Podcasts about O2

Ron starts this episode started asking if you are doing enough taking care of your car and talking about his week and replacing a crank sensor : takes a call on an 07 Pontiac Torrent where the caller needs to change the block heater element and is looking for advice : takes a call on an 07 Liberty with an O2 sensor issue : takes a return call on a 90 Toyota pickup with a possible O2 fault : talks about problems with electric cars : talks about a spill in his shop…..   Visit us at https://www.cardoctorshow.com  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tasha McNerney CVT CVPP discusses best practices for anesthesia and pain control in a 0.8lb kitten. These cases are tricky and Tasha lays out why as well as what we can do to reduce the risk and decrease pain and discomfort of our patient. Tasha and Andy talk through the importance of maintaining cardiac outflow, O2 therapy, blood glucose monitoring, and thermoregulation. Anticholinergics and fasting protocols are also discussed. This is a FANTASTIC and short episode that is packed with clinical pearls. You won't want to miss it! LINKS: Veterinary Anesthesia Nerds: http://www.veterinaryanesthesianerds.com/ Dr. Andy Roark Exam Room Communication Tool Box Course: https://drandyroark.com/store/ What's on my Scrubs?! Card Game: https://drandyroark.com/training-tools/ Dr. Andy Roark Swag: drandyroark.com/shop All Links: linktr.ee/DrAndyRoark ABOUT OUR GUEST: Tasha McNerney obtained her CVT in 2005 and has worked clinically in the areas of anesthesia and surgery ever since. Tasha obtained her CVPP (certified veterinary pain practitioner) designation in 2013 and became a veterinary technician specialist in anesthesia in 2015. Tasha has been a featured speaker on various anesthesia and pain management topics at several international veterinary conferences. Tasha is the author of many articles and blogs on anesthesia and pain management related topics. In 2013 Tasha created the Facebook group Veterinary Anesthesia Nerds, which has over 65,000 members taking part in education and exchange of ideas from all over the world! Tasha is crazy and bought a 1920's fixer upper and is now obsessed with home improvement tutorials on YouTube. She lives in Philadelphia with her husband, son, one perfect cat, and one jerk cat. Trust me that cat is a jerk.

How well placed are Irish companies on the road to digitalisation and being ready for the 21st-century? Three Ireland, which assumed control of O2 seven years ago, doesn't think that the government is doing enough to help with the digitalisation process. With more on this Joe spoke to Eoin MacManus is the Chief Business Officer at Three Ireland.

Jak se sto tuzemských firem, mezi kterými najdeme i ČEZ, O2 nebo třeba Škoda-auto staví k ESG (Enviroment, Social a Governance, tedy hodnot zásadních pro udržitelný rozvoj) a udržitelnosti? Na to se zaměřovala nová studie Vysoké školy ekonomické v Praze. Podrobně se na ni podívala moderátorka byznysového magazínu Romana Navarová s odborníkem na podnikové strategie z Fakulty podnikohospodářské Vysoké školy ekonomické, Ladislavem Tyllem.  

Pozvání do Dopravního podcastu přijal Adam Kotas, který se podílí na renovaci už druhé lokomotivy Škoda 33E, známé jako "žehlička". Jaká je historie těchto lokomotiv? Jak probíhají opravy? Jaké komponenty je nejtěžší sehnat? A kde se v budoucnu zrenovované lokomotivy objeví? Pusťte si nejnovější Dopravní podcast.⏱ Prvních 18 minut pro všechny zdarma, celý rozhovor v délce 34 minut pro předplatitele na Patreonu

Roger Federer finally retired from tennis with his last ever match at the Laver Cup in London playing alongside Rafael Nadal in the doubles. It was an emotional night for everyone in the tennis world and there wasn't a dry eye in the O2 arena as Roger gave his final speech. ❤️ SUBSCRIBE TO GTL: https://bit.ly/35JyOhz ▶️ JOIN YOUTUBE MEMBERSHIP: https://bit.ly/3Fk9rSr

See all the Healthcasts at https://www.biobalancehealth.com/healthcast-blog/ Mitochondria are discussed in antiaging advertising like they are understood by the common man.  Even TV discussions and podcasts discuss mitochondria like we are all biology majors, but to most people mitochondria is a word but most people don't know really what they are.  Most people think Mitochondria are “good”, but what are they? Some examples of ads that use the word Mitochondria, reads “Take these Anti-oxidants every day and you will heal your mitochondria, and live longer…” “Your mitochondria are sick and need to be treated with BLANK to bring you back to health, just buy….” In reality, most students of biology and medical doctors are the only people who understand what they are and how they work, what can make them “sick”, and how to make them operate normally within each cell of our body. Simply mitochondria are organelles that take BS and Oxygen and make energy.  You can think of it as “breathing for the cell” , by taking blood sugar and O2 and creating energy, CO2 (carbon dioxide) and water H2O.  Mitochondria are the tiny determiners of our ability to metabolize food and make the energy the cell needs to do its job effectively. I bet you never thought anything about the fact that when you breath oxygen it goes into your blood stream on your red blood cells, and delivered to your tissues by diffusion through capillaries and enters the cells within your tissues…but what does it do then to sustain us?  That is where Mitochondria come in…as they work as I described in the previous paragraph. Another important piece of information about the mitochondria is that they are passed from mother to child, which means your metabolism is secondary to the genes only your mother gave you!  We call this genetic communicator that tells cells how to function metabolically, mitochondrial DNA! To locate our mitochondria, we must take a microscope to the human body, and successively dissect her into smaller and smaller parts:  A whole human body, divided into organ systems eg. Skin, Gastrointestinal system, then divided into smaller parts called tissues such as muscles and neuro-tissue.  Smaller still are the specialized cells that make up the tissues, call cells.  Smaller still are the mitochondria that are located within each cell in the body, providing energy to the cell, to make the whole-body work! Mitochondria are small, oval, sub-cellular “ energy packs” located inside every cell in our bodies.  These small oranelles within our cells turn sugar (glucose) from our food, into ATP (energy) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2).  They act like miniature lungs, taking in sugar which is made of oxygen and carbon, and returning CO2 as a by-product.   Scientists say that mitochondria's activity is “respiration”!  The CO2 passes out of the cell and is excreted by the lungs. So why do we use Mitochondria as a catchword for a way to sway lay people to buy a product to keep them healthy?  It is a way to explain complicated physiology to people who aren't trained in a particular science like medicine or biology, and a way to sell products.  The word mitochondria is associated with sickness and how to get better and it becomes a catch word everyone knows and wants to “fix”. However, if it is a fad or an advertising method to sell something, knowledge of what mitochondria need to make energy, is a valid pursuit.  In short, your cells need plenty of oxygen, healthy foods, exercise and a clean environment to make energy effectively in your mitochondria. Because our food sources do not have adequate nutrition for us and our mitochondria, we must eat foods that are particularly packed with nutrients and or add supplements such as resveratrol, Alpha-Lipoic Acid, L-carnitine and omega 3 oils to heal our “sick mitochondria”. All the while we are trying to “help our mitochondria” with nutritious food and supplements, many of us are inactivating our mitochondria just when we need them most!  How you ask? Those of the many people who take statins are inactivating their mitochondria 24-7.  That is how a statin works!  Statins inactivate mitochondria to decrease the production of cholesterol in the cells.  So why are we killing our ability to make energy and to be healthy, just to decrease our chance of getting heart disease later? Statins are only worth the risk if you have already had a heart attack or are about to have one and have narrowed atherosclerotic arteries.  Statins don't treat anything, but your cholesterol lab values, and only prevent additional buildup of more plaque. Some of my patients think statins are cleaning up the arteries, but they do not do that!  The risk for a heart attack includes blocked arteries, inflammation, smoking and a high Homocysteine level and Family history.  To clean up blood vessels, Zetia is the atherosclerotic cleaner-upper without the risks of a statin!  Zetia leaves your mitochondria alone! To know if you actually have atherosclerotic plaque, you should have a cardiac calcium scan to see if you do or not!  I have high cholesterol, and no plaque (I had one test in 2002, and one in 2019. High cholesterol doesn't necessarily lead to heart disease, but it does definitely stop your mitochondria from working! Since the mitochondria are so important to health, we will talk about How mitochondria can get sick and cause us to be sick in many ways throughout our body.

See all the Healthcasts at https://www.biobalancehealth.com/healthcast-blog/ When the human body is exposed to radiation (even the sun), toxins, stress, unhealthy food, infection and extremes of temperature and physically stressful environments, it creates unstable free radicals, charged cells that travel through the body causing cellular damage.  For example, oxidative stress causes oxygen, which is usually a beneficial element in the body, to divide into two oxygen molecules, each with a charge. The oxidative stress makes O2 into two oxygen free radicals.  The two free oxygen free radicals are harmful to the body, and the damage is in the mitochondria, and the cell can't efficiently make energy out of Oxygen and sugar.  Oxidative stress is somewhat like putting a pillow over the mitochondria so the cell can't breathe!    How do we get exposed to free radicals? Sun, processed foods and toxins in the environment. Inadequate supply of antioxidants, fat, and protein, lack of fiber in the diet, inactivity, drugs, smoking, lack of sleep. Many common items in our diet increase free radicals: Processed flour, wheat, gluten, sugar, sweeteners, and trans-fats.   Source Of Free Radicals and Oxidative Stress Air pollution. Cigarette smoke. Alcohol intake. High blood sugar levels Consuming large amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids Radiation, including excessive sunbathing. Infections by bacteria, fungi or viruses. Excessive intake of iron, magnesium, copper, or zinc Too little oxygen in the body Too muchoxygen in the body. Intense and prolonged exercise, which causes tissue damage. Excessive intake of antioxidants, such as vitamins C and E Antioxidant deficiency Prolonged oxidative stress (exposure to free radicals) leads to increased risk of negative health outcomes, such as cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer. It is also thought to contribute to degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease and Dementia as well as the aging process. The Treatment for Oxidative Stress, and Mitochondrial Damage Oxidative stress is treated with antioxidants, microniutrients, supplements, and refraining from bad habits such as smoking, drug use and alcohol.   The antidote t o oxidative stress is found in Antioxidants which are found in fresh fruit and vegetables as well as meat, healthy fats and eggs. They are also made in the body of humans and animals, and can be given as supplements. Antioxidants work by combining with free radicals, which literally defuses them, so the free radicals cannot damage the cellular mitochondria. “Antioxidants are molecules that fight damage by free radicals, unstable molecules that can harm cellular structures. Antioxidants do this by giving electrons to the free radicals and neutralizing or defusing them.” Fresh Foods That Contain Antioxidants Dark Chocolate. Goji Berries. ... Blueberries Coffee Cranberries Green tea Garlic Grape skins Popcorn Yogurt Broccoli Vitamins & Nutrients That Are Antioxidants, Found In Many Foods But Can Also Be Taken As A Supplement: Vitamin E, Vitamin D, Carotene, Vitamin A Vitamin C Omega 3 DHA Alpha-lipoic acid L-carnitine Coenzyme Q Selenium Reservatol (found in grape skins and wine) Sulfur containing amino acids Iodine Methylated Folate Glutamine (eat bone broth) NAC   How do Antioxidants remove free radicals? Anti-oxidants actually sacrifice themselves to remove free radicals.  The antioxidants bind with the body's free radicals, making the free radicals safe by taking the charge from them, and then they (the antioxidants) are recruited to protect the cells from oxidative damage. The outcome of unfettered Oxidative Stress is damage to cells, proteins and DNA. This causes aging, disease, degeneration of tissues, and finally cellular and whole-body death.

How has Virgin Media transformed as a content aggregator and entered the streaming wars with their new product ‘Stream'? On this episode, Jack Davison is joined by David Bouchier, Chief TV and Entertainment Officer at Virgin Media O2, a media and telecommunications venture between Virgin Media and O2 which formed in 2021. A leader in multi-platform streamed entertainment, David leads a dedicated team who look after content and programming across Virgin Media's TV platform. Prior to joining Virgin Media O2, David was a member of The Management Executive of BskyB in the UK, where he was responsible for handling the company's investment in German Pay TV, before moving to News Corporation as Managing Director of Programming for Sky Italia. He subsequently returned to the UK and set up his own pay TV broadcast business, creating a number of pay television channels. We get an insight into David's experience evolving Virgin Media O2 from a linear Pay TV aggregator into an innovative paid video services aggregator, utilising strong content provider relations and tech integrations to offer streamlined OTT entertainment options to customers. He discusses the launch of Virgin's new TV service, ‘Stream', and its aim to seamlessly offer a traditional linear TV experience paired with flexible, affordable bundles to ensure customer loyalty through a tighter financial climate. Here is a breakdown of the topics discussed in the episode: The evolution of Virgin as a content aggregator Sourcing content successfully through strong content provider relations The launch of Stream and its 3 primary propositions for customers: value for money, flexibility and convenience Keeping viewers engaged through integration and curation: the importance of providing an entertainment service that provides for the new generation of ‘channel-flickers' that seek flexibility UI design in the Stream service: merging the essentials of new-world and old-world interfaces for ease of use Listen now! Download our latest insight: A New Studio D2C Partnering Model - Paramount+ launches with Sky Stay in the loop: 3Vision Website: https://www.3vision.tv 3Vision Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/3vision 3Vision Twitter: @3Vision

Hoy os hablo de O2, la que para mí es una de las mejores marcas de telecomunicaciones de España. Hace unas semanas mejoraron las tarifas, pero lo que más me gusta es que tecnológicamente siempre están muy al día.

