Podcasts about preemptively

We asked which Lions draft pick would make you upset, and Jim gave us an answer Photo Credit: © Kimberly P. Mitchell / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

Seth and Sean react to people being petty and get petty themselves in the PettyCast. This week they hear from a whiney Steve Kerr, react to Colorado retiring Shedeur Sanders' number, and Aaron Judge being named the team captain for team USA's World Baseball Classic team.

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain This perek in Sanhedrin introduces the concepts of punishing preemptively - punishing the wayward son because of where his current path is leading him (נדון על שם סופו), punishing the home burglar because we presume readiness to commit murder (נדון על שם סופו), and various examples of people who are on their way to committing a capital crime and they may be stopped using lethal force (מצילין אותן בנפשן). These concepts, if expanded, can lead to an overreaching justice system, even one that punishes those who don't deserve it. Additionally, especially the final concept of מצילין אותן בנפשן can easily lead to vigilante-ism and extreme violence in the name of religion. How have we dealt with these concepts in Jewish history? Do they still apply? If so, when? Are we worried about their slippery slope potential? Last week we discussed נדון על שם סופו, and this week we will discuss רודף, a prime exemplar of מצילין אותן בנפשן.Sanhedrin 73a, 82aDr. Elana Stein Hain – dinanddaf@hadran.org.ilFor more Din and Daf: https://hadran.org.il/channel/din-daf/

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein HainThis perek in Sanhedrin introduces the concepts of punishing preemptively - punishing the wayward son because of where his current path is leading him (נדון על שם סופו), punishing the home burglar because we presume readiness to commit murder (נדון על שם סופו), and various examples of people who are on their way to committing a capital crime and they may be stopped using lethal force (מצילין אותן בנפשן). These concepts, if expanded, can lead to an overreaching justice system, even one that punishes those who don't deserve it. Additionally, especially the final concept of מצילין אותן בנפשן can easily lead to vigilante-ism and extreme violence in the name of religion. How have we dealt with these concepts in Jewish history? Do they still apply? If so, when? Are we worried about their slippery slope potential? In part 1, we will discuss נידון על שם סופו. In part 2 (next week), we will discuss rodef.Sanhedrin 71b-72a, 73a Dr. Elana Stein Hain – dinanddaf@hadran.org.ilFor more Din and Daf: https://hadran.org.il/channel/din-daf/

(Airdate 2/20/25) On this podcast Dominique delves into Left Coast issues: the Republican gubernatorial candidate that belonged to a white supremacist organization, the judge who shot his wife, the punter who challenged the MAGA city council, a big day for reparations and more. All of the conversation calls for us to stop preemptively surrendering to the Trump agenda. https://www.instagram.com/diprimaradio/https://www.dominiquediprima.com/about/ https://kbla1580.com/

And the Beat Goes On.Based on a post by FinalStand, in 13 parts. Listen to the ► Podcast at Explicit Novels. Tuesday night, in the asphalt-covered rear loading area of the Wal-Mart there was a Redneck throw down. Buck Tooney was wasting no time in cementing his leadership position over the White portion of our High School. His job was made more difficult by Darius' ruthless efficiency in allowing no other organizations, no matter how informal, to challenge his dominion. That translated over to Buck having to bust more heads to bring the 'rednecks' all in line.If that worked out, the city-Whites would be next. The problem for everyone else was the High School had been a succession of autocratic tyrannies for so long, it was difficult for the students to successfully even balkanize, much less unify. Everyone assumed another 'Darius' would eventually arise to restore a brutal school order; as long as 'he' was Black.That meant Buck needed a Black figurehead to parade in front of the 'establishment' to get things done. So far, no such person existed. Rashaan not only had the mistaken impression he could resist Buck, he was the Chief of Police's son; so not a prime candidate to be a figurehead for a criminal like Buck. Therefore he had to get Rashaan out of the way; figuratively speaking.Another problem for Buck was the school already had an existing Black criminal element. Darius had not been a part of it, but like so many other aspects of school society, when he told the leaders of the school subcultures to do something, or not to do something, he expected compliance. If not; pain would definitely follow. These characters weren't going to easily knuckle under to Buck Tooney though. After all, he'd been Darius' brother's 'boy', not the other way