. They’re a great tool. At some point, they’re going to hit a wall. Hallucinations are never going to be a thing of the past. We can’t fully trust them on really hardcore stuff. We’ll gain productivity enhancements. We’ll keep gaining those productivity enhancements, but at some point in time, we really won’t reach ASI. We really will be stuck with what we have. It’s a little bit like we get the next big thing, the next big spreadsheet, the next big internet, but it’s not going to change the whole world beyond just productivity, enhancements, and amazing tools that we have available to us that makes us much better. In that scenario, the winners will continue being fast adopters, probably small and medium businesses, because there won’t be a push for maximum speed either, so they’ll catch up at some point. Then AI native companies will be better companies than other companies, but not necessarily overall disruptors across the board. It’s not necessarily a new species of companies. It’s just companies that are a little bit better at doing stuff, which we also saw during the internet phenomenon and that first big push forward and then bubble, where we had some companies that were fundamentally different on how they operated. It took us another couple of decades for companies to be more and more digitally native along the way. Basically interesting, but it’s boring. It’s like, cool, we got tools, we got promised the world. What are the implications? All these companies that are worth trillions and trillions of dollars are not worth trillions and trillions of dollars. Because at some point we’ll face competition, commoditization. It will just be tools and platforms. They will not unlock that next stage. Therefore, this will have been a bubble, and likely it would be a hard landing to that bubble. That’s the implication.Bertrand Schmitt I would just say that, yes, I agree with you, but I would just say overall, even if it stopped today in terms of quality improvement, speed or stuff, or it barely improves, I still think we will have 10 years of madness just to leverage everything that we have today.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Understood, Bertrand. This is a scenario. I understand, but maybe we’re going to hit a wall, and we’re going to hit that wall next year, or we’re going to hit that wall in 2 years or whatever.Bertrand Schmitt Possibly. I’m just saying we still have 10 years of goodness from that big push in AI we experienced the past few years.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Absolutely. Agreed, but it’s boring.Bertrand Schmitt It’s boring. It’s a plateau.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro It’s a plateau. The second one is more of something that we have AI, but humans in the loop are going to be critical along the way. The judgment work that we described earlier in the episode is going to be critical to everything that happens. It’s, I would call it the augmentation scenario. The AI will be a great augmentation tool for humans, but humans will never really quite stop being in the loop. Some of the gains that AI has are broadly distributed in society and in the startup, big corporation and small medium business world. Everyone will have access to them. We humans, are still very important. We have all these augmentation things, and AI is mostly benign. There will be a couple of issues, but honestly, at the end of the day, we’re just better. We’re better, faster, more data-driven, more factually current. We’re doing stuff faster, but humans