Podcast: The Lunar Society (LS 30 · TOP 5% )Episode: Austin Vernon - Energy Superabundance, Starship Missiles, & Finding AlphaRelease date: 2022-09-08Austin Vernon is an engineer working on a new method for carbon capture, and he has one of the most interesting blogs on the internet, where he writes about engineering, software, economics, and investing.We discuss how energy superabundance will change the world, how Starship can be turned into a kinetic weapon, why nuclear is overrated, blockchains, batteries, flying cars, finding alpha, & much more!Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Subscribe to find out about future episodes!Follow Austin on Twitter. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Please share if you enjoyed this episode! Helps out a ton!Timestamps(0:00:00) - Intro(0:01:53) - Starship as a Weapon(0:19:24) - Software Productivity(0:41:40) - Car Manufacturing(0:57:39) - Carbon Capture(1:16:53) - Energy Superabundance(1:25:09) - Storage for Cheap Energy(1:31:25) - Travel in Future(1:33:27) - Future Cities(1:39:58) - Flying Cars(1:43:26) - Carbon Shortage(1:48:03) - Nuclear(2:12:44) - Solar(2:14:44) - Alpha & Efficient Markets(2:22:51) - ConclusionTranscriptIntroDwarkesh Patel (00:00:00):Okay! Today, I have the pleasure of interviewing Austin Vernon who writes about engineering, software, economics, and investing on the internet, though not that much else is known about him. So Austin, do you want to give us a bit of info about your background? I know that the only thing the internet knows about you is this one little JPEG that you had to upload with your recent paper. But what about an identity reveal or I guess a little bit of a background reveal? Just to the extent that you're comfortable sharing.Austin Vernon (00:00:29):My degree is in chemical engineering and I've had a lifelong love for engineering as well as things like the Toyota Production System. I've also worked as a chemical engineer in a large processing facility where I've done a lot of petroleum engineering. I taught myself how to write software and now I'm working on more research and the early commercialization of CO2 electrolysis.Dwarkesh Patel (00:00:59):Okay yeah. I'm really interested in talking about all those things. The first question I have is from Alex Berger, who's the co-CEO of Open Philanthropy. When I asked on Twitter what I should ask you, he suggested that I should ask “Why so shady?” Famously you have kind of an anonymous personality, pseudonymous thing going on the internet. What's up with that?Austin Vernon (00:01:25):Yeah. I think he posted a tweet that said “I don't know who this guy is or if he's credible at all, but his stuff sure is interesting”. That really made me laugh. I thought that was hilarious. Fame just doesn't seem necessary, I think I'm fine with my ideas being well known and communicating, but I have less desire to be personally famous.Starship as a WeaponDwarkesh Patel (00:01:52):Gotcha, gotcha. I wanted to start off with a sexy topic, let's talk about using Starship as a kinetic weapon. I thought that was one of the more amusing posts you wrote. Do you want to talk more about how this would be possible?Austin Vernon (00:02:08):Well, I think the main thing with Starship is that you're taking a technology and you're making it about 100 times cheaper for cargo and 1000 times cheaper for people. When things like that happen that drastically, you're just looking at huge changes and it's really hard to anticipate what some of those can be when the change is that drastic. I think there's a lot of moon-based, Mars-based stuff that doesn't really catch the general public's eye. They also have trouble imagining some of the point-to-point travel that could be possible. But when you start talking about it as a weapon, then I think it lets people know they should be paying attention to this technology. And we certainly do not want to be second or third getting it. We should make sure that we're going to be first.Dwarkesh Patel (00:03:05):Yeah. I think you mentioned this in the post, but as recently as the '90s, the cost of sending one kilogram to space was around $20,000. More recently, SpaceX has brought it to $2,000. Lots of interesting questions pop up when you ask, “What will be possible once we get it down to $200 per kilogram to send into orbit?” One of them could be about how we might manufacture these weapons that are not conventional ballistics. Do you want to talk about why this might be an advancement over conventional ballistic weapons?Austin Vernon (00:03:37):Well, regular conventional ballistic weapons are extremely expensive. This is more like a bomb truck. But usually we think of B52 as the bomb truck and this could be even cheaper than the B52, delivering just mass on target. When you think about how expensive it is to fly a B52 from Barksdale in Louisiana all the way across the world.. you can do it from south Texas or Florida with the Starship and get more emissions per day and the fuel ends up being. When you go orbital, it takes a lot to get to orbit. But then once you're in orbit, your fuel consumption's pretty good. So over long distances, it has a lot of advantage. That's why the point-to-point works for longer distances.Austin Vernon (00:04:27):There's really a sweet spot with these weapons where you want it to be pretty accurate, but you also want it to be cheap. You're seeing that problem with Russia right now as they have some fancy parade style weapons that are really expensive, like multi-billion dollar cruise missiles, but they're missing that $5,000 guided artillery shell or that $20,000 JDM that you can just pit massive. Or the multiple launch rocket system, guided rockets. They're really short on all those because I think they had just had a limited amount of chips they could get from the US into Russia to make these advanced weapons.Austin Vernon (00:05:07):But yeah, so the Starship gives you just a platform to deliver. You could put JDMs in a shroud, or you could just have the iron unguided kinetic projectiles, and it just becomes impossible for a ship to launch missiles to intercept yours if your cost is so low, you can just overwhelm them.Dwarkesh Patel (00:05:29):Okay. There are a few terms there that neither I nor the audience might know. So what is JDM? What is shroud? And why are chips a bottleneck here? Why can't it just be any micro-controller?Austin Vernon (00:05:42):So JDM is Joint Direct Attack Munition. So what we did is we took all our Vietnam surplus bonds and we put this little fin-kit on it and it costs like $20,000, which is cheap for a weapon because the actual bond costs, I don't know, $3,000. And then it turns it into a guided weapon that, before you were probably lucky to get within 500 meters of a target, now you can get it in with two meters. So the number of missions you have to do with your planes and all that goes down by orders of magnitude. So it's an absolutely huge advantage in logistics and in just how much firepower you can put on a target. And we didn't even have to make new bombs, we just put these kits on all our old bombs.Austin Vernon (00:06:33):Let's see.. Yeah the chips are a problem. There's this organization called RUSI. I think they're in the UK, but they've been tearing down all these Russian weapons they found in Ukraine and they all have American chips in them. So technically, they're not supposed to be able to get these chips. And yet, Russia can't make a lot of its own chips. And especially not the specialized kinds you might want for guided weapons. So they've been somehow smuggling in chips from Americans to make their advanced weaponsDwarkesh Patel (00:07:03):What is special about these? As far as I'm aware, the trade with China is still going on and we get a lot of our chips manufactured from Taiwan or China. So why can't they do the same?Austin Vernon (00:07:14):It's the whole integration. It's not just the specific chip, but the board. They're more like PLCs where you almost have wired-in programming and they come with this ability to do the guidance and all that stuff. It all kind of has to work together. I think that's the way I understand it. I don't know. Maybe I don't have a really good answer for that one, but they're hard to replicate is what matters.Dwarkesh Patel (00:07:43):Okay that's interesting. Yeah, I guess that has a lot of interesting downstream effects, because for example, India buys a lot of its weapons from Russia. So if Russia doesn't have access to these, then other countries that buy from Russia won't have access to these either.Dwarkesh Patel (00:07:58):You had an interesting speculation in the post where you suggested that you could just keep these kinetic weapons in orbit, in a sort of Damocles state really, almost literally. That sounds like an incredibly scary and risky scenario where you could have orbital decay and you could have these kinetic weapons falling from the sky and destroying cities. Do you think this is what it will look like or could look like in 10 to 20 years?Austin Vernon (00:08:26):Well, yeah, so the advantage of having weapons on orbit is you can hit targets faster. So if you're launching the rocket from Florida, you're looking at maybe 30 minutes to get there and the target can move away in that time. Whereas if you're on orbit, you can have them spaced out to where you're hitting within a few minutes. So that's the advantage there.Austin Vernon (00:08:46):You really have to have a two stage system I think for most, because if you have a really aerodynamic rod that's going to give you really good performance in the low atmosphere, it'll end up going too fast and just burn up before it gets there. Tungsten's maybe the only thing that you could have that could go all the way through which is why I like the original concept of using these big tungsten rods the size of a telephone pole. But tungsten's pretty expensive. And the rod concept kind of limits what you can do.Austin Vernon (00:09:28):So a lot of these weapons will have, that's what I was talking about with the shroud, something that actually slows you down in the upper atmosphere. And then once you're at the velocity where you're not just going to melt, then you open it up and let it go. So if you actually had it fall from the sky, some may make it to the ground, but a lot would burn up. So a lot of the stuff that makes it to the ground is actually pretty light. It's stuff that can float and has a large surface area. Yeah, that's the whole thing with Starship. Or not Starship, but Starlink. All those satellites are meant to completely fall apart on de-orbit.Dwarkesh Patel (00:10:09):I see. One of the implications of that is that these may be less powerful than we might fear, because since kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared and there's an upper bound on the velocity (velocity being the component that grows the kinetic energy faster), then it suggests that you can upper bound the power these things will have. You know what I mean?Austin Vernon (00:10:32):Yeah, so even the tungsten rods. Sometimes people, they're not very good at physics, so they don't do the math. They think it's going to be a nuclear weapon, but it's really not. I think even the tungsten rod is like 10 tons of T&T or something. It's a big bomb, but it's not a super weapon.Austin Vernon (00:10:54):So I think I said in the post, it's about using advanced missiles where they're almost more defensive weapons so I can keep you from pitting your ship somewhere. Yeah I could try to bombard your cities, but I can't take ground with it. I can't even police sea lanes with it really. I'd still have to use regular ships if I had this air cover to go enforce the rules of the sea and stuff like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:11:23):Yeah. You speculated in the post, I think, that you could load this up with shrapnel and then it could explode next to an incoming missile or an incoming aircraft. Could these get that accurate? Because that was surprising speculation to me.Austin Vernon (00:11:43):I think for ships, it's pretty... I was watching videos of how fast a ship can turn and stuff. If you're going to do an initial target on a ship to try to kill their radars, you'd want to do it above the ceiling of their missiles. So it's like, how much are they going to move between your release where you stop steering and that? The answer's maybe 1000 feet. So that's pretty simple because you just shrapnel the area.Austin Vernon (00:12:12):Targeting aircraft, you would be steering all the way in. I'd say it's doable, but it'd be pretty hard. You'd actually maybe want to even go slower than you would with the ship attack. You'd need a specialized package to attack the aircraft, but if you have enough synthetic aperture radar and stuff like that, you could see these aircraft using satellites and then guide the bomb in the whole way. You could even load heat seeking missiles into a package that unfurls right next to them and launch conventional missiles too, probably. It'd be pretty hard to do some of this stuff, but they're just the things you might be able to do if you put some effort into it.Dwarkesh Patel (00:12:57):Yeah. The reason I find this kind of speculation really interesting is because when you look at the modern weaponry that's used in conflicts, it just seems directly descendant from something you would've seen in World War II or something. If you think about how much warfare changed between 1900 and 1940, it's like, yeah, they're not even the same class of weapons anymore. So it's interesting to think about possibilities like these where the entire category of weapons has changed.Austin Vernon (00:13:33):You're right and that's because our physical technology hasn't changed that much. So it really has just made more sense to put better electronics in the same tanks. We haven't learned enough about tanks to build a new physical tank that's way better, so we just keep upgrading our existing tanks with better electronics. They're much more powerful, they're more accurate. A lot of times, they have longer range weapons and better sensors. So the tank looks the same, but it maybe has several times more killing power. But the Ukraine war right now, they're using a lot of 40, 50 year old weapons so that especially looks like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:14:20):Yeah. Which kind of worries you if you think about the stockpiles our own military has. I'm not well educated on the topic, but I imagine that we don't have the newest of the new thing. We probably have maintained versions of decades old technology.Austin Vernon (00:14:35):We spend so much, we've got relatively... This kind of gets into debate about how ready our military is. For certain situations, it's more ready than others. I'd say in general, most people talking about it have the incentive to downplay our capabilities because they want more defense spending. There's lots of reasons. So I think we're probably more capable than what you might see from some editorial in The Hill or whatever. Us just sending a few weapons over to Ukraine and seeing how successful they've been at using them, I think, shows a little bit of that.Austin Vernon (00:15:18):There's so much uncertainty when it comes to fighting, especially when you're talking about a naval engagement, where we don't just don't have that many ships in general… you can have some bad luck. So I think you always want to be a little bit wary. You don't want to get overconfident.Dwarkesh Patel (00:15:37):Yeah. And if the offensive tech we sent to Ukraine is potentially better than the defensive tech, it's very possible that even a ballistic missile that China or Russia could launch would sink a battleship and then kill the 2,000 or 1,000 whatever soldiers that are on board. Or I guess, I don't know, you think this opens up avenues for defensive tech as well?Austin Vernon (00:16:03):Yeah––generally the consensus is that defensive technology has improved much more recently than offensive technology. This whole strategy China has is something they call anti-access/area denial, A2/AD. That's basically just how missiles have gotten better because the sensors on missiles have gotten better. So they can keep our ships from getting close to them but they can't really challenge us in Hawaii or something. And it really goes both ways, I think people forget that. So yeah, it's hard for us to get close to China, but Taiwan has a lot of missiles with these new sensors as well. So I think it's probably tougher for China to do it close to Taiwan than most people would say.Dwarkesh Patel (00:16:55):Oh, interesting. Yeah, can you talk more about that? Because every time I read about this, people are saying that if China wanted to, they could knock out Taiwan's defenses in a short amount of time and take it over. Yeah, so can you talk about why that's not possible?Austin Vernon (00:17:10):Well, it might be, but I think it's a guess of the uncertainty [inaudible 00:17:14]. Taiwan has actually one of the largest defense budgets in the world and they've recently been upping it. I think they spend, I don't know, $25 billion a year and they added an extra $5 billion. And they've been buying a lot of anti-ship missiles, a lot of air defense missiles.. Stuff that Ukraine could only dream of. I think Ukraine's military budget was $2 billion and they have a professional army. And then the other thing is Taiwan's an island, whereas Russia could just roll over the land border into Ukraine.Austin Vernon (00:17:44):There's just been very few successful amphibious landings in history. The most recent ones were all the Americans in World War II and Korea. So the challenge there is just... It's kind of on China to execute perfectly and do that. So if they had perfect execution, then possibly it would be feasible. But if their air defenses on their ships aren't quite as good as we think they could possibly be, then they could also end up with half their fleet underwater within 10 hours.Dwarkesh Patel (00:18:20):Interesting. And how has your view of Taiwan's defensive capabilities changed... How has the Ukraine conflict updated your opinion on what might happen?Austin Vernon (00:18:29):I didn't really know how much about it. And then I started looking at Wikipedia and stuff and all this stuff they're doing. Taiwan just has a lot of modern platforms like F16s with our anti-ship missiles. They actually have a lot of their own. They have indigenous fighter bombers, indigenous anti-ship missiles because they're worried we might not always sell them to them.Austin Vernon (00:18:54):They've even recently gotten these long range cruise missiles that could possibly target leadership in Beijing. So I think that makes it uncomfortable for the Chinese leadership. If you attack them, you're going to have to go live in a bunker. But again, I'm not a full-time military analyst or something, so there's a lot of uncertainty around what I'm saying. It's not a given that China's just going to roll over them.Software ProductivityDwarkesh Patel (00:19:22):Okay. That's comforting to hear. Let's talk about an area where I have a little bit of a point of contact. I thought your blog post about software and the inability of it to increase productivity numbers, I thought that was super fascinating. So before I ask you questions about it, do you want to lay out the thesis there?Austin Vernon (00:19:43):Yeah. So if there's one post I kind of felt like I caught lightning in a bottle on, it's that one. Everything I wanted to put in, it just fit together perfectly, which is usually not the case.Austin Vernon (00:19:55):I think the idea is that the world's so complex and we really underestimate that complexity. If you're going to digitize processes and automate them and stuff, you have to capture all that complexity basically at the bit level, and that's extremely difficult. And then you also have diminishing returns where the easily automatable stuff goes first and then it's increasing corner cases to get to the end, so you just have to go through more and more code basically. We don't see runaway productivity growth from software because we're fighting all this increasing complexity.Dwarkesh Patel (00:20:39):Yeah. Have you heard of the waterbed theory of complexity by the way?Austin Vernon (00:20:42):I don't think so.Dwarkesh Patel (00:20:44):Okay. It's something that comes up in compiler design: the idea is that there's a fixed amount of complexity in a system. If you try to reduce it, what you'll end up doing is just you'll end up migrating the complexity elsewhere. I think an example that's used of this is when they try to program languages that are not type safe, something like Python. You can say, “oh, it's a less complex language”, but really, you've added complexity when, I don't know, two different types of numbers are interacting like a float and an int. As your program grows, that complexity exponentially grows along with all the things that could go wrong when you're making two things interact in a way that you were expecting not to. So yeah, the idea is you can just choose where to have your complexity, but you can't get rid of that complexity.Austin Vernon (00:21:38):I think that's kind of an interesting thing when you start pairing it with management theory... when you add up all the factors, the most complex thing you're doing is high volume car manufacturing. And so we got a lot of innovations and organization from car manufacturers like the assembly line. Then you had Sloan at GM basically creating the way the modern corporation is run, then you have the Toyota Production System.Austin Vernon (00:22:11):But arguably now, creating software is actually the most complex thing we do. So there's all these kinds of squishy concepts that underlie things like the Toyota Production System that softwares had to learn and reimagine and adopt and you see that with Agile where, “oh, we can't have long release times. We need to be releasing every day,” which means we're limiting inventory there.Austin Vernon (00:22:42):There's a whole thing especially that's showing up in software that existed in carbon manufacturing where you're talking about reducing communication. So Jeff Bezos kind of now famously said, "I want to reduce communication," which is counterintuitive to a lot of people. This is age-old in car manufacturing where Toyota has these cards that go between workstations and they tell you what to do. So people normally think of them as limiting inventory, but it also tells the worker exactly what they're supposed to be doing at what pace, at what time. The assembly line is like that too. You just know what to do because you're standing there and there's a part here and it needs to go on there, and it comes by at the pace you're supposed to work at.Austin Vernon (00:23:29):It's so extreme that there's this famous paper, by List, Syverson and Levitt. They went to a car factory and studied how defects propagated in cars and stuff. Once a car factory gets up and running, it doesn't matter what workers you put in there, if workers are sick or you get new workers, the defect rate is the same. So all the knowledge is built into the manufacturing line.Austin Vernon (00:23:59):There's these concepts around idiot-proofing and everything that are very similar to what you'll see. You had Uncle Bob on here. So Uncle Bob says only put one input into a function and stuff like that because you'll mix them up otherwise. The Japanese call it poka-yoke. You make it where you can't mess it up. And that's another way to reduce communication, and then software, of course you have APIs.Austin Vernon (00:24:28):So I'm really interested in this overall concept of reducing communication, and reducing how much cooperation and everything we need to run the economy.Dwarkesh Patel (00:24:41):Right. Right. Speaking of the Toyota Production System, one thing they do to reduce that defect rate is if there's a problem, all the workers in that chain are forced to go to the place where the defect problem is and fix it before doing anything else. The idea there is that this will give them context to understand what the problem was and how to make sure it doesn't happen again. It also prevents a build up of inventory in a way that keeps making these defects happen or just keeps accumulating inventory before the place that can fix the defects is able to take care of them.Austin Vernon (00:25:17):Right. Yeah, yeah. Exactly.Dwarkesh Patel (00:25:19):Yeah. But I think one interesting thing about software and complexity is that software is a place where complexity is the highest in our world right now but software gives you the choice to interface with the complexity you want to interface with. I guess that's just part of specialization in general, but you could say for example that a machine learning model is really complex, but ideally, you get to a place where that's the only kind of complexity you have to deal with. You're not having to deal with the complexity of “How is this program compiled? How are the libraries that I'm using? How are they built?” You can fine tune and work on the complexity you need to work on.Dwarkesh Patel (00:26:05):It's similar to app development. Byrne Hobart has this blog post about Stripe as solid state. The basic idea is that Stripe hides all the complexity of the financial system: it charges a higher fee, but you can just treat it as an abstraction of a tithe you have to pay, and it'll just take care of that entire process so you can focus on your comparative advantage.Austin Vernon (00:26:29):It's really actually very similar in car manufacturing and the Toyota Production System if you really get into it. It's very much the same conceptual framework. There's this whole idea in Toyota Production System, everyone works at the same pace, which you kind of talked about. But also, your work content is the same. There's no room for not standardizing a way you're going to do things. So everyone gets together and they're like, “All right, we're going to do this certain part. We're going to put it together this certain way at this little micro station. And it's going to be the same way every time.” That's part of how they're reducing the defect rates. If your assembly process is longer than what your time allotment is to stay in touch with the rest of the process, then you just keep breaking it down into smaller pieces. So through this, each person only has to know a very small part of it.Austin Vernon (00:27:33):The overall engineering team has all sorts of strategies and all sorts of tools to help them break up all these processes into very small parts and make it all hold together. It's still very, very hard, but it's kind of a lot of the same ideas because you're taking away the complexity of making a $30,000 car or 30,000 part car where everyone's just focusing on their one little part and they don't care what someone else is doing.Dwarkesh Patel (00:28:06):Yeah. But the interesting thing is that it seems like you need one person who knows how everything fits together. Because from what I remember, one of the tenets of the Toyota Production System was you need to have a global view. So, in that book, was it the machine or the other one, the Toyota Production System book? But anyways, they were talking about examples where people would try to optimize for local efficiencies. I think they especially pointed to Ford and GM for trying to do this where they would try to make machines run all the time. And locally, you could say that, “oh this machine or process is super efficient. It's always outputting stuff.” But it ignores how that added inventory or that process had a bad consequence for the whole system.Dwarkesh Patel (00:28:50):And so it's interesting if you look at a company like Tesla that's able to do this really well. Tesla is run like a monarchy and this one guy has this total global view of how the entire process is supposed to run and where you have these inefficiencies.. You had some great examples of this in the blog post. I think one of the examples is this guy (the author) goes to this factory and he asks, "Is this an efficient factory?" And the guy's like, "Yeah, this is totally efficient. There's nothing we can do, adopting the Toyota way, to make this more efficient."Dwarkesh Patel (00:29:22):And so then he's like, "Okay, let me look." And he finds that they're treating steel in some way, and the main process does only take a couple of seconds, but some local manager decided that it would be more efficient to ship their parts out, to get the next stage of the process done somewhere else. So this is locally cheaper, but the result is that it takes weeks to get these parts shipped out and get them back. Which means that the actual time that the parts spend getting processed is 0.1% of the time, making the whole process super inefficient. So I don't know, it seems like the implication is you need a very monarchical structure, with one person who has a total view, in order to run such a system. Or am I getting that wrong?Austin Vernon (00:30:12):Not necessarily. I mean, you do have to make sure you're not optimizing locally, but I think it's the same. You have that same constraint in software, but I think a lot of times people are just running over it because processing has been getting so much cheaper. People are expensive, so if you could save development time, it just ends up the trade offs are different when you're talking about the tyranny of physical items and stuff like that, the constraints get a little more severe. But I think you have the same overall. You still have to fight local optimization, but the level you have to is probably different with physical goods.Austin Vernon (00:30:55):I was thinking about the smart grid situation from a software perspective, and there's this problem where, okay, I'm putting my solar farm here and it's impacting somewhere far away, and that's then creating these really high upgrade costs, that cost two or three times more than my solar farm. Well, the obvious thing would be, if you're doing software, is like you're going to break all these up into smaller sections, and then you wouldn't be impacting each other and all that, and you could work and focus on your own little thing.Austin Vernon (00:31:29):But the problem with that is if you're going to disconnect these areas of the grid, the equipment to do that is extremely expensive. It's not like I'm just going to hit a new tab and open a new file and start writing a new function. And not only that, but you still have to actually coordinate how this equipment is going to operate. So if you just let the grid flow as it does, everyone knows what's going to happen because they could just calculate the physics. If you start adding in all these checkpoints where humans are doing stuff, then you have to actually interface with the humans, and the amount of things that can happen really starts going up. So it's actually a really bad idea to try to cart all this stuff off, just because of the reality of the physical laws and the equipment you need and everything like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:32:22):Okay. Interesting. And then I think you have a similar Coasean argument in your software post about why vertically integrating software is beneficial. Do you want to explain that thesis?Austin Vernon (00:32:34):Yeah. I think it actually gets to what we're talking about here, where it allows you to avoid the local optimization. Because a lot of times you're trying to build a software MVP, and you're tying together a few services… they don't do quite what you need, so if you try to scale that, it would just break. But if you're going to take a really complex process, like car manufacturing or retail distribution, or the home buying process or something, you really have to vertically integrate it to be able to create a decent end-to-end experience and avoid that local optimization.Austin Vernon (00:33:20):And it's just very hard otherwise, because you just can't coordinate effectively if you have 10 different vendors trying to do all the same thing. You end up in just constant vendor meetings, where you're trying to decide what the specs are or something instead of giving someone the authority, or giving a team the authority to just start building stuff. Then if you look at these companies, they have to implement these somewhat decentralized processes when they get too complex, but at least they have control over how they're interfacing with each