around.If anyone seriously thought Buck had returned to High School to be the Black Man's Bitch (again), they were clearly high, brain damaged, and/or delusional. I wouldn't have put money on who could have taken who in a Buck vs. Darius brawl; except Darius wouldn't have been lured into that kind of fight.Absent Darius, the school's Black community only had two confederates with sufficient intellect and charisma to lead the forces on that side of the racial divide. Sadly for the disciples of the Almighty BBC, both were women. Not only was Taliyah's mom the Mayor, she herself was co-Captain of one of the establishment's most recognized bodies; the Cheer Squad.The other was Jewel 'C. S.' Lafontanté. She was more infamous than famous, intelligent, un-aligned with any club, or activity, which awarded accolades, yet was overly endowed with a host of natural abilities as well as learned skills and talents. And, unlike Taliyah,; absent Darius; she felt the top spot was hers for the taking from the get go.Step one had been to sit at the feet of her mother and father, taking their counsel on the principles of asymmetric warfare, transforming weaknesses into strengths and how to locate, isolate and exploit the weaknesses of her enemies. Step two was accomplished Tuesday night when she and the rest of the Zulu Princess Posse jettisoned their boyfriends. From here on out, the ladies would be taking whatever cock they wanted. The times; they were a-changing.I had two more imminent problems with my life. The first was Riley Pasternak, Mayor Malik's aide and a woman I'd put my cock into; without my Mother's permission. By the way she kept licking absolutely everything off her fingertips at dinner Tuesday night while staring at me, I was sure she was expecting another performance.Before I could worry about how to finally put the brakes on my out of control sex drive, we had a caller at the gate; for me. It was Randi Leigh Upshaw. That was more than a tad unexpected. I'd stuck my cock in her, so I felt obliged to provide hospitality now that she came calling, but promised myself 'no sex'. We met on the porch.‘Hey, Vlad,' Randi Leigh appeared distracted and a bit distraught and couldn't meet my gaze.‘Hello, Randi Leigh. Care to sit down?' I motioned toward the porch swing.‘Sure,' she walked that way. It wasn't all that cold, she was in a team jacket, yet she still felt the need to wrap herself in her arms.‘What's going on?' I said once we'd taken our seats and swung back and forth twice.‘I; do you like Brandy?' she turned on me, putting a both her hands on my right forearm.‘Yes, I do,' I nodded. ‘Very much.'‘I can make you happier than she can,' bubbled forth from her lips.'What gives you that idea', seemed inappropriate so; ‘I thought you were happy with Rashaan,' was my second, and apparently equally bad, choice. Her look said it all: Rashaan wasn't getting the job done in a fundamental way.‘He's nothing like you,' she purred with the understated passion of an addict needing fix; me being the drug.‘Vlad, what is going on out here?' Mom called out. With Mom's propensity to sneak up on things like a Martian and listen in on conversations, this had to be a clue about something more. We both hopped out of the swing.‘This is Randi Leigh Upshaw. She's a; ah friend of Brandy and on the Cheer Squad. She's dating Rashaan Quinterre now.'‘Nice to meet you,' Mom was full with the feigned politeness, ‘Randi Leigh. I need a moment of Vlad's time, then I'll give him back.'She pulled me aside and back down the walk around porch until we were out of earshot then;‘Care to explain?'So I did; everything from the encounter in the Parking Lot to the Music Room banter, her going off in an epileptic seizure and ending with her here; now. Mom put her hand to her chin as she lowered her head slightly. Her far-off look dictated she wanted a few moments to think things through.‘With some girls; it goes straight to the brain like some allergic reaction,' she related. ‘In 1898, one of your ancestors was felled by a delirium and was cared for in a cat house in Dawson City. Three 'Ladies of the Evening' quickly fell to fighting over him and concluding with two fighting a duel with pistols in the middle of Front Street to decide who got 'their man'. Clearly some ladies can go a bit nuts over what your family has in your nut sack.'‘That's totally nu; crazy and unfair to poor Randi Leigh,' I frowned. I kicked at the planks on the porch for good measure.‘Didn't you just tell me she is gladly whoring herself out for Rashaan Quinterre? Do you think she's doing that for love?'‘What about Brandy? I don't want to cheat on her; any more than I've already cheated on her,' I muttered. Man, I sounded pathetic!‘Here's what you do,' my Mother stroked my cheek. ‘You tell Randi Leigh she had better become Brandy's #2 friend from here on out, or you won't have anything to do with her. You aren't going to cheat on Brandy, but Brandy might see a way to share you from time to time if she behaves. No more Big Black Cock for her though.'