other. Walmart, as the vendors, control their own stock. They don't tell the vendor, "We need X parts." It's just like, it's on you to make sure your shelf is stocked.Dwarkesh Patel (00:34:07):Yeah. Yeah. So what was really interesting to me about this part of the post was, I don't know, I guess I had heard of this vision of we're software setting, where everybody will have a software as a service company, and they'll all be interfacing with each other in some sort of cycle where they're all just calling each other's APIs. And yeah, basically everybody and their mother would have a SAAS company. The implication here was, from your argument, that given the necessity of integrating all those complexity vertically in a coherent way, then the winners in software should end up being a few big companies, right? They compete with each other, but still...Austin Vernon (00:34:49):I think that's especially true when you're talking about combining bits and apps. Maybe less true for pure software. The physical world is just so much more complex, and so the constraints it creates are pretty extreme, compared to like... you could maybe get away with more of everyone and their mom having an API in a pure software world.Dwarkesh Patel (00:35:14):Right. Yeah. I guess, you might think that even in the physical world, given that people really need to focus on their comparative advantage, they would just try to outsource the software parts to these APIs. But is there any scenario where the learning curve for people who are not in the firm can be fast enough that they can keep up with the complexity? Because there's huge gains for specialization and competition that go away if this is the world we're forced to live in. And then I guess we have a lot of counter examples, or I guess we have a lot of examples of what you're talking about. Like Apple is the biggest market cap in the world, right? And famously they're super vertically integrated. And yeah, obviously their thing is combining hardware and software. But yeah, is there any world in which it can keep that kind of benefit, but have it be within multiple firms?Austin Vernon (00:36:10):This is a post I've got on my list I want to write. The blockchain application, which excites me personally the most, is reimagining enterprise software. Because the things you're talking about, like hard typing and APIs are just basically built into some of these protocols. So I think it just really has a lot of exciting implications for how much you can decentralize software development. But the thing is, you can still do that within the firm. So I think I mentioned this, if the government's going to place all these rules on the edge of the firm, it makes transactions with other firms expensive. So a few internal transactions can be cheaper, because they're avoiding the government reporting and taxes and all that kind of stuff. So I think you'd have to think about how these technologies can reduce transaction costs overall and decentralize that, but also what are the costs between firms?Dwarkesh Patel (00:37:22):Yeah, it's really interesting if the costs are logistic, or if they're based on the knowledge that is housed, as you were talking about, within a factory or something. Because if it is just logistical and stuff, like you had to report any outside transactions, then it does imply that those technology blockchain could help. But if it is just that you need to be in the same office, and if you're not, then you're going to have a hard time keeping up with what the new requirements for the API are, then maybe it's that, yeah, maybe the inevitability is that you'll have these big firms that are able to vertically integrate.Austin Vernon (00:37:59):Yeah, for these big firms to survive, they have to be somewhat decentralized within them. So I think you have... you're going to the same place as just how are we viewing it, what's our perception? So even if it's a giant corporation, it's going to have very independent business units as opposed to something like a 1950s corporation.Dwarkesh Patel (00:38:29):Yeah. Byrne Hobart, by the way, has this really interesting post that you might enjoy reading while you're writing that post. It's type safe communications, and it's about that Bezos thing, about his strict style for how to communicate and how little to communicate. There's many examples in Amazon protocols where you have to... the only way you can put in this report, is in this place you had to give a number. You can't just say, "This is very likely," you had to say like, "We project X percent increase," or whatever. So it has to be a percent. And there's many other cases where they're strict about what type definition you can have in written reports or something. It has kind of the same consequence that type strict languages have, which is that you can keep track of what the value is through the entire chain of the flow of control.Austin Vernon (00:39:22):You've got to keep work content standardized.Dwarkesh Patel (00:39:26):So we've been hinting at the Coasean analysis to this. I think we just talked about it indirectly, but for the people who might not know, Coase has this paper called The Theory of Firms, and he's trying to explain why we have firms at all. Why not just have everybody compete in the open market for employment, for anything? Why do we have jobs? Why not just have... you can just hire a secretary by the day or something.Dwarkesh Patel (00:39:51):And the conclusion he comes to is that by having a firm you're reducing the transaction cost. So people will have the same knowledge about what needs to get done, obviously you're reducing the transaction cost of contracting, finding labor, blah, blah, blah. And so the conclusion it comes to is the more the transaction costs are reduced within people in a firm, as compared to the transaction cost between different firms, the bigger firms will get. So I guess that's why the implication of your argument was that there should be bigger tech firms, right?Austin Vernon (00:40:27):Yes, yes, definitely. Because they can basically decrease the transaction costs faster within, and then even at the limit, if you have large transaction costs outside the firm, between other firms that are artificially imposed, then it will make firms bigger.Dwarkesh Patel (00:40:45):What does the world look like in that scenario? So would it just be these Japanese companies, these huge conglomerates who are just... you rise through the ranks, from the age of 20 until you die? Is that what software will turn into?Austin Vernon (00:40:59):It could be. I mean, I think it will be lots of very large companies, unless there's some kind of change in inner firm transaction costs. And again, that could possibly come from blockchain like technology, but you probably also need better regulation to make that cheaper, and then you would have smaller firms. But again, in the end, it doesn't really matter. You'd be working in your little unit of the big bank of corporate, or whatever. So I don't know what that would look like on a personal level.Car ManufacturingDwarkesh Patel (00:41:40):Yeah. Okay. So speaking of these Japanese companies, let's talk about car manufacturing and everything involved there. Yeah, so we kind of hinted at a few elements of the Toyota way and production earlier, but do you want to give a brief overview of what that is, so we can compare it to potentially other systems?Austin Vernon (00:42:02):I think all these kinds of lean Toyota process systems, they do have a lot of similarities, where mostly you want to even-out your production, so you're producing very consistently, and you want to break it into small steps and you want to limit the amount of inventory you have in your system. When you do this, it makes it easy to see how the process is running and limit defects. And the ultimate is you're really trying to reduce defects, because they're very expensive. It's a little bit hard to summarize. I think that's my best shot at it there, quickly off the top of my head.Dwarkesh Patel (00:42:49):Yeah. The interesting thing about the Toyota system, so at least when the machine was released, is they talk about... that book was released I think the nineties, and they went to the history of Toyota, and one of the interesting things they talked about was there was a brief time where the company ran... I think, was this after World War II? But anyways, the company ran into some troubles. They needed to layoff people to not go bankrupt. They had much more debt on books than they had assets. So yeah, they wanted to layoff people, but obviously the people were not happy about this, so there were violent protests about this. And in fact I think the US written constitution gave strong protections to labor that they hadn't had before, which gave labor an even stronger hand here.Dwarkesh Patel (00:43:42):So anyway, Toyota came to this agreement with the unions that they'd be allowed to do this one time layoff to get the company on the right track, but afterwards they could never lay somebody off. Which would mean that a person who works at Toyota works there from the time they graduate college or high school till they die. Right? I don't know, that's super intense in a culture. I mean, in software, where you have the average tenure in a company's one year, the difference is so much.Dwarkesh Patel (00:44:13):And there's so many potential benefits here, I guess a lot of drawbacks too. But one is, obviously if you're talking in a time scale of 50 years, rather than one year, the incentives are more aligned between the company and the person. Because anything you could do in one year is not going to have a huge impact on your stock options in that amount of time. But if this company's your retirement plan, then you have a much stronger incentive to make sure that things at this company run well, which means you're probably optimizing for the company's long term cash flow yourself. And also, there's obviously benefits to having that knowledge built up in the firm from people who have been there for a long time. But yeah, that was an interesting difference. One of the interesting differences, at least.Austin Vernon (00:45:00):I mean, I think there's diminishing returns to how long your tenure's going to be. Maybe one year's too short, but there's a certain extent to where, if you grow faster than your role at the company, then it's time to switch. It's going to depend on the person, but maybe five years is a good number. And so if you're not getting promoted within the firm, then your human capital's being wasted, because you could go somewhere else and have more responsibility and perform better for them. Another interesting thing about that story, is almost all lean turnarounds, where they're like, we're going to implement something like Toyota production system, they come with no layoff promises. Because if you're going to increase productivity, that's when everyone's like, "Oh gosh, I'm going to get laid off." So instead you have to increase output and take more market share, is what you do.Dwarkesh Patel (00:46:00):It's kind of like burning your bridges, right? So this is the only way.Austin Vernon (00:46:05):The process really requires complete buy-in, because a lot of your ideas for how you're going to standardize work content come from your line workers, because that's what they're doing every day. So if you don't have their buy-in, then it's going to fail. So that's why it's really necessary to have those kinds of clauses.Dwarkesh Patel (00:46:22):Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. I think it was in your post where you said, if somebody makes their process more efficient, and therefore they're getting more work allotted to them, then obviously they're going to stop doing that. Right? Which means that, I don't know, do you ought to give more downtime to your best workers or something or the people who are most creative in your company?Austin Vernon (00:46:48):I was just going to say, if you're a worker at a plant, then a lot of times for that level of employee, actually small rewards work pretty well. A lot of people on drilling rigs used to give the guys that met certain targets $100 Walmart gift cards. So sometimes small, it's a reward, new ideas, stuff like that works.Austin Vernon (00:47:15):But because the whole system has to grow together, if you just improve one part of the process, it may not help you. You have to be improving all the right processes so normally it's much more collaborative. There's some engineer that's looking at it and like, "All right, this is where we're struggling," or "We have our defects here." And then you go get together with that supervisor and the workers in that area, then you all figure out what improvements could be together. Because usually the people already know. This is like, you see a problem at the top, and you're just now realizing it. Then you go talk to the people doing the work, and they're like, "Oh yeah, I tried to tell you about that two weeks ago, man." And then you figure out a better process from there.Dwarkesh Patel (00:47:58):Based on your recommendation, and Steven Malina's recommendation, I recently read The Goal. And after reading the book, I'm much more understanding of the value that consultants bring to companies, potentially. Because before you could think, “What does a 21 year old, who just graduated college, know about manufacturing? What are they going to tell this plant that they didn't already know? How could they possibly be adding value?” And afterwards, it occurred to me that there's so many abstract concepts that are necessary to understand in order to be able to increase your throughput. So now I guess I can see how somebody who's generically smart but doesn't have that much industry knowledge might be able to contribute to a plan and value consultants could be bringing.Austin Vernon (00:48:43):I think this applies to consultants or young engineers. A lot of times you put young engineers just right in the thick of it, working in production or process right on the line, where you're talking to the workers the most. And there's several advantages to that. One, the engineer learns faster, because they're actually seeing the real process, and the other is there's easy opportunities for them to still have a positive impact on the business, because there's $100 bills laying on the ground just from going up and talking to your workers and learning about stuff and figuring out problems they might be having and finding out things like that that could help you lower cost. I think there's a lot of consultants that... I don't know how the industry goes, but I would guess there's... I know Accenture has 600,000 employees. I don't know if that many, but it's just a large number, and a lot are doing more basic tasks and there are some people that are doing the more high level stuff, but it's probably a lot less.Dwarkesh Patel (00:49:51):Yeah. Yeah. There was a quote from one of those books that said, "At Toyota we don't consider you an engineer unless you need to wash your hands before you can have lunch." Yeah. Okay. So in your blog post about car manufacturing, you talk about Tesla. But what was really interesting is that in a footnote, I think you mentioned that you bought Tesla stocks in 2014, which also might be interesting to talk about again when we go to the market and alpha part. But anyways. Okay. And then you talk about Tesla using something called metal manufacturing. So first of all, how did you know in 2014 that Tesla was headed here? And what is metal manufacturing and how does it differ from the Toyota production system?Austin Vernon (00:50:42):Yeah. So yeah, I just was goofing around and made that up. Someone actually emailed me and they were like, "Hey, what is this metal manufacturing? I want to learn more about this." It's like, "Well, sorry, I just kind of made that up, because I thought it sounded funny." But yeah, I think it's really the idea that there's this guy, Dimming, and he found a lot of the same ideas that Toyota ended up implementing, and Toyota respected his ideas a lot. America never really got fully on board with this in manufacturing. Of course it's software people that are coming and implementing this and manufacturing now which is like the real American way of doing things.Austin Vernon (00:51:32):Because when you look at these manufacturing processes, the best place to save money and optimize is before you ever build the process or the plant. It's very early on. So I think if there's a criticism of Toyota, it's that they're optimizing too late and they're not creative enough in their production technology and stuff. They're very conservative, and that's why they have hydrogen cars and not battery cars, even though they came out with the Prius, which was the first large sales hybrid.Austin Vernon (00:52:12):So yeah, I think what Tesla's doing with really just making Dimming's ideas our own and really just Americanizing it with like, "Oh, well, we want to cast this, because that would be easier." Well, we can't, because we don't have an alloy. "We'll invent the alloy." I love it. It's great. Mostly, I love Tesla because they do such... I agree with their engineering principles. So I didn't know that the company would come to be so valuable. It's just, I was just always reading their stock reports and stuff so I was like, "Well, at least I need to buy some stock so that I have a justification for spending all this time reading their 10 Ks."Dwarkesh Patel (00:52:53):I want to get a little bit more in detail about the exact difference here. So lean production, I guess, is they're able to produce their cars without defects and with matching demand or whatever. But what is it about their system that prevents them from making the kinds of innovations that Tesla is able to make?Austin Vernon (00:53:16):It's just too incremental. It's so hard to get these processes working. So the faster you change things, it becomes very, very difficult to change the whole system. So one of the advantages Tesla has is, well, if you're making electric cars, you have just a lot less parts. So that makes it easier. And once you start doing the really hard work of basically digitizing stuff, like they don't have speed limit dials, you start just removing parts from the thing and you can actually then start increasing your rate of change even faster.Austin Vernon (00:53:55):It makes it harder to get behind if you have these old dinosaur processes. But I think there's a YouTube channel called The Limiting Factor, and he actually went into the detail of numbers on what it costs for Tesla to do their giga-casting, which saves tons of parts and deletes zillions of thousands of robots from their process. If you already have an existing stamping line and all that, where you're just changing the dyes based on your model, then it doesn't make sense to switch to the casting. But if you're building new factories, like Tesla is, well, then it makes sense to do the casting and you can build new factories very cheaply and comparatively and much easier. So there's a little bit of... they just have lots of technical data, I guess you could say, in a software sense.Dwarkesh Patel (00:54:47):Yeah. That's super interesting. The analogy is actually quite... it's like, Microsoft has probably tens of thousands of software engineers who are just basically servicing its technical debt and making sure that the old systems run properly, whereas a new company like Tesla doesn't have to deal with that. The thing that's super interesting about Tesla is like, Tesla's market cap is way over a trillion, right? And then Toyota's is 300 billion. And Tesla is such a new company. The fact that you have this Toyota, which is legendary for its production system, and this company that's less than two decades old is worth many times more, it's kind of funny.Austin Vernon (00:55:32):Yeah. I would say that, in that measure, I don't like market cap. You need to use enterprise value. These old car companies have so much debt, that if you look at enterprise value, it's not so jarring. Literally, I don't know, I can't remember what GM's worth, like 40 billion or something, and then they have $120 billion in debt. So their enterprise value is five times more than their market cap.Dwarkesh Patel (00:56:02):What is enterprise value?Austin Vernon (00:56:03):Enterprise value is basically what is the value of the actual company before you have any claims on it. It's the market cap plus your debt. But basically, if you're the equity holder and the company gets sold, you have to pay the debt first. So you only get the value of what's left over after the debt. So that's why market cap is... when Tesla has very little debt and a lot of market cap, and then these other guys have a lot of debt with less market cap, it skews the comparison.Dwarkesh Patel (00:56:34):Yeah, and one of the interesting things, it's similar to your post on software, is that it seems like one of the interesting themes across your work is automating processes often leads to decreased eventual throughput, because you're probably adding capacity in a place that you're deciding excess capacity, and you're also making the money part of your operation less efficient by have it interface with this automated part. It sounds like there's a similar story there with car manufacturing, right?Austin Vernon (00:57:08):Yeah. I think if we tie it back into what we were talking about earlier, automation promotes local optimization and premature optimization. So a lot of times it's better to figure out, instead of automating a process to make a really hard to make part, you should just figure out how to make that part easy to make. Then after you do that, then it may not even make sense to automate it anymore. Or get rid of it all together, then you just delete all those robots.Austin's Carbon Capture ProjectDwarkesh Patel (00:57:37):Yeah. Yeah, that's interesting. Okay. So let's talk about the project that you're working on right now, the CO2 electrolysis. Do you want to explain what this is, and what your current approach is? What is going on here?Austin Vernon (00:57:55):Yeah, so I think just overall, electrofuels right now are super underrated, because you're about to get hopefully some very cheap electricity from solar, or it could be, maybe, some land. If we get really lucky, possibly some nuclear, geothermal. It'll just make sense to create liquid fuels, or natural gas, or something just from electricity and air, essentially.Austin Vernon (00:58:25):There's a whole spectrum of ways to do this, so O2 electrolysis is one of those. Basically, you take water, electricity, and CO2, and a catalyst. And then, you make more complex molecules, like carbon monoxide, or formic acid, or ethylene, or ethanol, or methane or methine. Those are all options. But it's important to point out that, right now, I think if you added up all the CO2 electrolyzers in the world, you'd be measuring their output and kilograms per day. We make millions of tons per day off of the products I just mentioned. So there's a massive scale up if it's going to have a wider impact.Austin Vernon (00:59:15):So there's some debate. I think the debate for the whole electrofuels sector is: How much are you going to do in the electrolyzer? One company whose approach I really like is Terraform Industries. They want to make methane, which is the main natural gas. But they're just making hydrogen in their electrolyzer, and then they capture the CO2 and then put it into a methanation reaction. So everything they're doing is already world scale, basically.Austin Vernon (00:59:47):We've had hydrogen electrolyzers power fertilizer plants, providing them with the Hydrogen that they need. Methanation happens in all ammonia plants and several other examples. It's well known, very old. Methanation is hydrogen CO2 combined to make water and methane. So their approach is more conservative, but if you do more in the electrolyzer, like I'm going to make the methane actually in the electrolyzer instead of adding this other process, you could potentially have a much simpler process that has less CapEx and scales downward better. Traditional chemical engineering heavily favors scaling. With the more Terraform processes, they're playing as absolutely ginormous factories. These can take a long time to build.Austin Vernon (01:00:42):So one of the things they're doing is: they're having to fight the complexity that creeps into chemical engineering every step of the way. Because if they don't, they'll end up with a plant that takes 10 years to build, and that's not their goal. It takes 10 years to build a new refinery, because they're so complex. So yeah, that's where I am. I'm more on the speculative edge, and it's not clear yet which products will be favorable for which approaches.Dwarkesh Patel (01:01:15):Okay, yeah. And you're building this out of your garage, correct?Austin Vernon (01:01:19):Yeah. So that's where electrolyzers... Everything with electric chemistry is a flat plate instead of a vessel, so it scales down. So I can have a pretty good idea of what my 100 square centimeter electrolyzer is going to do, if I make it quite a bit bigger. I have to worry about how my flow might interact in the larger one and make sure the mixing's good, but it's pretty straightforward because you're just making your flat plate a larger area. Whereas the scale, it is different from scaling a traditional chemical process.Dwarkesh Patel (01:01:56):I'm curious how cheap energy has to be before this is efficient. If you're turning it into methane or something like that, presumably for fuel, is the entire process energy positive? Or how cheap would energy, electricity you need to get before that's the case?Austin Vernon (01:02:18):The different products and different methods have different crossovers. So Terraform Industries, they're shooting for $10 a megawatt hour for electricity. But again, their process is simpler, a little less efficient than a lot of the other products. They also have better premiums, just worth more per ton than methane. So your crossover happens somewhere in between $10 and $20 a megawatt hour, which is... I mean, that's pretty... Right now, solar, it's maybe like $25. Maybe it's a little higher because payment prices have gone up in the last year, but I think the expectation is they'll come back down. And so, getting down to $15 where you start having crossovers for some of these products like ethanol or ethylene or methanol, it's not science fiction.Dwarkesh Patel (01:03:08):I think in Texas where I live, that's where it's at right? The cost of energy is 20 or something dollars per megawatt hour.Austin Vernon (01:03:16):Well, not this summer! But yeah, a lot of times in Texas, the wholesale prices are around $25 to $30.Dwarkesh Patel (01:03:26):Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. So a lot of the actual details you said about how this works went over my head. So what is a flat plate? I guess before you answer that question, can you just generally describe the approach? What is it? What are you doing to convert CO2 into these other compounds?Austin Vernon (01:03:45):Well, yeah, it literally just looks like an electrolyzer. You have two sides and anode and a cathode and they're just smushed together like this because of the electrical resistance. If you put them far apart, it makes it... uses up a lot of energy. So you smush them together as close as you can. And then, you're basically just trading electrons back and forth. On one side, you're turning CO2 into a more complex molecule, and on the other side, you're taking apart water. And so, when you take apart the water, it balances out the equation, balances out your electrons and everything like that. I probably need to work on that elevator pitch there, huh?Dwarkesh Patel (01:04:31):I guess what the basic idea is, you need to put power in to convert CO2 into these other compounds.Austin Vernon (01:04:38):The inputs are electricity, water, and CO2, and the output is usually oxygen and whatever chemical you're trying to create is, along with some side reactions.Dwarkesh Patel (01:04:49):And then, these chemicals you mentioned, I think ethanol, methane, formic acid, are these all just fuels or what are the other uses for them?Austin Vernon (01:04:58):A lot of people are taking a hybrid approach with carbon monoxide. So this would be like Twelve Co… They've raised a lot of money to do this and 100 employees or something. You can take that carbon monoxide and make hydrogen, and then you have to send gas to make liquid fuels. So they want to make all sorts of chemicals, but one of the main volume ones would be like jet fuel.Austin Vernon (01:05:22):Let's see Formic acid is, it's the little fry of all these. It is an additive in a lot of things like preserving hay for animals and stuff like that. Then, ethanol there's people that want to... There's this company that makes ethylene, which goes into plastics that makes polyethylene, which is the most produced plastic. Or you can burn it in your car, although I think ethanol is a terrible vehicle fuel. But then you can also just make ethylene straight in the electrolyzer. So there's many paths. So which path wins is an interesting race to see.Dwarkesh Patel (01:06:13):The ability to produce jet fuel is really interesting, because in your energy superabundance paper, you talk about... You would think that even if we can electrify everything in solar and when it becomes super cheap, that's not going to have an impact on the prices to go to space for example. But I don't know. If a process like this is possible, then it's some way to in financial terms, add liquidity. And then turn, basically, this cheap solar and wind into jet fuel through this indirect process. So the price to send stuff to space or cheap plane flights or whatever––all of that goes down as well.Austin Vernon (01:06:52):It basically sets a price ceiling on the price of oil. Whatever you can produce this for is the ceiling now, which is maybe the way I think about it.Dwarkesh Patel (01:07:06):Yeah. So do you want to talk a little bit about how your background led into this project? This is your full-time thing, right? I don't know if I read about that, but where did you get this idea and how long have you been pursuing it? And what's the progress and so on.Austin Vernon (01:07:20):I've always loved chemical engineering, and I love working at the big processing plant because it's like being a kid in a candy store. If I had extra time, I'd just walk around and look at the plant, like it's so cool. But the plant where I worked at, their up time was 99.7%. So if you wanted to change anything or do anything new, it terrified everyone. That's how they earned their bonuses: run the plant a 100% uptime all the time. So that just wasn't a good fit for me. And also, so I always wanted my own chemical plant, but it's billions of dollars to build plants so that was a pretty big step. So I think this new technology of... there's a window where you might be able to build smaller plants until it optimizes to be hard to enter again.Dwarkesh Patel (01:08:21):And then, why will it become hard to enter again? What will happen?Austin Vernon (01:08:27):If someone figures out how to build a really cheap electrolyzer, and they just keep it as intellectual property, then it would be hard to rediscover that and compete with them.Dwarkesh Patel (01:08:38):And so, how long have you been working on this?Austin Vernon (01:08:42):Oh, not quite a year. But yeah, I actually got this idea to work on it from writing my blog. So when I wrote the heating fuel post, I didn't really know much about... There's another company in the space, Prometheus Fuels and I'm like, "Oh, this is an interesting idea." And then, I got talking to a guy named Brian Heligman, and he's like, "You should do this, but not what Prometheus is doing." And so, then I started looking at it and I liked it, so I've been working on it since.Dwarkesh Patel (01:09:08):Yeah. It's interesting because if energy does become as cheap as you suspect it might. If this process works, then yeah, this is a trillion dollar company probably, right? If you're going to get the patents and everything.Austin Vernon (01:09:22):I mean, maybe. With chemical plants, there's a certain limitation where your physical limitation is. There's only so many places that are good places for chemical plants. You start getting hit by transportation and all that. So, you can't just produce all th

Druhý podcast v měsíci, další host, tentokrát dva. Pozvali jsme si Mártyho a Jakuba, který stojí za projektem Erem movie. Klasicky jsme si projeli jejich youtubografii od roku 2009 až po současnej peak. Po cestě jsme se zastavili u témat jako české maturáky, televizní zábava, nebo undergroundový youtubeři. Minulý týden ještě probíhalo ME v basketbale v O2 aréně, jehož jsme byli svědky, takže i tady přidáme pár poznatků. Celý tříhodinový podcast i s videem na www.patreon.com/offseason. OSS!

Ráno za námi do studia dorazil frontman kapely Rybičky 48 Kuba Ryba. Kolik má na sobě tetování a kde to nejvíce bolelo? Chodí na ryby? Kdo u nich doma šéfuje? Jak se těší s klukama na O2 arénu? Oslavil nějak s kapelou 20. výročí a byli někdy na nože? Poslechněte si rozhovor!

When treating patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS), MONA is an acronym sometimes used to help us remember the initial interventions. The O in MONA is Oxygen. When should we administer oxygen to ACS patients. When is O2 administration unnecessary. Monitoring patient's oxygen saturation (SaO2) using a pulse oximeter. Review two common ACLS mega code scenarios. Oxygen administration during CPR and post cardiac arrest. Not ACLS but something I'm just as passionate about is the battle against cancer. This is the fourth year that I'm participating in Real Men Wear Pink and have pledged to wear pink every day in October to: raise awareness of breast cancer; connect with breast cancer patients & survivors; and raise money for the American Cancer Society's life-saving mission. Chances are that you know someone that has fought breast cancer or have lost a loved one to this insidious disease. Please consider making a donation to my American Cancer Society fundraiser and make a difference in the fight against breast cancer. Donations go directly to the American Cancer Society and can be made anonymously to protect your privacy. http://main.acsevents.org/goto/paultaylor (Paul Taylor's Real Men Wear Pink ACS Fundraiser) THANK YOU! Connect with me: Website:  https://passacls.com (https://passacls.com) https://twitter.com/PassACLS (@PassACLS) on Twitter https://www.linkedin.com/company/pass-acls-podcast/ (@Pass-ACLS-Podcast) on LinkedIn Good luck with your ACLS class!

Executive Summary The Global Savings Group (GSG) is not a fintech. They are a hidden champion as Europe's leading shopping rewards company, founded in 2012. They are offering an alternative to the GAFA channels and are active in 20+ countries under different brands. Amongst their clients are small merchants and well-known global companies. “We try to offer an alternative to the GAFA [Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon] channels, but we don't do classical advertising”Gerhard Trautmann, CEO and Co-Founder GSG  Subscribe Here We are always sharing new resources with you. Find all of our options below. We want to make sure that we provide what's best for your growing team, so please take a look at these additional ways in which can help! Startuprad.io - Global Top 125 Tech Podcast | LinktreeGlobal Top 125 Tech Podcastlinktr.ee Our Sponsor Startupraven A startup's journey can be a tough one, but it doesn't have ́to feel like you're alone on your quest! Invest in others' success with us by joining our community of entrepreneurs who are building amazing things every day — no matter how big or small their ideas may seem at first glance. The best way to find investors and cooperation partners for early-stage startups. Sign up here: Startup RavenWelcome! We know the time-consuming process of approaching investors and companies can be tedious, so we do it for you…startupraven.com  The Founder This time Gerhard Trautmann is our guest, the CEO and co-founder of Munich-based Global Savings Group. If you have not heard of them, they are active in 20+ countries under different brand names. He met his co-founders while still working in management consulting, and they decided to make their Powerpoint slides reality. “Oliver Samwer said he did not like our ideas, but we could be a cool team.”Gerhard Trautmann, CEO and Co-Founder GSG The Company Global Savings Group (https://www.global-savings-group.com/) is not a fintech company, they are working in the affiliate marketing space. They call themself a lead generation company, including couponing pages. They are active in 20+ countries with multiple websites across Europe. They won the German Deliotte Fast 50 Award.They own several commerce content portals. Some of their largest markets are the UK and France, even though they are headquartered in Munich. The company was started in cooperation with Rocket Internet. Amongst their clients are small merchants and adidas, Just Eat, IKEA, dyson, Lenovo, SAMSUNG, ebay, Nike, H&M, Booking.com, O2, Sephora and Ray Ban. They are also working with large media companies including Focus, CNN, El Pais, IG.com (Brazil), Le Express (France), Business Insider and One India on deals, discounts and coupons. “We funded our acquistions as a combination from our profits, loans and exchange of shares”Gerhard Trautmann, CEO and Co-Founder GSG  Venture Capital Funding The company raised in total M 79 US$ in funding since interception in 2012 up to Series D. They did not disclose the amount of their last funding in 2021. Amongst their investors are General Global Capital, TRP Global, HV Capital, Groupe M6, Rocket Internet, DTCP, New Enterprise Associates and Headline. Open to Talk to Takeover Targets GSG wants to grow organically, but is open to talk to companies that feel like they could add to their journey.  Learn More Find our blog with links and show notes here 

CONSIDERING there was no UK action last weekend due to the passing of the Queen, there's an awful lot to talk about... Not least the upcoming third showdown between Canelo Alvarez and Gennadiy Golovkin. Who wins and how?... We start with the ongoing developments with Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua as the fight edges closer but still not quite close enough...  We clear up the latest news regarding Chris Eubank Jnr-Conor Benn, following Eubank Snr's claim that he is about to cancel the fight... We reflect on the all-female O2 card being pulled last Friday and the reasons why the British Boxing Board of Control felt they had no choice but to cancel all boxing events.Finally, we journey back to 2004 when Miguel Cotto and Kelson Pinto came together in a bout that conclusively settled a rivalry stretching back to their amateur days. Please subscribe, leave a review and tell your pals if you like what you hear. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing support.

Inside-Out Planet Formation VII Astrochemical Models of Protoplanetary Disks and Implications for Planetary Compositions by Arturo Cevallos Soto et al. on Wednesday 14 September Inside-Out Planet Formation (IOPF) proposes that the abundant systems of close-in Super-Earths and Mini-Neptunes form in situ at the pressure maximum associated with the Dead Zone Inner Boundary (DZIB). We present a model of physical and chemical evolution of protoplanetary disk midplanes that follows gas advection, radial drift of pebbles and gas-grain chemistry to predict abundances from 300~au down to the DZIB near 0.2 au. We consider typical disk properties relevant for IOPF, i.e., accretion rates 1E-9 < dM/dt / (Msun/yr) < 1E-8 and viscosity parameter alpha = 1E-4, and evolve for fiducial duration of t = 1E5 years. For outer, cool disk regions, we find that C and up to 90% of O nuclei start locked in CO and O2 ice, which keeps abundances of CO2 and H2O one order of magnitude lower. Radial drift of icy pebbles is influential, with gas-phase abundances of volatiles enhanced up to two orders of magnitude at ice-lines, while the outer disk becomes depleted of dust. Disks with decreasing accretion rates gradually cool, which draws in icelines closer to the star. At

#406 Rolf Harris' Creepy Toes - Richard is back for a 25th series, but unfortunately pretty much nothing has happened in the news so there's nothing for him to talk about. His guest last appeared on the show almost exactly a decade ago, it's the comedy genius Reece Shearsmith. They chat about his excellent new film “See How They Run” https://www.searchlightpictures.com/see-how-they-run/ and working with the starry cast, why he's not really open to public suggestions for Inside Number Nine locations, the League of Gentleman's journey from the Canal Cafe to the stage at the O2, owning a piece of the Wicker Man and meeting the man from inside the Wicker Man and how Bernie Clifton responded to “Bernie Clifton's Dressing Room”. Plus some magic tricks that probably won't work in the audio podcast, though you can watch the video if you join Acast Plus https://plus.acast.com/s/rhlstp or pay for the video http://gfsboxoffice.comAn absolutely electric show in a packed Leicester Square Theatre - the audience makes this show, so do check out the upcoming bills and come along if you can http://richardherring.com/rhlstpSUPPORT THE SHOW!Watch our TWITCH CHANNELSee extra content at our WEBSITESee details of the RHLSTP TOUR DATES Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/rhlstp. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we talk all things critical care the one and only, Dr. Jean-Louis Vincent aka. JLV.  This episode is a MUST listen. We touch upon the evolution of early goal directed therapy, measures of fluid responsiveness, optimizing oxygen delivery, and the importance of integrating data points versus examining  them in isolation when caring for our critically ill and injured patients. This and MUCH MUCH more in arguably one of my favorite episodes to date!!Timestamps00:00 Introduction01:21 What happened to SG catheters and should we use them?04:05 What decreases mortality in critical care patients?05:30 When to transfuse critical care patient? Use your brain! 08:55 Measures of tissue perfusion and fluid responsiveness09:36 JLV breaks down the Rivers trial10:36 Recent EGDT papers 10:54 How to optimize O2 delivery? Late ScVO2, dob challenge, and fluid challenges13:21 Dynamic measures of fluid responsiveness13:46 CVP as a relative value15:14 Passive leg raising (PLR) as a measure of fluid responsiveness21:20 JLV's take on therapeutic nihilism24:45 Don't isolate; integrate!26:46 Navigating the future of critical care – JLV's thoughts on AI in the ICU29:55 Rapid fire hot topics in the ICU – Yes or No -Metabolic cocktail-Corticosteroids for septic shock-Albumin and Lasix or Lasix alonePCT/CRP and sepsis/AbxResources:International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (ISICEM):https://www.isicem.orgISICEM Chats Platform:https://www.isicem.org/e-chat/index.asp          Articles:Passive leg raising:five rules, not a drop of fluid! https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-014-0708-5The fluid challengehttps://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-020-03443-yBlood lactate levels in sepsis: 8 questionsVincent JL, Bakker J. Blood lactate levels in sepsis: in 8 questions. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2021 Jun 1;27(3):298-302. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000824. PMID: 33852499.We should avoid the term "fluid overload"https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-018-2141-7EGDT in the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shockhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa010307A Randomized Trial of Protocol-Based Care for Early Septic Shockhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1401602Support the show