‘Okay,' I felt partially relieved. Now that I had a moment alone, I added, ‘What about Riley?'‘I got her.'‘You?'‘Yes. Me and your Da are going to take her to bed for some pulse-pounding, three-way action,' she grinned like an orca about to devour a baby seal.I had no idea Dad was so; kinky.‘Once I get your Da going, he's quite the animal,' Mom enlightened me. ‘I'll get me and Riley going in the bedroom. When he walks in, he'll protest; like he always does; then he'll come around and; ‘‘Enough, Mom,' I raised my hands. ‘Enough.'She laughed. I retreated to the semi-sanity of Randi Leigh who was waiting on me expectantly.‘Here are the rules,' I began ticking off my points, finger by finger.‘I'm Brandy's boyfriend. If you want to spend time with me you had better become Brandy's #2 best friend.'‘You don't sleep around with anyone else besides me and my brothers without clearing it with us first.'‘You don't pick fights with anyone unless you 'okay' it with myself, or my brothers first.'‘You break the rules three times and we never even talk with you; ever again.'That would have been the point I at which would have expected her to scoff at me at least, possibly slap me, or at least cry as a form of manipulation. Randi Leigh simply nodded. I walked her off the porch to her vehicle. We hugged, but didn't kiss. Afterwards I called Brandy and gave her the basics of what had gone down without explaining the toxic stew which lay behind it.I avoided my family the rest of the night; choosing to go to bed early instead. As I lay reclined on my back, staring out the tall window into the clear, highland night sky, I felt sick to my stomach. Slowly a revelation came to me. What my family had was definitely a curse, not a blessing because it was wed to a sense of conscience and responsibility.I had often thought about why Mom sought out Dad as the 'One' for her, but until that night, never really considered why he had chosen her to be his 'One'. Looking back, I realized it wouldn't have made sense until that point because I didn't have enough pieces of Mom's puzzle. I had the belief Dad sensed the intense pain within Mom's soul and nothing short of the grave, or what he had within him, could soothe her.By Mom's own admission, she was a Wild Child. She would have never settled down. Never had us kids. Never felt the love of a family if Dad hadn't decided to share his genetic curse with her. He'd loved her enough to become her lodestone; the center of her life and to take on all the pain such a position entailed.Everything I knew about my Dad suggested Mom was the Last type of woman he would have wanted to spend the rest of his life with. Dad liked his life calm, quiet and orderly. Mom was the polar opposite of those desires; impulsive, loud and chaotic. I didn't doubt his love for her in the slightest, yet my Father had sacrificed his dreams of tranquility to save my Mother.Why wasn't Mom furious with him over enslaving her to his cock; his magic sperm? She probably had been, once she figured out the family secret; for a short while. Then she realized the import his love had, saw the course her life was taking her down and what she obviously meant to him. But Mom being Mom; she still made him pay with her explosively eccentric behavior and her bizarre tutelage of his boys.And Dad had accepted it all as the price necessary to save my Mother's life; and that was that. Dad could have had any woman he wanted. Any Samsonov man could have. Why weren't we a clan of billionaires then? Why didn't we have oriental-style harems and dozens of mistresses on the side?Because we saw what we possessed as a curse; which we sometimes shared with truly crazy people to give them a real world focus for their lives so they wouldn't finally be consumed by their peculiar forms of madness. My hypothesis certainly fit what I knew about my kinfolk. I took that uneasy psychic compromise with me to my dreams.Wednesday.Wednesday morning, the storm clouds began to gather. The big news was Jewel Lafontanté had dumped Thomas 'Shaka' Sneed, Student Body President. Certain notorious Redneck troublemakers were either absent, or had shown up bruised and battered from last night's rumble with Buck's crew.That wasn't the only bruising going on. Rashaan had gone from one cheerleader to none, to two, to none once more; inside a week. The damage to both his ego and prestige was immense. Into the void stepped a rather brutal individual named Porter Walmsley, the Football Squad's Defensive Team Captain. While he was big, bad and Black, Taliyah and Brandy insisted his thick sausage was also very short; a definite deal-breaker when it came to BBC Mastery.Not to be outdone, Alonzo Hollingsworth, son of the richest (Black) man in Kingston made a play for Taliyah at lunch. He was long on