Joining us this episode to discuss the highs and lows of parenting (and life) is the brilliant comedian Kelly Convey. Please rate and review. Thanks, Rob + Josh. BIG NEWS.... we're writing a book!  ⭐ All the stories we can't tell on the podcast – in depth. ⭐ What it's like to raise a stiff neck and a loose neck – straight from the horse's mouth (our parents) ⭐ And.. the BIGGEST REQUEST WE'VE EVER HAD FOR THE PODCAST… Hearing from our wives, Rose & Lou. They've got a chapter each and YOU can submit your burning questions to them...   PARENTINGHELLBOOK@BONNIERBOOKS.CO.UK What's it really like to be a parent? And how come no one ever warned Rob or Josh of the sheer mind-bending, world-altering, sleep-depriving, sick-covering, tear-inducing, snot-wiping, bore-inspiring, 4am-relationship-straining brutality of it all? And if they did, why can't they remember it (or remember anything else, for that matter)? And just when they thought it couldn't get any harder, why didn't anyone warn them about the slices of unmatched euphoric joy and pride that occasionally come piercing through, drenching you in unbridled happiness in much the same way a badly burped baby drenches you in milk-sick? Join Josh and Rob as they share the challenges and madness of their parenting journeys with lashings of empathy and extra helpings of laughs. Filled with all the things they never tell you at antenatal classes, Parenting Hell is a beguiling mixture of humour, rumination and conversation for prospective parents, new parents, old parents and never-to-be parents alike. Find out everything you need to know, including how you could win a pair of tickets to the Parenting Hell LIVE tour & an overnight stay in London here:  https://www.bit.ly/ParentingHellBook We're going on tour!! Fancy seeing the podcast live in some of the best venues in the UK? Of course you do, you're not made of stone! Tickets available now on the dates and at the venues below. We can't wait to see you there... ON SALE NOW  14th April 2023 - Manchester AO Arena 19th April 2023 - Nottingham 20th April 2023 - Cardiff  21st April 2023 - London (The O2) 23rd April 2023 - London (Wembley) 28th April 2023 - Birmingham Utilita Arena  If you want to get in touch with the show here's how: EMAIL: Hello@lockdownparenting.co.uk TWITTER: @parenting_hell INSTAGRAM: @parentinghell A 'Keep It Light Media' Production  Sales, advertising, and general enquiries: hello@keepitlightmedia.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Coming up in this episode 1. We try to contain ourselves. 2. Clearly, all the history you need 3. Our clear hindsight 4. We plan to install the most popular distro of all time 0:00 Cold Open 1:19 VM's, Containers and Bundles, oh my! 16:09 The Origin Story 18:21 The History: 2015 20:00 2016 22:08 2017 22:59 2018 24:09 2019 25:34 2020 27:05 2021 27:41 2022 29:00 Thoughts on Clear Linux 1:09:26 Next Time: Emacs, Topics (and Alpine) 1:15:45 Stinger Support us on Patreon! (https://www.patreon.com/linuxuserspace) Banter What's a container? What's a virtual machine? What's a Clear Container? What are Bundles? Announcements Give us a sub on YouTube (https://linuxuserspace.show/youtube) You can watch us live on Twitch (https://linuxuserspace.show/twitch) the day after an episode drops. Clear Linux the History 2015 - February 6th Clear Linux was officially released. The only reference we found (https://community.clearlinux.org/t/happy-birthday-to-us/7281) 2015 - February 9 - The first downloadable images, marked 300, 310, 320, 330 and 340, show up at clearlinux.org . Arjan van de Ven penned an article (https://lwn.net/Articles/644675/) 2016 - April 22 - Announcement that the Container-only OS will now start shipping a desktop for developers. (https://clearlinux.org/news-blogs/clarity-desktop) In parallel, Robert Nesius announces (https://clearlinux.org/news-blogs/clear-linux-installer-v20) Enter, Flatpak (https://clearlinux.org/news-blogs/end-user-desktop-applications-clearlinux). The auto-updater is here (https://clearlinux.org/news-blogs/end-user-desktop-applications-clearlinux) XFCE, while still available, is no longer the default desktop. It's Gnome 3.24. (https://www.phoronix.com/review/clear-linux-gnome) The first Issue in Github (https://github.com/clearlinux/distribution/issues/433) about ffmpeg not being included shows up. "How to Clear" (https://github.com/clearlinux/how-to-clear) Wireguard is added (https://github.com/clearlinux/distribution/issues/17#issuecomment-410392156) Snap was and will remain unavailable (https://github.com/clearlinux/distribution/issues/265#issuecomment-436055882) and unsupported. A new installer beta is floating around (https://www.phoronix.com/news/Clear-Linux-Desktop-Live-Beta) The public forum is live (https://community.clearlinux.org/t/welcome-to-the-clear-linux-community-forum/7)! Cups enabled by default. (https://github.com/clearlinux/distribution/issues/563#issuecomment-477317390) version 2.0 of the new installer is released (https://www.phoronix.com/news/Clear-Linux-Desktop-Installer-2) with a full graphical interface! An appeal (https://web.archive.org/web/20190520111801/https://clearlinux.org/news-blogs/linux-os-linux-developers) to Linux developers. Offline installations are now available (https://community.clearlinux.org/t/clear-linux-os-now-supports-offline-installs/1845) exFAT is available (https://github.com/clearlinux/distribution/issues/62#issuecomment-541767114) The distro will focus less on Desktop (https://community.clearlinux.org/t/changes-coming-to-clear-linux-direction-in-2020/4337/42) Clear Linux pulls out a win (https://www.phoronix.com/review/endeavour-salient-ryzen) over EndeavourOS on the Ryzen 9 5900x. Ubuntu 21.04 enjoys plenty of kernel performance improvements, but Clear wins (https://www.phoronix.com/review/ubuntu-2104-clear/4) in all but a handful of benchmarks. Against Windows 11, Windows 10, Ubuntu 21.10, 21.04, and Arch Linux, Clear Linux wins in 68 out of 102 benchmarks. Windows 11 won 1 (https://www.phoronix.com/review/windows11-linux-11900k/8). The first third-party swupd repo (https://clearfraction.cf/) (that we could find)! Clear switches from the -O2 compiler flag for the kernel to -O3 for more SPEED (https://www.phoronix.com/news/Clear-Linux-O3-Kernel) More Announcements Want to have a topic covered or have some feedback? - send us an email, contact@linuxuserspace.show Clear Linux Links Clear Linux Home Page (https://clearlinux.org) Clear Linux Forum (https://community.clearlinux.org/) Clear Linux on GitHub (https://github.com/clearlinux) Clear is part of 01.org, Intel's open source technology (https://01.org) How To Clear (https://github.com/clearlinux/how-to-clear) Documentation (https://docs.01.org/clearlinux/latest/index.html) System Requirements (https://docs.01.org/clearlinux/latest/reference/system-requirements.html) OS Introduction (https://www.slideshare.net/KariFredheim/clear-linux-os-introduction) Architecture Overview (https://www.slideshare.net/KariFredheim/clear-linux-os-architecture-overview) How Clear mounts stuff (https://clearlinux.org/news-blogs/where-etcfstab-clear-linux) Housekeeping Catch these and other great topics as they unfold on our Subreddit or our News channel on Discord. * Linux User Space subreddit (https://linuxuserspace.show/reddit) * Linux User Space Discord Server (https://linuxuserspace.show/discord) * Linux User Space Telegram (https://linuxuserspace.show/telegram) * Linux User Space Matrix (https://linuxuserspace.show/matrix) * Linux User Space Twitch (https://linuxuserspace.show/twitch) * Linux User Space Mastodon (https://linuxuserspace.show/mastodon) * Linux User Space Twitter (https://linuxuserspace.show/twitter) Next Time We will discuss GNU Emacs (https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) and the history. We also hope to have a couple of topics and some feedback. Come back in two weeks for more Linux User Space Stay tuned and interact with us on Twitter, Mastodon, Telegram, Matrix, Discord whatever. Give us your suggestions on our subreddit r/LinuxUserSpace Join the conversation. Talk to us, and give us more ideas. All the links in the show notes and on linuxuserspace.show. We would like to acknowledge our top patrons. Thank you for your support! Producer Bruno John Co-Producer Johnny Sravan Tim Contributor Advait CubicleNate Eduardo S. Jill and Steve LiNuXsys666 Nicholas Paul sleepyeyesvince

Walt Ware, former president of Garrett AiResearch, discusses the turbocharger's history in aerospace and how they eventually ended up in cars.  00:00 Intro 02:40 Garrett's origin 09:25 Turbocharger origen 13:20 Triple spool jet engine 19:20 Operation Paperclip 27:05 Turbos compensate for altitude 36:10 Cafe standards force use of turbos 39:25 Detonation and O2 sensors 01:11:18 Banks and Garrett turbo marine projects 01:21:44 Turbo metalurgy 01:25:08 Reading AFR with spark plugs 01:29:32 Garrett says cars don't need turbos 01:32:36 Walt's hilarious history with Caterpillar

Hypoxia is a state of low oxygen levels in the blood.  Determining hypoxia using a pulse oximeter or arterial blood gasses (ABGs). A goal of ACLS is to recognize signs of hypoxia and provide timely treatment to prevent an arrest. Examples of some things that might lead us to think of hypoxia as a cause of cardiac arrest. Why we should not rely on pulse ox to give accurate readings during CPR. Delivering ventilations with near 100% oxygen concentration using a BVM attached to supplemental O2 and a reservoir. Using end tidal waveform capnography to assess the quality of CPR. Changes to ventilation rates, tidal volume, and O2 concentration affects a patient's oxygen, carbon dioxide, and pH. The danger of over ventilating a patient in cardiac arrest. Not ACLS but something I'm just as passionate about is the battle against cancer. This is the fourth year that I'm participating in Real Men Wear Pink and have pledged to wear pink every day in October to: raise awareness of breast cancer; connect with breast cancer patients & survivors; and raise money for the American Cancer Society's life-saving mission. Chances are that you know someone that has fought breast cancer or have lost a loved one to this insidious disease. Please consider making a donation to my American Cancer Society fundraiser and make a difference in the fight against breast cancer. Donations go directly to the American Cancer Society and can be made anonymously to protect your privacy. http://main.acsevents.org/goto/paultaylor (Paul Taylor's Real Men Wear Pink ACS Fundraiser) THANK YOU! Connect with me: Website:  https://passacls.com (https://passacls.com) https://twitter.com/PassACLS (@PassACLS) on Twitter https://www.linkedin.com/company/pass-acls-podcast/ (@Pass-ACLS-Podcast) on LinkedIn Good luck with your ACLS class!

Austin Vernon is an engineer working on a new method for carbon capture, and he has one of the most interesting blogs on the internet, where he writes about engineering, software, economics, and investing.We discuss how energy superabundance will change the world, how Starship can be turned into a kinetic weapon, why nuclear is overrated, blockchains, batteries, flying cars, finding alpha, & much more!Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Subscribe to find out about future episodes!Follow Austin on Twitter. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Please share if you enjoyed this episode! Helps out a ton!Timestamps(0:00:00) - Intro(0:01:53) - Starship as a Weapon(0:19:24) - Software Productivity(0:41:40) - Car Manufacturing(0:57:39) - Carbon Capture(1:16:53) - Energy Superabundance(1:25:09) - Storage for Cheap Energy(1:31:25) - Travel in Future(1:33:27) - Future Cities(1:39:58) - Flying Cars(1:43:26) - Carbon Shortage(1:48:03) - Nuclear(2:12:44) - Solar(2:14:44) - Alpha & Efficient Markets(2:22:51) - ConclusionTranscriptIntroDwarkesh Patel (00:00:00):Okay! Today, I have the pleasure of interviewing Austin Vernon who writes about engineering, software, economics, and investing on the internet, though not that much else is known about him. So Austin, do you want to give us a bit of info about your background? I know that the only thing the internet knows about you is this one little JPEG that you had to upload with your recent paper. But what about an identity reveal or I guess a little bit of a background reveal? Just to the extent that you're comfortable sharing.Austin Vernon (00:00:29):My degree is in chemical engineering and I've had a lifelong love for engineering as well as things like the Toyota Production System. I've also worked as a chemical engineer in a large processing facility where I've done a lot of petroleum engineering. I taught myself how to write software and now I'm working on more research and the early commercialization of CO2 electrolysis.Dwarkesh Patel (00:00:59):Okay yeah. I'm really interested in talking about all those things. The first question I have is from Alex Berger, who's the co-CEO of Open Philanthropy. When I asked on Twitter what I should ask you, he suggested that I should ask “Why so shady?” Famously you have kind of an anonymous personality, pseudonymous thing going on the internet. What's up with that?Austin Vernon (00:01:25):Yeah. I think he posted a tweet that said “I don't know who this guy is or if he's credible at all, but his stuff sure is interesting”. That really made me laugh. I thought that was hilarious. Fame just doesn't seem necessary, I think I'm fine with my ideas being well known and communicating, but I have less desire to be personally famous.Starship as a WeaponDwarkesh Patel (00:01:52):Gotcha, gotcha. I wanted to start off with a sexy topic, let's talk about using Starship as a kinetic weapon. I thought that was one of the more amusing posts you wrote. Do you want to talk more about how this would be possible?Austin Vernon (00:02:08):Well, I think the main thing with Starship is that you're taking a technology and you're making it about 100 times cheaper for cargo and 1000 times cheaper for people. When things like that happen that drastically, you're just looking at huge changes and it's really hard to anticipate what some of those can be when the change is that drastic. I think there's a lot of moon-based, Mars-based stuff that doesn't really catch the general public's eye. They also have trouble imagining some of the point-to-point travel that could be possible. But when you start talking about it as a weapon, then I think it lets people know they should be paying attention to this technology. And we certainly do not want to be second or third getting it. We should make sure that we're going to be first.Dwarkesh Patel (00:03:05):Yeah. I think you mentioned this in the post, but as recently as the '90s, the cost of sending one kilogram to space was around $20,000. More recently, SpaceX has brought it to $2,000. Lots of interesting questions pop up when you ask, “What will be possible once we get it down to $200 per kilogram to send into orbit?” One of them could be about how we might manufacture these weapons that are not conventional ballistics. Do you want to talk about why this might be an advancement over conventional ballistic weapons?Austin Vernon (00:03:37):Well, regular conventional ballistic weapons are extremely expensive. This is more like a bomb truck. But usually we think of B52 as the bomb truck and this could be even cheaper than the B52, delivering just mass on target. When you think about how expensive it is to fly a B52 from Barksdale in Louisiana all the way across the world.. you can do it from south Texas or Florida with the Starship and get more emissions per day and the fuel ends up being. When you go orbital, it takes a lot to get to orbit. But then once you're in orbit, your fuel consumption's pretty good. So over long distances, it has a lot of advantage. That's why the point-to-point works for longer distances.Austin Vernon (00:04:27):There's really a sweet spot with these weapons where you want it to be pretty accurate, but you also want it to be cheap. You're seeing that problem with Russia right now as they have some fancy parade style weapons that are really expensive, like multi-billion dollar cruise missiles, but they're missing that $5,000 guided artillery shell or that $20,000 JDM that you can just pit massive. Or the multiple launch rocket system, guided rockets. They're really short on all those because I think they had just had a limited amount of chips they could get from the US into Russia to make these advanced weapons.Austin Vernon (00:05:07):But yeah, so the Starship gives you just a platform to deliver. You could put JDMs in a shroud, or you could just have the iron unguided kinetic projectiles, and it just becomes impossible for a ship to launch missiles to intercept yours if your cost is so low, you can just overwhelm them.Dwarkesh Patel (00:05:29):Okay. There are a few terms there that neither I nor the audience might know. So what is JDM? What is shroud? And why are chips a bottleneck here? Why can't it just be any micro-controller?Austin Vernon (00:05:42):So JDM is Joint Direct Attack Munition. So what we did is we took all our Vietnam surplus bonds and we put this little fin-kit on it and it costs like $20,000, which is cheap for a weapon because the actual bond costs, I don't know, $3,000. And then it turns it into a guided weapon that, before you were probably lucky to get within 500 meters of a target, now you can get it in with two meters. So the number of missions you have to do with your planes and all that goes down by orders of magnitude. So it's an absolutely huge advantage in logistics and in just how much firepower you can put on a target. And we didn't even have to make new bombs, we just put these kits on all our old bombs.Austin Vernon (00:06:33):Let's see.. Yeah the chips are a problem. There's this organization called RUSI. I think they're in the UK, but they've been tearing down all these Russian weapons they found in Ukraine and they all have American chips in them. So technically, they're not supposed to be able to get these chips. And yet, Russia can't make a lot of its own chips. And especially not the specialized kinds you might want for guided weapons. So they've been somehow smuggling in chips from Americans to make their advanced weaponsDwarkesh Patel (00:07:03):What is special about these? As far as I'm aware, the trade with China is still going on and we get a lot of our chips manufactured from Taiwan or China. So why can't they do the same?Austin Vernon (00:07:14):It's the whole integration. It's not just the specific chip, but the board. They're more like PLCs where you almost have wired-in programming and they come with this ability to do the guidance and all that stuff. It all kind of has to work together. I think that's the way I understand it. I don't know. Maybe I don't have a really good answer for that one, but they're hard to replicate is what matters.Dwarkesh Patel (00:07:43):Okay that's interesting. Yeah, I guess that has a lot of interesting downstream effects, because for example, India buys a lot of its weapons from Russia. So if Russia doesn't have access to these, then other countries that buy from Russia won't have access to these either.Dwarkesh Patel (00:07:58):You had an interesting speculation in the post where you suggested that you could just keep these kinetic weapons in orbit, in a sort of Damocles state really, almost literally. That sounds like an incredibly scary and risky scenario where you could have orbital decay and you could have these kinetic weapons falling from the sky and destroying cities. Do you think this is what it will look like or could look like in 10 to 20 years?Austin Vernon (00:08:26):Well, yeah, so the advantage of having weapons on orbit is you can hit targets faster. So if you're launching the rocket from Florida, you're looking at maybe 30 minutes to get there and the target can move away in that time. Whereas if you're on orbit, you can have them spaced out to where you're hitting within a few minutes. So that's the advantage there.Austin Vernon (00:08:46):You really have to have a two stage system I think for most, because if you have a really aerodynamic rod that's going to give you really good performance in the low atmosphere, it'll end up going too fast and just burn up before it gets there. Tungsten's maybe the only thing that you could have that could go all the way through which is why I like the original concept of using these big tungsten rods the size of a telephone pole. But tungsten's pretty expensive. And the rod concept kind of limits what you can do.Austin Vernon (00:09:28):So a lot of these weapons will have, that's what I was talking about with the shroud, something that actually slows you down in the upper atmosphere. And then once you're at the velocity where you're not just going to melt, then you open it up and let it go. So if you actually had it fall from the sky, some may make it to the ground, but a lot would burn up. So a lot of the stuff that makes it to the ground is actually pretty light. It's stuff that can float and has a large surface area. Yeah, that's the whole thing with Starship. Or not Starship, but Starlink. All those satellites are meant to completely fall apart on de-orbit.Dwarkesh Patel (00:10:09):I see. One of the implications of that is that these may be less powerful than we might fear, because since kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared and there's an upper bound on the velocity (velocity being the component that grows the kinetic energy faster), then it suggests that you can upper bound the power these things will have. You know what I mean?Austin Vernon (00:10:32):Yeah, so even the tungsten rods. Sometimes people, they're not very good at physics, so they don't do the math. They think it's going to be a nuclear weapon, but it's really not. I think even the tungsten rod is like 10 tons of T&T or something. It's a big bomb, but it's not a super weapon.Austin Vernon (00:10:54):So I think I said in the post, it's about using advanced missiles where they're almost more defensive weapons so I can keep you from pitting your ship somewhere. Yeah I could try to bombard your cities, but I can't take ground with it. I can't even police sea lanes with it really. I'd still have to use regular ships if I had this air cover to go enforce the rules of the sea and stuff like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:11:23):Yeah. You speculated in the post, I think, that you could load this up with shrapnel and then it could explode next to an incoming missile or an incoming aircraft. Could these get that accurate? Because that was surprising speculation to me.Austin Vernon (00:11:43):I think for ships, it's pretty... I was watching videos of how fast a ship can turn and stuff. If you're going to do an initial target on a ship to try to kill their radars, you'd want to do it above the ceiling of their missiles. So it's like, how much are they going to move between your release where you stop steering and that? The answer's maybe 1000 feet. So that's pretty simple because you just shrapnel the area.Austin Vernon (00:12:12):Targeting aircraft, you would be steering all the way in. I'd say it's doable, but it'd be pretty hard. You'd actually maybe want to even go slower than you would with the ship attack. You'd need a specialized package to attack the aircraft, but if you have enough synthetic aperture radar and stuff like that, you could see these aircraft using satellites and then guide the bomb in the whole way. You could even load heat seeking missiles into a package that unfurls right next to them and launch conventional missiles too, probably. It'd be pretty hard to do some of this stuff, but they're just the things you might be able to do if you put some effort into it.Dwarkesh Patel (00:12:57):Yeah. The reason I find this kind of speculation really interesting is because when you look at the modern weaponry that's used in conflicts, it just seems directly descendant from something you would've seen in World War II or something. If you think about how much warfare changed between 1900 and 1940, it's like, yeah, they're not even the same class of weapons anymore. So it's interesting to think about possibilities like these where the entire category of weapons has changed.Austin Vernon (00:13:33):You're right and that's because our physical technology hasn't changed that much. So it really has just made more sense to put better electronics in the same tanks. We haven't learned enough about tanks to build a new physical tank that's way better, so we just keep upgrading our existing tanks with better electronics. They're much more powerful, they're more accurate. A lot of times, they have longer range weapons and better sensors. So the tank looks the same, but it maybe has several times more killing power. But the Ukraine war right now, they're using a lot of 40, 50 year old weapons so that especially looks like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:14:20):Yeah. Which kind of worries you if you think about the stockpiles our own military has. I'm not well educated on the topic, but I imagine that we don't have the newest of the new thing. We probably have maintained versions of decades old technology.Austin Vernon (00:14:35):We spend so much, we've got relatively... This kind of gets into debate about how ready our military is. For certain situations, it's more ready than others. I'd say in general, most people talking about it have the incentive to downplay our capabilities because they want more defense spending. There's lots of reasons. So I think we're probably more capable than what you might see from some editorial in The Hill or whatever. Us just sending a few weapons over to Ukraine and seeing how successful they've been at using them, I think, shows a little bit of that.Austin Vernon (00:15:18):There's so much uncertainty when it comes to fighting, especially when you're talking about a naval engagement, where we don't just don't have that many ships in general… you can have some bad luck. So I think you always want to be a little bit wary. You don't want to get overconfident.Dwarkesh Patel (00:15:37):Yeah. And if the offensive tech we sent to Ukraine is potentially better than the defensive tech, it's very possible that even a ballistic missile that China or Russia could launch would sink a battleship and then kill the 2,000 or 1,000 whatever soldiers that are on board. Or I guess, I don't know, you think this opens up avenues for defensive tech as well?Austin Vernon (00:16:03):Yeah––generally the consensus is that defensive technology has improved much more recently than offensive technology. This whole strategy China has is something they call anti-access/area denial, A2/AD. That's basically just how missiles have gotten better because the sensors on missiles have gotten better. So they can keep our ships from getting close to them but they can't really challenge us in Hawaii or something. And it really goes both ways, I think people forget that. So yeah, it's hard for us to get close to China, but Taiwan has a lot of missiles with these new sensors as well. So I think it's probably tougher for China to do it close to Taiwan than most people would say.Dwarkesh Patel (00:16:55):Oh, interesting. Yeah, can you talk more about that? Because every time I read about this, people are saying that if China wanted to, they could knock out Taiwan's defenses in a short amount of time and take it over. Yeah, so can you talk about why that's not possible?Austin Vernon (00:17:10):Well, it might be, but I think it's a guess of the uncertainty [inaudible 00:17:14]. Taiwan has actually one of the largest defense budgets in the world and they've recently been upping it. I think they spend, I don't know, $25 billion a year and they added an extra $5 billion. And they've been buying a lot of anti-ship missiles, a lot of air defense missiles.. Stuff that Ukraine could only dream of. I think Ukraine's military budget was $2 billion and they have a professional army. And then the other thing is Taiwan's an island, whereas Russia could just roll over the land border into Ukraine.Austin Vernon (00:17:44):There's just been very few successful amphibious landings in history. The most recent ones were all the Americans in World War II and Korea. So the challenge there is just... It's kind of on China to execute perfectly and do that. So if they had perfect execution, then possibly it would be feasible. But if their air defenses on their ships aren't quite as good as we think they could possibly be, then they could also end up with half their fleet underwater within 10 hours.Dwarkesh Patel (00:18:20):Interesting. And how has your view of Taiwan's defensive capabilities changed... How has the Ukraine conflict updated your opinion on what might happen?Austin Vernon (00:18:29):I didn't really know how much about it. And then I started looking at Wikipedia and stuff and all this stuff they're doing. Taiwan just has a lot of modern platforms like F16s with our anti-ship missiles. They actually have a lot of their own. They have indigenous fighter bombers, indigenous anti-ship missiles because they're worried we might not always sell them to them.Austin Vernon (00:18:54):They've even recently gotten these long range cruise missiles that could possibly target leadership in Beijing. So I think that makes it uncomfortable for the Chinese leadership. If you attack them, you're going to have to go live in a bunker. But again, I'm not a full-time military analyst or something, so there's a lot of uncertainty around what I'm saying. It's not a given that China's just going to roll over them.Software ProductivityDwarkesh Patel (00:19:22):Okay. That's comforting to hear. Let's talk about an area where I have a little bit of a point of contact. I thought your blog post about software and the inability of it to increase productivity numbers, I thought that was super fascinating. So before I ask you questions about it, do you want to lay out the thesis there?Austin Vernon (00:19:43):Yeah. So if there's one post I kind of felt like I caught lightning in a bottle on, it's that one. Everything I wanted to put in, it just fit together perfectly, which is usually not the case.Austin Vernon (00:19:55):I think the idea is that the world's so complex and we really underestimate that complexity. If you're going to digitize processes and automate them and stuff, you have to capture all that complexity basically at the bit level, and that's extremely difficult. And then you also have diminishing returns where the easily automatable stuff goes first and then it's increasing corner cases to get to the end, so you just have to go through more and more code basically. We don't see runaway productivity growth from software because we're fighting all this increasing complexity.Dwarkesh Patel (00:20:39):Yeah. Have you heard of the waterbed theory of complexity by the way?Austin Vernon (00:20:42):I don't think so.Dwarkesh Patel (00:20:44):Okay. It's something that comes up in compiler design: the idea is that there's a fixed amount of complexity in a system. If you try to reduce it, what you'll end up doing is just you'll end up migrating the complexity elsewhere. I think an example that's used of this is when they try to program languages that are not type safe, something like Python. You can say, “oh, it's a less complex language”, but really, you've added complexity when, I don't know, two different types of numbers are interacting like a float and an int. As your program grows, that complexity exponentially grows along with all the things that could go wrong when you're making two things interact in a way that you were expecting not to. So yeah, the idea is you can just choose where to have your complexity, but you can't get rid of that complexity.Austin Vernon (00:21:38):I think that's kind of an interesting thing when you start pairing it with management theory... when you add up all the factors, the most complex thing you're doing is high volume car manufacturing. And so we got a lot of innovations and organization from car manufacturers like the assembly line. Then you had Sloan at GM basically creating the way the modern corporation is run, then you have the Toyota Production System.Austin Vernon (00:22:11):But arguably now, creating software is actually the most complex thing we do. So there's all these kinds of squishy concepts that underlie things like the Toyota Production System that softwares had to learn and reimagine and adopt and you see that with Agile where, “oh, we can't have long release times. We need to be releasing every day,” which means we're limiting inventory there.Austin Vernon (00:22:42):There's a whole thing especially that's showing up in software that existed in carbon manufacturing where you're talking about reducing communication. So Jeff Bezos kind of now famously said, "I want to reduce communication," which is counterintuitive to a lot of people. This is age-old in car manufacturing where Toyota has these cards that go between workstations and they tell you what to do. So people normally think of them as limiting inventory, but it also tells the worker exactly what they're supposed to be doing at what pace, at what time. The assembly line is like that too. You just know what to do because you're standing there and there's a part here and it needs to go on there, and it comes by at the pace you're supposed to work at.Austin Vernon (00:23:29):It's so extreme that there's this famous paper, by List, Syverson and Levitt. They went to a car factory and studied how defects propagated in cars and stuff. Once a car factory gets up and running, it doesn't matter what workers you put in there, if workers are sick or you get new workers, the defect rate is the same. So all the knowledge is built into the manufacturing line.Austin Vernon (00:23:59):There's these concepts around idiot-proofing and everything that are very similar to what you'll see. You had Uncle Bob on here. So Uncle Bob says only put one input into a function and stuff like that because you'll mix them up otherwise. The Japanese call it poka-yoke. You make it where you can't mess it up. And that's another way to reduce communication, and then software, of course you have APIs.Austin Vernon (00:24:28):So I'm really interested in this overall concept of reducing communication, and reducing how much cooperation and everything we need to run the economy.Dwarkesh Patel (00:24:41):Right. Right. Speaking of the Toyota Production System, one thing they do to reduce that defect rate is if there's a problem, all the workers in that chain are forced to go to the place where the defect problem is and fix it before doing anything else. The idea there is that this will give them context to understand what the problem was and how to make sure it doesn't happen again. It also prevents a build up of inventory in a way that keeps making these defects happen or just keeps accumulating inventory before the place that can fix the defects is able to take care of them.Austin Vernon (00:25:17):Right. Yeah, yeah. Exactly.Dwarkesh Patel (00:25:19):Yeah. But I think one interesting thing about software and complexity is that software is a place where complexity is the highest in our world right now but software gives you the choice to interface with the complexity you want to interface with. I guess that's just part of specialization in general, but you could say for example that a machine learning model is really complex, but ideally, you get to a place where that's the only kind of complexity you have to deal with. You're not having to deal with the complexity of “How is this program compiled? How are the libraries that I'm using? How are they built?” You can fine tune and work on the complexity you need to work on.Dwarkesh Patel (00:26:05):It's similar to app development. Byrne Hobart has this blog post about Stripe as solid state. The basic idea is that Stripe hides all the complexity of the financial system: it charges a higher fee, but you can just treat it as an abstraction of a tithe you have to pay, and it'll just take care of that entire process so you can focus on your comparative advantage.Austin Vernon (00:26:29):It's really actually very similar in car manufacturing and the Toyota Production System if you really get into it. It's very much the same conceptual framework. There's this whole idea in Toyota Production System, everyone works at the same pace, which you kind of talked about. But also, your work content is the same. There's no room for not standardizing a way you're going to do things. So everyone gets together and they're like, “All right, we're going to do this certain part. We're going to put it together this certain way at this little micro station. And it's going to be the same way every time.” That's part of how they're reducing the defect rates. If your assembly process is longer than what your time allotment is to stay in touch with the rest of the process, then you just keep breaking it down into smaller pieces. So through this, each person only has to know a very small part of it.Austin Vernon (00:27:33):The overall engineering team has all sorts of strategies and all sorts of tools to help them break up all these processes into very small parts and make it all hold together. It's still very, very hard, but it's kind of a lot of the same ideas because you're taking away the complexity of making a $30,000 car or 30,000 part car where everyone's just focusing on their one little part and they don't care what someone else is doing.Dwarkesh Patel (00:28:06):Yeah. But the interesting thing is that it seems like you need one person who knows how everything fits together. Because from what I remember, one of the tenets of the Toyota Production System was you need to have a global view. So, in that book, was it the machine or the other one, the Toyota Production System book? But anyways, they were talking about examples where people would try to optimize for local efficiencies. I think they especially pointed to Ford and GM for trying to do this where they would try to make machines run all the time. And locally, you could say that, “oh this machine or process is super efficient. It's always outputting stuff.” But it ignores how that added inventory or that process had a bad consequence for the whole system.Dwarkesh Patel (00:28:50):And so it's interesting if you look at a company like Tesla that's able to do this really well. Tesla is run like a monarchy and this one guy has this total global view of how the entire process is supposed to run and where you have these inefficiencies.. You had some great examples of this in the blog post. I think one of the examples is this guy (the author) goes to this factory and he asks, "Is this an efficient factory?" And the guy's like, "Yeah, this is totally efficient. There's nothing we can do, adopting the Toyota way, to make this more efficient."Dwarkesh Patel (00:29:22):And so then he's like, "Okay, let me look." And he finds that they're treating steel in some way, and the main process does only take a couple of seconds, but some local manager decided that it would be more efficient to ship their parts out, to get the next stage of the process done somewhere else. So this is locally cheaper, but the result is that it takes weeks to get these parts shipped out and get them back. Which means that the actual time that the parts spend getting processed is 0.1% of the time, making the whole process super inefficient. So I don't know, it seems like the implication is you need a very monarchical structure, with one person who has a total view, in order to run such a system. Or am I getting that wrong?Austin Vernon (00:30:12):Not necessarily. I mean, you do have to make sure you're not optimizing locally, but I think it's the same. You have that same constraint in software, but I think a lot of times people are just running over it because processing has been getting so much cheaper. People are expensive, so if you could save development time, it just ends up the trade offs are different when you're talking about the tyranny of physical items and stuff like that, the constraints get a little more severe. But I think you have the same overall. You still have to fight local optimization, but the level you have to is probably different with physical goods.Austin Vernon (00:30:55):I was thinking about the smart grid situation from a software perspective, and there's this problem where, okay, I'm putting my solar farm here and it's impacting somewhere far away, and that's then creating these really high upgrade costs, that cost two or three times more than my solar farm. Well, the obvious thing would be, if you're doing software, is like you're going to break all these up into smaller sections, and then you wouldn't be impacting each other and all that, and you could work and focus on your own little thing.Austin Vernon (00:31:29):But the problem with that is if you're going to disconnect these areas of the grid, the equipment to do that is extremely expensive. It's not like I'm just going to hit a new tab and open a new file and start writing a new function. And not only that, but you still have to actually coordinate how this equipment is going to operate. So if you just let the grid flow as it does, everyone knows what's going to happen because they could just calculate the physics. If you start adding in all these checkpoints where humans are doing stuff, then you have to actually interface with the humans, and the amount of things that can happen really starts going up. So it's actually a really bad idea to try to cart all this stuff off, just because of the reality of the physical laws and the equipment you need and everything like that.Dwarkesh Patel (00:32:22):Okay. Interesting. And then I think you have a similar Coasean argument in your software post about why vertically integrating software is beneficial. Do you want to explain that thesis?Austin Vernon (00:32:34):Yeah. I think it actually gets to what we're talking about here, where it allows you to avoid the local optimization. Because a lot of times you're trying to build a software MVP, and you're tying together a few services… they don't do quite what you need, so if you try to scale that, it would just break. But if you're going to take a really complex process, like car manufacturing or retail distribution, or the home buying process or something, you really have to vertically integrate it to be able to create a decent end-to-end experience and avoid that local optimization.Austin Vernon (00:33:20):And it's just very hard otherwise, because you just can't coordinate effectively if you have 10 different vendors trying to do all the same thing. You end up in just constant vendor meetings, where you're trying to decide what the specs are or something instead of giving someone the authority, or giving a team the authority to just start building stuff. Then if you look at these companies, they have to implement these somewhat decentralized processes when they get too complex, but at least they have control over how they're interfacing with each other. Walmart, as the vendors, control their own stock. They don't tell the vendor, "We need X parts." It's just like, it's on you to make sure your shelf is stocked.Dwarkesh