talking solidarity while showing no solidarity with any of the other social 'front-runners'. Taliyah told him she'd 'think about it' in a blatant attempt to rile Mikhail. It didn't, which only soured her mood more.At practice, the Assistant Athletic Director (aka Coach Weasel, aka Coach George Wilcox), named Deon Manley Team Captain. He was (surprise, surprise) Black, in my position (Point Guard) and on record as performing sexual favors for the coach (letting the coach suck his cock).After practice, I got a message; via Brandy; that Jed Lee Earl wanted to talk with me and my brothers. She had to give me the 411. He was from one of Kingston's old White Rich families, led a clique of rich and 'almost rich' White kids and she thought he was gay. Most likely, with Buck on a rampage, he was looking for some 'muscle of his own,' she added with a giggle. I swatted her ass over that one.At least this time we avoided any name calling as we made our exit from school. Alexander was off to Ms. Blanchard's class. Mikhail took Kaja home on his KTM 690 Enduro R motorcycle without argument. I took Monique and Shaquille home (her house actually) with Vicky and Kaelyne tagging along. Brandy and Taliyah took Alondra and Noémie to their homes before the rendezvous at the Fonteneau mansion.The routine cycle resumed: homework, working out, showering, then a small amount of friend time before dinner. Unlike Tuesday, Mikhail was downright responsive to Taliyah; playful if not contrite. Taliyah countered by being friendly to Kaelyne and Vicky. I had my hands full with Brandy the entire time, so I was of no help.Vicky surprised us all by asking to learn a few wrestling and Sambo moves as we migrated to the backyard. I was 'nominated' to be her instructor. Things were complicated by her relative small size (5'2' / 157.5 cm) and mass (98 lbs. / 44.45 kg.). Figuring out all she really wanted to do was grab my cock, or nuts (both clothed) and pinch my nipples took all of thirty seconds.While tickling is not in your regularly accepted repertoire of wrestling moves, I had grown up with two brothers and plenty of young cousins. With my superior reach and strength, Vicky never stood a chance; so Kaelyne rushed in as well. When she proved unable to turn the tide (recall: I'm one of three; triplets), Brandy jumped me as well. This time I had the good sense to go down under their combined might, cry and beg for mercy.Thursday.With Brandy's acquiescence, if not outright permission, I gave Randi Leigh a blowjob opportunity before Home Room on Thursday. Mikhail was in the stall next to mine doing the exact same thing with Alondra. The difference was Alondra left with bounce in her stride and a smile on her face. Randi Leigh was fidgeting and uneasy.We missed Lunch Period, replacing it with a truncated orgy session which included Taliyah and Brandy plus Vantrice Kirby, Mia Ryker and Le 'Pearl' Yates. That left only Noémie Lucie Desdunes (in her case the middle name was a Creole thing) and Amber Lee Huffington, who were both in the B and T camp anyway. We could get them Saturday, or so the plotting went.The (Football) Coach and Principal decided since Friday was a 'home' game, we would have a 'memorial' service for Darius Pope; not that he had actually died, or anything; instead of the standard 'victory' party after the game. Apparently the Principal thought Brandy, as Darius' girlfriend, could help coordinate the function. Help as in work with the suddenly school-active Jewel Lafontanté.The other event was Hell Must Have Frozen Over and Satan had Klansmen shoveling coal like mad while he shivered in his igloo chateau; at least as far as the Kingston and Davis County social scene was concerned. The family of Gayle Fonteneau was invited to dinner at; the house of the Madam Mayor aka Dominique and Chinedu Malik.Her father had broken the hold the Fonteneau's had over the town which once bore their name; but now was Kingston, back in the late 1960's and early 70's, ushering an age of Black Supremacy into this burgh. It hadn't been an easy, or happy, transition either. Generations of Fonteneaus had treated the town as an extension of their own estate and hadn't welcomed the march of democratic progress.My Mom's rape, Uncle Theo's rampage of vengeance, and the resulting cover-up had severed the links between the Fonteneau Clan and the town of Kingston. That was the other, hidden, part of 'The Deal' which saw Uncle Theo going to a military school, not straight-out prison, for the punishment he'd visited on my mother's attackers.It could be argued Mom was now violating the 'corrupt' bargain between old Mayor Fox and Great Aunt Matilda. I also imagined neither ever thought their heirs would ever find 'common cause'. Both were now safely dead and if his daughter, Dominque, was bothered by this, she was doing the opposite of complaining.Had I realized how much Mom was sending Dominque's way, I