Patel (00:34:07):Yeah. Yeah. So what was really interesting to me about this part of the post was, I don't know, I guess I had heard of this vision of we're software setting, where everybody will have a software as a service company, and they'll all be interfacing with each other in some sort of cycle where they're all just calling each other's APIs. And yeah, basically everybody and their mother would have a SAAS company. The implication here was, from your argument, that given the necessity of integrating all those complexity vertically in a coherent way, then the winners in software should end up being a few big companies, right? They compete with each other, but still...Austin Vernon (00:34:49):I think that's especially true when you're talking about combining bits and apps. Maybe less true for pure software. The physical world is just so much more complex, and so the constraints it creates are pretty extreme, compared to like... you could maybe get away with more of everyone and their mom having an API in a pure software world.Dwarkesh Patel (00:35:14):Right. Yeah. I guess, you might think that even in the physical world, given that people really need to focus on their comparative advantage, they would just try to outsource the software parts to these APIs. But is there any scenario where the learning curve for people who are not in the firm can be fast enough that they can keep up with the complexity? Because there's huge gains for specialization and competition that go away if this is the world we're forced to live in. And then I guess we have a lot of counter examples, or I guess we have a lot of examples of what you're talking about. Like Apple is the biggest market cap in the world, right? And famously they're super vertically integrated. And yeah, obviously their thing is combining hardware and software. But yeah, is there any world in which it can keep that kind of benefit, but have it be within multiple firms?Austin Vernon (00:36:10):This is a post I've got on my list I want to write. The blockchain application, which excites me personally the most, is reimagining enterprise software. Because the things you're talking about, like hard typing and APIs are just basically built into some of these protocols. So I think it just really has a lot of exciting implications for how much you can decentralize software development. But the thing is, you can still do that within the firm. So I think I mentioned this, if the government's going to place all these rules on the edge of the firm, it makes transactions with other firms expensive. So a few internal transactions can be cheaper, because they're avoiding the government reporting and taxes and all that kind of stuff. So I think you'd have to think about how these technologies can reduce transaction costs overall and decentralize that, but also what are the costs between firms?Dwarkesh Patel (00:37:22):Yeah, it's really interesting if the costs are logistic, or if they're based on the knowledge that is housed, as you were talking about, within a factory or something. Because if it is just logistical and stuff, like you had to report any outside transactions, then it does imply that those technology blockchain could help. But if it is just that you need to be in the same office, and if you're not, then you're going to have a hard time keeping up with what the new requirements for the API are, then maybe it's that, yeah, maybe the inevitability is that you'll have these big firms that are able to vertically integrate.Austin Vernon (00:37:59):Yeah, for these big firms to survive, they have to be somewhat decentralized within them. So I think you have... you're going to the same place as just how are we viewing it, what's our perception? So even if it's a giant corporation, it's going to have very independent business units as opposed to something like a 1950s corporation.Dwarkesh Patel (00:38:29):Yeah. Byrne Hobart, by the way, has this really interesting post that you might enjoy reading while you're writing that post. It's type safe communications, and it's about that Bezos thing, about his strict style for how to communicate and how little to communicate. There's many examples in Amazon protocols where you have to... the only way you can put in this report, is in this place you had to give a number. You can't just say, "This is very likely," you had to say like, "We project X percent increase," or whatever. So it has to be a percent. And there's many other cases where they're strict about what type definition you can have in written reports or something. It has kind of the same consequence that type strict languages have, which is that you can keep track of what the value is through the entire chain of the flow of control.Austin Vernon (00:39:22):You've got to keep work content standardized.Dwarkesh Patel (00:39:26):So we've been hinting at the Coasean analysis to this. I think we just talked about it indirectly, but for the people who might not know, Coase has this paper called The Theory of Firms, and he's trying to explain why we have firms at all. Why not just have everybody compete in the open market for employment, for anything? Why do we have jobs? Why not just have... you can just hire a secretary by the day or something.Dwarkesh Patel (00:39:51):And the conclusion he comes to is that by having a firm you're reducing the transaction cost. So people will have the same knowledge about what needs to get done, obviously you're reducing the transaction cost of contracting, finding labor, blah, blah, blah. And so the conclusion it comes to is the more the transaction costs are reduced within people in a firm, as compared to the transaction cost between different firms, the bigger firms will get. So I guess that's why the implication of your argument was that there should be bigger tech firms, right?Austin Vernon (00:40:27):Yes, yes, definitely. Because they can basically decrease the transaction costs faster within, and then even at the limit, if you have large transaction costs outside the firm, between other firms that are artificially imposed, then it will make firms bigger.Dwarkesh Patel (00:40:45):What does the world look like in that scenario? So would it just be these Japanese companies, these huge conglomerates who are just... you rise through the ranks, from the age of 20 until you die? Is that what software will turn into?Austin Vernon (00:40:59):It could be. I mean, I think it will be lots of very large companies, unless there's some kind of change in inner firm transaction costs. And again, that could possibly come from blockchain like technology, but you probably also need better regulation to make that cheaper, and then you would have smaller firms. But again, in the end, it doesn't really matter. You'd be working in your little unit of the big bank of corporate, or whatever. So I don't know what that would look like on a personal level.Car ManufacturingDwarkesh Patel (00:41:40):Yeah. Okay. So speaking of these Japanese companies, let's talk about car manufacturing and everything involved there. Yeah, so we kind of hinted at a few elements of the Toyota way and production earlier, but do you want to give a brief overview of what that is, so we can compare it to potentially other systems?Austin Vernon (00:42:02):I think all these kinds of lean Toyota process systems, they do have a lot of similarities, where mostly you want to even-out your production, so you're producing very consistently, and you want to break it into small steps and you want to limit the amount of inventory you have in your system. When you do this, it makes it easy to see how the process is running and limit defects. And the ultimate is you're really trying to reduce defects, because they're very expensive. It's a little bit hard to summarize. I think that's my best shot at it there, quickly off the top of my head.Dwarkesh Patel (00:42:49):Yeah. The interesting thing about the Toyota system, so at least when the machine was released, is they talk about... that book was released I think the nineties, and they went to the history of Toyota, and one of the interesting things they talked about was there was a brief time where the company ran... I think, was this after World War II? But anyways, the company ran into some troubles. They needed to layoff people to not go bankrupt. They had much more debt on books than they had assets. So yeah, they wanted to layoff people, but obviously the people were not happy about this, so there were violent protests about this. And in fact I think the US written constitution gave strong protections to labor that they hadn't had before, which gave labor an even stronger hand here.Dwarkesh Patel (00:43:42):So anyway, Toyota came to this agreement with the unions that they'd be allowed to do this one time layoff to get the company on the right track, but afterwards they could never lay somebody off. Which would mean that a person who works at Toyota works there from the time they graduate college or high school till they die. Right? I don't know, that's super intense in a culture. I mean, in software, where you have the average tenure in a company's one year, the difference is so much.Dwarkesh Patel (00:44:13):And there's so many potential benefits here, I guess a lot of drawbacks too. But one is, obviously if you're talking in a time scale of 50 years, rather than one year, the incentives are more aligned between the company and the person. Because anything you could do in one year is not going to have a huge impact on your stock options in that amount of time. But if this company's your retirement plan, then you have a much stronger incentive to make sure that things at this company run well, which means you're probably optimizing for the company's long term cash flow yourself. And also, there's obviously benefits to having that knowledge built up in the firm from people who have been there for a long time. But yeah, that was an interesting difference. One of the interesting differences, at least.Austin Vernon (00:45:00):I mean, I think there's diminishing returns to how long your tenure's going to be. Maybe one year's too short, but there's a certain extent to where, if you grow faster than your role at the company, then it's time to switch. It's going to depend on the person, but maybe five years is a good number. And so if you're not getting promoted within the firm, then your human capital's being wasted, because you could go somewhere else and have more responsibility and perform better for them. Another interesting thing about that story, is almost all lean turnarounds, where they're like, we're going to implement something like Toyota production system, they come with no layoff promises. Because if you're going to increase productivity, that's when everyone's like, "Oh gosh, I'm going to get laid off." So instead you have to increase output and take more market share, is what you do.Dwarkesh Patel (00:46:00):It's kind of like burning your bridges, right? So this is the only way.Austin Vernon (00:46:05):The process really requires complete buy-in, because a lot of your ideas for how you're going to standardize work content come from your line workers, because that's what they're doing every day. So if you don't have their buy-in, then it's going to fail. So that's why it's really necessary to have those kinds of clauses.Dwarkesh Patel (00:46:22):Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. I think it was in your post where you said, if somebody makes their process more efficient, and therefore they're getting more work allotted to them, then obviously they're going to stop doing that. Right? Which means that, I don't know, do you ought to give more downtime to your best workers or something or the people who are most creative in your company?Austin Vernon (00:46:48):I was just going to say, if you're a worker at a plant, then a lot of times for that level of employee, actually small rewards work pretty well. A lot of people on drilling rigs used to give the guys that met certain targets $100 Walmart gift cards. So sometimes small, it's a reward, new ideas, stuff like that works.Austin Vernon (00:47:15):But because the whole system has to grow together, if you just improve one part of the process, it may not help you. You have to be improving all the right processes so normally it's much more collaborative. There's some engineer that's looking at it and like, "All right, this is where we're struggling," or "We have our defects here." And then you go get together with that supervisor and the workers in that area, then you all figure out what improvements could be together. Because usually the people already know. This is like, you see a problem at the top, and you're just now realizing it. Then you go talk to the people doing the work, and they're like, "Oh yeah, I tried to tell you about that two weeks ago, man." And then you figure out a better process from there.Dwarkesh Patel (00:47:58):Based on your recommendation, and Steven Malina's recommendation, I recently read The Goal. And after reading the book, I'm much more understanding of the value that consultants bring to companies, potentially. Because before you could think, “What does a 21 year old, who just graduated college, know about manufacturing? What are they going to tell this plant that they didn't already know? How could they possibly be adding value?” And afterwards, it occurred to me that there's so many abstract concepts that are necessary to understand in order to be able to increase your throughput. So now I guess I can see how somebody who's generically smart but doesn't have that much industry knowledge might be able to contribute to a plan and value consultants could be bringing.Austin Vernon (00:48:43):I think this applies to consultants or young engineers. A lot of times you put young engineers just right in the thick of it, working in production or process right on the line, where you're talking to the workers the most. And there's several advantages to that. One, the engineer learns faster, because they're actually seeing the real process, and the other is there's easy opportunities for them to still have a positive impact on the business, because there's $100 bills laying on the ground just from going up and talking to your workers and learning about stuff and figuring out problems they might be having and finding out things like that that could help you lower cost. I think there's a lot of consultants that... I don't know how the industry goes, but I would guess there's... I know Accenture has 600,000 employees. I don't know if that many, but it's just a large number, and a lot are doing more basic tasks and there are some people that are doing the more high level stuff, but it's probably a lot less.Dwarkesh Patel (00:49:51):Yeah. Yeah. There was a quote from one of those books that said, "At Toyota we don't consider you an engineer unless you need to wash your hands before you can have lunch." Yeah. Okay. So in your blog post about car manufacturing, you talk about Tesla. But what was really interesting is that in a footnote, I think you mentioned that you bought Tesla stocks in 2014, which also might be interesting to talk about again when we go to the market and alpha part. But anyways. Okay. And then you talk about Tesla using something called metal manufacturing. So first of all, how did you know in 2014 that Tesla was headed here? And what is metal manufacturing and how does it differ from the Toyota production system?Austin Vernon (00:50:42):Yeah. So yeah, I just was goofing around and made that up. Someone actually emailed me and they were like, "Hey, what is this metal manufacturing? I want to learn more about this." It's like, "Well, sorry, I just kind of made that up, because I thought it sounded funny." But yeah, I think it's really the idea that there's this guy, Dimming, and he found a lot of the same ideas that Toyota ended up implementing, and Toyota respected his ideas a lot. America never really got fully on board with this in manufacturing. Of course it's software people that are coming and implementing this and manufacturing now which is like the real American way of doing things.Austin Vernon (00:51:32):Because when you look at these manufacturing processes, the best place to save money and optimize is before you ever build the process or the plant. It's very early on. So I think if there's a criticism of Toyota, it's that they're optimizing too late and they're not creative enough in their production technology and stuff. They're very conservative, and that's why they have hydrogen cars and not battery cars, even though they came out with the Prius, which was the first large sales hybrid.Austin Vernon (00:52:12):So yeah, I think what Tesla's doing with really just making Dimming's ideas our own and really just Americanizing it with like, "Oh, well, we want to cast this, because that would be easier." Well, we can't, because we don't have an alloy. "We'll invent the alloy." I love it. It's great. Mostly, I love Tesla because they do such... I agree with their engineering principles. So I didn't know that the company would come to be so valuable. It's just, I was just always reading their stock reports and stuff so I was like, "Well, at least I need to buy some stock so that I have a justification for spending all this time reading their 10 Ks."Dwarkesh Patel (00:52:53):I want to get a little bit more in detail about the exact difference here. So lean production, I guess, is they're able to produce their cars without defects and with matching demand or whatever. But what is it about their system that prevents them from making the kinds of innovations that Tesla is able to make?Austin Vernon (00:53:16):It's just too incremental. It's so hard to get these processes working. So the faster you change things, it becomes very, very difficult to change the whole system. So one of the advantages Tesla has is, well, if you're making electric cars, you have just a lot less parts. So that makes it easier. And once you start doing the really hard work of basically digitizing stuff, like they don't have speed limit dials, you start just removing parts from the thing and you can actually then start increasing your rate of change even faster.Austin Vernon (00:53:55):It makes it harder to get behind if you have these old dinosaur processes. But I think there's a YouTube channel called The Limiting Factor, and he actually went into the detail of numbers on what it costs for Tesla to do their giga-casting, which saves tons of parts and deletes zillions of thousands of robots from their process. If you already have an existing stamping line and all that, where you're just changing the dyes based on your model, then it doesn't make sense to switch to the casting. But if you're building new factories, like Tesla is, well, then it makes sense to do the casting and you can build new factories very cheaply and comparatively and much easier. So there's a little bit of... they just have lots of technical data, I guess you could say, in a software sense.Dwarkesh Patel (00:54:47):Yeah. That's super interesting. The analogy is actually quite... it's like, Microsoft has probably tens of thousands of software engineers who are just basically servicing its technical debt and making sure that the old systems run properly, whereas a new company like Tesla doesn't have to deal with that. The thing that's super interesting about Tesla is like, Tesla's market cap is way over a trillion, right? And then Toyota's is 300 billion. And Tesla is such a new company. The fact that you have this Toyota, which is legendary for its production system, and this company that's less than two decades old is worth many times more, it's kind of funny.Austin Vernon (00:55:32):Yeah. I would say that, in that measure, I don't like market cap. You need to use enterprise value. These old car companies have so much debt, that if you look at enterprise value, it's not so jarring. Literally, I don't know, I can't remember what GM's worth, like 40 billion or something, and then they have $120 billion in debt. So their enterprise value is five times more than their market cap.Dwarkesh Patel (00:56:02):What is enterprise value?Austin Vernon (00:56:03):Enterprise value is basically what is the value of the actual company before you have any claims on it. It's the market cap plus your debt. But basically, if you're the equity holder and the company gets sold, you have to pay the debt first. So you only get the value of what's left over after the debt. So that's why market cap is... when Tesla has very little debt and a lot of market cap, and then these other guys have a lot of debt with less market cap, it skews the comparison.Dwarkesh Patel (00:56:34):Yeah, and one of the interesting things, it's similar to your post on software, is that it seems like one of the interesting themes across your work is automating processes often leads to decreased eventual throughput, because you're probably adding capacity in a place that you're deciding excess capacity, and you're also making the money part of your operation less efficient by have it interface with this automated part. It sounds like there's a similar story there with car manufacturing, right?Austin Vernon (00:57:08):Yeah. I think if we tie it back into what we were talking about earlier, automation promotes local optimization and premature optimization. So a lot of times it's better to figure out, instead of automating a process to make a really hard to make part, you should just figure out how to make that part easy to make. Then after you do that, then it may not even make sense to automate it anymore. Or get rid of it all together, then you just delete all those robots.Austin's Carbon Capture ProjectDwarkesh Patel (00:57:37):Yeah. Yeah, that's interesting. Okay. So let's talk about the project that you're working on right now, the CO2 electrolysis. Do you want to explain what this is, and what your current approach is? What is going on here?Austin Vernon (00:57:55):Yeah, so I think just overall, electrofuels right now are super underrated, because you're about to get hopefully some very cheap electricity from solar, or it could be, maybe, some land. If we get really lucky, possibly some nuclear, geothermal. It'll just make sense to create liquid fuels, or natural gas, or something just from electricity and air, essentially.Austin Vernon (00:58:25):There's a whole spectrum of ways to do this, so O2 electrolysis is one of those. Basically, you take water, electricity, and CO2, and a catalyst. And then, you make more complex molecules, like carbon monoxide, or formic acid, or ethylene, or ethanol, or methane or methine. Those are all options. But it's important to point out that, right now, I think if you added up all the CO2 electrolyzers in the world, you'd be measuring their output and kilograms per day. We make millions of tons per day off of the products I just mentioned. So there's a massive scale up if it's going to have a wider impact.Austin Vernon (00:59:15):So there's some debate. I think the debate for the whole electrofuels sector is: How much are you going to do in the electrolyzer? One company whose approach I really like is Terraform Industries. They want to make methane, which is the main natural gas. But they're just making hydrogen in their electrolyzer, and then they capture the CO2 and then put it into a methanation reaction. So everything they're doing is already world scale, basically.Austin Vernon (00:59:47):We've had hydrogen electrolyzers power fertilizer plants, providing them with the Hydrogen that they need. Methanation happens in all ammonia plants and several other examples. It's well known, very old. Methanation is hydrogen CO2 combined to make water and methane. So their approach is more conservative, but if you do more in the electrolyzer, like I'm going to make the methane actually in the electrolyzer instead of adding this other process, you could potentially have a much simpler process that has less CapEx and scales downward better. Traditional chemical engineering heavily favors scaling. With the more Terraform processes, they're playing as absolutely ginormous factories. These can take a long time to build.Austin Vernon (01:00:42):So one of the things they're doing is: they're having to fight the complexity that creeps into chemical engineering every step of the way. Because if they don't, they'll end up with a plant that takes 10 years to build, and that's not their goal. It takes 10 years to build a new refinery, because they're so complex. So yeah, that's where I am. I'm more on the speculative edge, and it's not clear yet which products will be favorable for which approaches.Dwarkesh Patel (01:01:15):Okay, yeah. And you're building this out of your garage, correct?Austin Vernon (01:01:19):Yeah. So that's where electrolyzers... Everything with electric chemistry is a flat plate instead of a vessel, so it scales down. So I can have a pretty good idea of what my 100 square centimeter electrolyzer is going to do, if I make it quite a bit bigger. I have to worry about how my flow might interact in the larger one and make sure the mixing's good, but it's pretty straightforward because you're just making your flat plate a larger area. Whereas the scale, it is different from scaling a traditional chemical process.Dwarkesh Patel (01:01:56):I'm curious how cheap energy has to be before this is efficient. If you're turning it into methane or something like that, presumably for fuel, is the entire process energy positive? Or how cheap would energy, electricity you need to get before that's the case?Austin Vernon (01:02:18):The different products and different methods have different crossovers. So Terraform Industries, they're shooting for $10 a megawatt hour for electricity. But again, their process is simpler, a little less efficient than a lot of the other products. They also have better premiums, just worth more per ton than methane. So your crossover happens somewhere in between $10 and $20 a megawatt hour, which is... I mean, that's pretty... Right now, solar, it's maybe like $25. Maybe it's a little higher because payment prices have gone up in the last year, but I think the expectation is they'll come back down. And so, getting down to $15 where you start having crossovers for some of these products like ethanol or ethylene or methanol, it's not science fiction.Dwarkesh Patel (01:03:08):I think in Texas where I live, that's where it's at right? The cost of energy is 20 or something dollars per megawatt hour.Austin Vernon (01:03:16):Well, not this summer! But yeah, a lot of times in Texas, the wholesale prices are around $25 to $30.Dwarkesh Patel (01:03:26):Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. So a lot of the actual details you said about how this works went over my head. So what is a flat plate? I guess before you answer that question, can you just generally describe the approach? What is it? What are you doing to convert CO2 into these other compounds?Austin Vernon (01:03:45):Well, yeah, it literally just looks like an electrolyzer. You have two sides and anode and a cathode and they're just smushed together like this because of the electrical resistance. If you put them far apart, it makes it... uses up a lot of energy. So you smush them together as close as you can. And then, you're basically just trading electrons back and forth. On one side, you're turning CO2 into a more complex molecule, and on the other side, you're taking apart water. And so, when you take apart the water, it balances out the equation, balances out your electrons and everything like that. I probably need to work on that elevator pitch there, huh?Dwarkesh Patel (01:04:31):I guess what the basic idea is, you need to put power in to convert CO2 into these other compounds.Austin Vernon (01:04:38):The inputs are electricity, water, and CO2, and the output is usually oxygen and whatever chemical you're trying to create is, along with some side reactions.Dwarkesh Patel (01:04:49):And then, these chemicals you mentioned, I think ethanol, methane, formic acid, are these all just fuels or what are the other uses for them?Austin Vernon (01:04:58):A lot of people are taking a hybrid approach with carbon monoxide. So this would be like Twelve Co… They've raised a lot of money to do this and 100 employees or something. You can take that carbon monoxide and make hydrogen, and then you have to send gas to make liquid fuels. So they want to make all sorts of chemicals, but one of the main volume ones would be like jet fuel.Austin Vernon (01:05:22):Let's see Formic acid is, it's the little fry of all these. It is an additive in a lot of things like preserving hay for animals and stuff like that. Then, ethanol there's people that want to... There's this company that makes ethylene, which goes into plastics that makes polyethylene, which is the most produced plastic. Or you can burn it in your car, although I think ethanol is a terrible vehicle fuel. But then you can also just make ethylene straight in the electrolyzer. So there's many paths. So which path wins is an interesting race to see.Dwarkesh Patel (01:06:13):The ability to produce jet fuel is really interesting, because in your energy superabundance paper, you talk about... You would think that even if we can electrify everything in solar and when it becomes super cheap, that's not going to have an impact on the prices to go to space for example. But I don't know. If a process like this is possible, then it's some way to in financial terms, add liquidity. And then turn, basically, this cheap solar and wind into jet fuel through this indirect process. So the price to send stuff to space or cheap plane flights or whatever––all of that goes down as well.Austin Vernon (01:06:52):It basically sets a price ceiling on the price of oil. Whatever you can produce this for is the ceiling now, which is maybe the way I think about it.Dwarkesh Patel (01:07:06):Yeah. So do you want to talk a little bit about how your background led into this project? This is your full-time thing, right? I don't know if I read about that, but where did you get this idea and how long have you been pursuing it? And what's the progress and so on.Austin Vernon (01:07:20):I've always loved chemical engineering, and I love working at the big processing plant because it's like being a kid in a candy store. If I had extra time, I'd just walk around and look at the plant, like it's so cool. But the plant where I worked at, their up time was 99.7%. So if you wanted to change anything or do anything new, it terrified everyone. That's how they earned their bonuses: run the plant a 100% uptime all the time. So that just wasn't a good fit for me. And also, so I always wanted my own chemical plant, but it's billions of dollars to build plants so that was a pretty big step. So I think this new technology of... there's a window where you might be able to build smaller plants until it optimizes to be hard to enter again.Dwarkesh Patel (01:08:21):And then, why will it become hard to enter again? What will happen?Austin Vernon (01:08:27):If someone figures out how to build a really cheap electrolyzer, and they just keep it as intellectual property, then it would be hard to rediscover that and compete with them.Dwarkesh Patel (01:08:38):And so, how long have you been working on this?Austin Vernon (01:08:42):Oh, not quite a year. But yeah, I actually got this idea to work on it from writing my blog. So when I wrote the heating fuel post, I didn't really know much about... There's another company in the space, Prometheus Fuels and I'm like, "Oh, this is an interesting idea." And then, I got talking to a guy named Brian Heligman, and he's like, "You should do this, but not what Prometheus is doing." And so, then I started looking at it and I liked it, so I've been working on it since.Dwarkesh Patel (01:09:08):Yeah. It's interesting because if energy does become as cheap as you suspect it might. If this process works, then yeah, this is a trillion dollar company probably, right? If you're going to get the patents and everything.Austin Vernon (01:09:22):I mean, maybe. With chemical plants, there's a certain limitation where your physical limitation is. There's only so many places that are good places for chemical plants. You start getting hit by transportation and all that. So, you can't just produce all the chemical for the entire world in Texas and transport it all around. It wouldn't work. So you're talking about a full, globe-spanning thing. At that point, if y

Steve continues the build up to a huge night of boxing this weekend at the O2. He chats to both Alycia Baumgardner and Mikaela Mayer ahead of their unification fight and both discuss how Saturday night heralds the start of a new era for women's boxing. Also joining Steve, is British fighter Ellie Scotney who has been sparring with Mayer and she gives her take on which way the bout will go. All the fights on Saturday night will be live and exclusive on BBC Radio 5 Sports Extra.

My guest this week is Jonty Stern, who works at the Sir John Soane's Museum in London. Jonty ran the Doctor Who Society at Lampeter and we learn about his encyclopaedic knowledge of the series and the impact it has had on him over the years. Jonty did Welsh Studies at Lampeter and focused on Celtic languages. He was the only student in the UK doing Middle Breton at the time, and we find out how he became interested in languages. His ‘A' levels didn't work out for him – and we learn how Lampeter beckoned. Jonty is obsessed with diaries and history and has been keeping a diary since 1986. He even brought along his 1990-93 Lampeter diaries to our interview which took place at the O2 in Greenwich on one of the hottest days of the year in July 2022. Jonty explains how some of his entries were written up many years later and we have a discussion about who his diaries are written for, and how some of the topics on which he writes only exist in his diary – there is no other, say, internet reference to the events described. Diaries are connected to his photos and tax returns, and during lockdown Jonty interviewed elderly relatives and friends. We find out how they were able to connect what happened, say, on VE Day with their experiences of lockdown. We talk about the LBGT community, freedom of speech, RP accents on TV, and how diversity changes were not predicted accurately in, say, sci-fi. We also learn about Jonty's work in market research and his love of museums. Then, towards the end of the interview we find out about Jonty's stint on the Channel 4 series Big Brother in 2007, what made him apply, how it was a break from his life up to that point, and how he made it through to finale night. He talks about being both an extrovert and an introvert, how he feels about Channel 4 following doing the programme and what it was like being a celebrity and then no longer being famous. We also discuss how he wasn't allowed to take his diary with him into the Big Brother house. Please note: Opinions expressed are solely those of Chris Deacy and Jonty Stern and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the University of Kent.

Joining us this episode to discuss the highs and lows of parenting (and life) is the brilliant DJ and presenter - Nihal Arthanayake. Nihal's new book 'Let's Talk: How To Have Better Conversations' is out now. Please rate and review. Thanks, Rob + Josh. BIG NEWS.... we're writing a book!  ⭐ All the stories we can't tell on the podcast – in depth. ⭐ What it's like to raise a stiff neck and a loose neck – straight from the horse's mouth (our parents) ⭐ And.. the BIGGEST REQUEST WE'VE EVER HAD FOR THE PODCAST… Hearing from our wives, Rose & Lou. They've got a chapter each and YOU can submit your burning questions to them...   PARENTINGHELLBOOK@BONNIERBOOKS.CO.UK What's it really like to be a parent? And how come no one ever warned Rob or Josh of the sheer mind-bending, world-altering, sleep-depriving, sick-covering, tear-inducing, snot-wiping, bore-inspiring, 4am-relationship-straining brutality of it all? And if they did, why can't they remember it (or remember anything else, for that matter)? And just when they thought it couldn't get any harder, why didn't anyone warn them about the slices of unmatched euphoric joy and pride that occasionally come piercing through, drenching you in unbridled happiness in much the same way a badly burped baby drenches you in milk-sick? Join Josh and Rob as they share the challenges and madness of their parenting journeys with lashings of empathy and extra helpings of laughs. Filled with all the things they never tell you at antenatal classes, Parenting Hell is a beguiling mixture of humour, rumination and conversation for prospective parents, new parents, old parents and never-to-be parents alike. Find out everything you need to know, including how you could win a pair of tickets to the Parenting Hell LIVE tour & an overnight stay in London here:  https://www.bit.ly/ParentingHellBook We're going on tour!! Fancy seeing the podcast live in some of the best venues in the UK? Of course you do, you're not made of stone! Tickets available now on the dates and at the venues below. We can't wait to see you there... ON SALE NOW  14th April 2023 - Manchester AO Arena 19th April 2023 - Nottingham 20th April 2023 - Cardiff  21st April 2023 - London (The O2) 23rd April 2023 - London (Wembley) 28th April 2023 - Birmingham Utilita Arena  If you want to get in touch with the show here's how: EMAIL: Hello@lockdownparenting.co.uk TWITTER: @parenting_hell INSTAGRAM: @parentinghell A 'Keep It Light Media' Production  Sales, advertising, and general enquiries: hello@keepitlightmedia.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You are working at Clerkship General when the next chart gets handed to you – a 31 year old female presenting with abdominal pain. Initial Vitals: BP: 109/65 HR: 96 RR: 21 O2: 99% Temp: 99.1F Critical Actions: Obtain pregnancy test Confirm IUP Administer Rhogam Treat UTI Counsel the patient and discharge them Further Reading: […]

Aujourd'hui, j'ai le plaisir de recevoir Yan BRIAND, fondateur de Motortech, leader de la préparation automobile. Considéré comme un magicien pour certains et comme un bricoleur pour d'autres, vous allez en apprendre un peu plus sur cette profession souvent caricaturée.Il nous raconte comment est née sa passion pour l'automobile à travers les histoires de son grand-père, les autos de sa grande sœur et son côté geek qui se développe rapidement en tant qu'enfant très vite livré à lui-même. À travers cet épisode, Yan nous explique son rêve initial, celui de devenir avocat spécialisé dans le Droit routier. Mais, le destin en a voulu autrement, car il s'est retrouvé à utiliser ses talents de programmateur automobile à mauvais escient… Je ne vous en dis pas plus, car il l'explique si bien que le spoiler serait une offense.Bref, après cette mésaventure, il se reprend en main non sans mal et après un passage chez O2 programmation pour consolider ses bases professionnelles, il lance à son tour son entreprise en 2008.Les débuts sont bien loin de l'entreprise florissante que Motortech est aujourd'hui et plus d'une fois il a failli abandonner…C'est un épisode qui me tient particulièrement à cœur, car il retrace le parcours d'un homme qui est parti de rien et dont l'histoire à montrer plus d'une fois que sa destinée aurait pu être tout autre. Il est aussi bourré d'anecdotes et vous n'êtes pas à l'abri d'apprendre quelques petites choses. Mais rassurez-vous, on parle bien entendu d'automobiles et notamment de ses incroyables McLaren, mais aussi de ses apparitions sur Youtube avec GMK, G3Adrien ou encore Erwan TGD que je salue et je remercie pour la mise en relation et avec qui il a enregistré une vidéo sur sa Mclaren (je vous la mets en lien)._________________________________________________________

Christopher McGregor is CEO and co-founder of Vesto, a multi-token protocol for decentralized services.Prior to co-founding Vesto, Christopher was the Vice President of Engineering for Telemac Corporation, where he developed and launched Pay & Go with O2. With more than 20 million mobile handsets sold, Telemac became the most successful pre-paid mobile solutions in the UK. In 2004, he became the co-founder and Vice President of Engineering for Validus Technologies Corporation, where he developed the biometric technology that powered the VALIDcard™. Christopher conceptualized and developed multiple technologies including BT Cellnet's (O2) original Pay & Go, QoS (sold to Root Metrics)/ QoE solutions for 3G / 4G LTE mobile, mobile authentication for the U.S. Federal Government, the first pre-production prototypes of the world's first ISO biometric powered card (now being offered by MasterCard internationally).A full stack engineer and serial entrepreneur who has held various other CTO and Senior Software Engineer roles, he is a named inventor on numerous issued patents and patents pending in the areas of biometric authentication, QoS (Quality of Service) for 3G, OIS (Open Internet Security) for 3G, mobile payments, social commerce, and dynamic marketing automation. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/crypto-hipster-podcast/support

Clarity is kindness. Whether it's bringing a new person into your community, taking charge and leading your class, or helping to develop your Coaches and team...being clear will set you up for success. Denise Thomas is the creator of the Coaches Development Program, CrossFit Seminar Staff Manager, and part of a small team that works on developing the CrossFit Seminar Staff, the "red shirts" who teach the L1 and L2 courses globally. _________ SPONSORS This season of the Best Hour of Their Day Podcast is brought to you by our Official Sponsor, O2. O2 | Best Hour Affiliate Exclusive: Buy 4 Cases, Get a FREE Mini-Fridge, 4 FREE Cases, and a FREE YETI Water Bottle Visit here to learn more: https://wholesale.drinko2.com/pages/best-hour-offer _________ OUR “BEST” FRIENDS DocSpartan - Use code BESTHOUR at checkout for 15% - www.docspartan.com RXSmartGear - Use code BESTHOUR at checkout for 10% off - www.rxsmartgear.com WheelPay - An official best friend of our podcast. Check it out here - www.wheelpay.com LMNT - An official best friend of our podcast. Check it out here - www.drinklmnt.com InsideTracker - Use code BESTHOUR20 at checkout for 20% off - www.insidetracker.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/jason-ackerman/support

Breathing disorders and orthodontics AAO 2022 Join me for a topic summary of breathing disorders and orthodontics, from this year's American Association of Orthodontics meeting. Two lectures were covered, the first by Takashi Ono which looks at the issues surrounding mouth breathing and its consequences, the second lecture was by Martin Palomo looking at OSA and busy offices, our role and how new technologies are helping. Nasal breathing Vs mouth breathing · Nasal Vs mouth breathing, which is better: Nose = air is humidified, pressurized and filtered than the one come through mouth. · The tongue pressure is 10 times more with mouth breathing than nose breathing in sitting position · Even greater in supine position. = That means tongue pressure increases during mouth breathing especially while sleeping. Memory and Nasal breathing · Normal nasal breathing o = air flow stimulates sensory nerve ending via olfactory to prefrontal cortex and hippocampus region of brain = responsible for memory function. · Memory consolidation was better in subjects who breathe through nose Ribeiro 2016SR o 10 papers, largest paper non-validated questionnaire and half of studies no controls. Variety of outcome measures. · Takashi's own study into rats showed less O2, and their opinion was this results in impairment in development Nasal obstruction and other consequences · Taste: Taste disturbed by breathing dysfunction, alters shape of lingual papillae Hsu 2017 o Mouth breathing group had increased threshold for sweet and sour taste · Muscles of mastication: Decreased in cross sectional area of masseter and temporalis muscle, with increase in type 2 muscle fiber. o Reduced muscle size and strength & decreased efficacy of masseter muscle strokes · Shape of palate § Altered shape of palatal shape, smaller volume Lione 2015 · Halitosis increased prevalence Motta 2011 · Actopic dermatitis Yamaguchi 2015 New technologies to manage OSA in busy orthodontic office Martin Palomo Prevalence of sleep obstructive sleep apnoea · 42 million adults USA · 1 in 5 mild OSA · 1 in15 moderate OSA · 75% severe sleep disorder = undiagnosed Diagnosis and the orthodontist · Orthodontists cannot diagnose: White paper from AJODO Rolf Behrents 2019 · CAN carry out a Risk assessment= onwards Risk assessment: Adults · STOPBang (Questionnaire for Risk assessment): http://www.stopbang.ca/osa/screening.php · 8 questions, yes / no and physical details · 100% accurate for high risk apnoea patient · University of Toronto Canada Risk assessment: Children · Paediatric sleep questionnaire (PSQ). Available University of Michigan · Children who snores loudly = poor academic performance,. o Tools for tracking whether your child is snoring or not – 1. Apps Snorelab, Snoreclock a. Mobile apps that records fractions of snoring and categorizes into quite, light, loud and epic snoring - Validited = close to PSG b. Results vary with distance in which phone is kept, or microphone issues Please donate to the Flood Relief Charity for Pakistan https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/farooqorthodontist1