would have been stunned. Had I realized how little of the Fonteneau fortune her support represented, I'd have cringed. The Fonteneau has been rife with eccentric, often wicked, geniuses for over two centuries.They'd invented and patented stuff, they swindled, robbed and stole from kinfolk, neighbors, towns, tribes, corporations and countries, and they invested that wealth with prescient ability. Unlike other famous American capitalists and industrialists, they hadn't felt obliged to build theater halls, university buildings, or jack-squat to remind the Rest Of The World how rich they'd become.No; they had miserly hoarded their wealth with one family member in each generation getting the lion's share along with the tacit understanding they took care of one another. That had equated to Great-Aunt Matilda being the inheritor in her generation, yet taking care of her sister's children as if they were her own.How much did 'we' have? Mom snorted and told me the Fonteneau never kept all their money in one place; in case something happened. Still, it wasn't like Uncle Cassius in that Indonesian prison didn't have his own 'resources' to keep him safe, or Uncle Theo kept evading prosecution based solely on his military training. Had either of those funds been traced back to our family, there could have been trouble; and those were just two examples of how Great-Aunt Matilda dispersed the family fortune.Anyway, I decided to bring Brandy along as my date/protective shielding. Mikhail laughingly suggested Alexander bring Ms. Blanchard. He suggested Vicky. I suggested Alondra. He scoffed. I suggested we'd need the distraction plus someone we could rely on to keep their mouth shut if something untoward happened (or, in Alondra's case, failed to understand the significance of).After 'dressing up', Mikhail and I had to double-back to school to pick up Brandy, Taliyah and Alondra for dinner. They, and about forty other students, had been shanghaied by Jewel into making the auditorium into a tribute to Darius Pope; odd since I imagined she despised the guy and rejoiced at his departure.‘Hey there,' Jewel greeted us as we entered the largely empty arena. ‘Vlad, is it? Mikhail?'Jewel was a tall (nearly 6 feet) woman with skin a soft shade of brown enhanced with coppery highlights. Currently her long, kinky black hair was worn braided with a mixture of beads and ribbons which 'clacked' when she moved. Her figure was dynamite, more a powerful Amazonian 'C' to Brandy's curvaceous 'D', but an ass just as scrumptious.Her lips were wide and her nose broad, but her most sensual quality, in my eyes, was her smoldering dark eyes; so dark they seemed totally devoid of an iris, yet keenly perceptive and subtly intelligent, surrounded by the longest, most natural-appearing eyelashes I'd ever witnessed.Today she was in a leather, electric blue mini-skirt, white knee socks and a long sleeved, skin-tight white shirt with the torso-sized images of a rampant phoenix and tiger facing one another on both front and back.‘Yes. Vladimir and Mikhail Samsonov, Ms. Lafontanté. A pleasure to meet you,' I stated since we'd never been formerly introduced. Likewise, I'd been raised a gentleman who waited for a lady to offer her hand to be shaken before a man shook it.She gave me an appraising, almost predatory, up-and-down gaze.‘Call me Jewel,' she extended me her hand.‘Vlad!' Brandy called out. Her someone must be trying to poach my Man sense must have gone off because I was definitely getting that sensation as her fingertips played across my fingers and palm before we shook hands. She had a confident, solid grip.‘Princess,' I was continuing to 'test drive' Brandy's pet name as I looked around Jewel.‘We are almost done,' Jewel shifted so as to interrupt my view (almost worked; but I was taller than she was).‘Let me help then,' I offered, even as I realized she hadn't let go of my hand yet.‘I'm planning on it,' she smirked, then released my hand and spun quickly around.‘Alright!' she addressed the room, the word accentuated with a sharp clap of her hands. ‘Let's finish getting those banners hung; Brandy?'Brandy was decidedly ignoring Jewel by throwing herself into my embrace and including an impressive, tongue-hungry lip-lock. 'Umm; tasty'. I kept her off the ground, so she decide to kick up both her legs until her heels almost touched her buttocks. When our mouths separated, she gave off a breathless giggle.‘Strawberry?' I questioned the flavor of her lip balm.‘Yes,' she grinned. With exaggerated slowness, Brandy turned to Jewel. ‘Almost done, Jefe?'‘So Jewel, I understand your regular cock wasn't getting the job done,' were the first words out of Mikhail's mouth; the Jackass! The assumption was he was referencing her dumping her last boyfriend; who was also here tonight.‘Mikhail!' Brandy gawked.‘Damn it, Mikhail,' I pivoted and glared at him.‘You auditioning for the job?' Jewel took a provocative pose. So much for the possibility of being offended. It was at times like this I didn't get women at all.‘I'm willing to put you in my rotation,' he bantered back courageously.‘What is mine, is mine. I don't share,' Jewel volleyed.‘You won't be the first Top Bitch I've had to deal with. Won't be the last,' he chuckled.‘Am I 'your type'?'‘Babe, you are hitting on all cylinders; you're smart, fierce, built like a true athlete; plus you think you are better than me,' he leered.‘I'm AM better than you, Samsonov.'‘By all means,' he took two steps her way. ‘Prove it.'‘Mikhail, we are here to retrieve our dates and go to dinner with our parents,' I reminded him. ‘Speaking of which; where are Taliyah and Alondra?'‘Which one of you is dating Alondra?' Jewel scoffed. With the way she said 'Alondra' she might as well have said 'The Chihuahua'. I put Brandy down.‘Alexander,' Brandy simmered. ‘They bonded over having a soul; unlike some people.' Gosh, that was awful feisty of Brandy. ‘Vlad, they went to get some colored light filters for the spotlights. They should be back soon.'‘Hey now,' I patted Brandy's ass. ‘Needless hostility isn't getting the work done.' I used that hand on the ass to press her against my hard-on to remind her of our primal connection.Her eyes flashed up, she gave me a salacious look, two hip wiggles, and then sauntered off to complete whatever project she was assigned. I tagged along because I both liked that ass and decided keeping close to her was my best bet to stay safe. Jewel directed Mikhail to help with something else. When Taliyah returned with Alondra and Misty Dawn in tow (along with several boxes of something), she immediately alerted to his distraction.She gave him no warning of her approach. Unfortunately for her, growing up triplets left us all a bit hyper-situationally aware and always ready for some rough and tumble, so Mikhail clued into the impending threat right before Taliyah repeated her Charlie Horse from Hell. Instead, he caught her blow, pulling her in and pinning one of her arms behind her back.‘Care to explain that?' Mikhail mused; 'that' being the incoming pain.‘I saw you scoping her out,' Taliyah sizzled.‘Well-duh,' he snorted, ‘but I wasn't touching, or anything.'‘You'd better not be.'‘Don't you have some work to do?' Jewel intervened.‘Yeah; if this Neanderthal would unhand me; ‘‘You going to take another swing at me?'‘You going to give me a reason to remind you to behave?' Taliyah snapped.‘Most likely,' my triplet shrugged then let her go.‘Come on Alondra,' Taliyah called over to the cheerleader. They went off to stack up the proper colored light filters by the various spot lights. The actual work would be done by the custodial staff sometime tomorrow.Soon enough we finished all our assignments. Jewel's No. 1 minion; a short, Sepia-complexioned, sharp-looking young lady named Dana Owens; checked off each completed item on her tablet as the group leaders reported to Jewel. She ran a very tight, almost scarily-so, regime. Notable absent were the student-athletes.Notably present was Jewel's ex-boyfriend, Shaka Sneed. He was handsome enough, chestnut-hued, slight acne-scarring along his cheeks with lighting-bolts cut on each side of his more-on-top, closer-cropped-on-the-side/back curly hair. He was right as 6' and broad enough in the chest and narrow enough in the hip to suggest he worked out once, or twice, a week, but his attempt to physically intimidate Mikhail was woefully ill-considered.His shiny, black tennis shoes, dark-grey slacks and black t-shirt were all top quality and tight enough to suggest he was 'aroused', but he was playing out of his league when comparing himself to any of us. Clearly not every BBC stud was packing a 10' Passion Piston inside his boxers and with all the hot chicks Jewel had assembled, it would have been pretty discernable it he'd had one.‘I don't like the way you were talking to Jewel,' he approached my brother as we were exiting the school.With so many polite replies to choose from and a proper dinner to get to; ‘What are you going to do about it?' we turned and regarded him.‘I; ah; ‘ Shaka stammered. Open, obvious defiance wasn't what he expected, despite some of the clear signs we Samsonovs weren't playing by the established rules.‘Listen up, Shaky,' Mikhail feigned annoyance, ‘I've got a dinner to go to. If all you are going to do is spit at me, I'm going to get to it. I'll catch up with you at lunch tomorrow and we'll settle Jewel's perceptions of your penile inadequacies then.'‘It is Shaka,' he insisted angrily.‘Whatever,' Mikhail shrugged.‘I'm going to inform Principal Jean-Georges of your threats,' Shaka pledged.‘What threats?' Mikhail gave a lopsided grin.‘You threatened to fight me at lunch tomorrow,' he looked left then right. We had quite a gathering. Since none of them looked ready to fight, it wasn't a problem.‘My exact words,' my triplet sounded bored, ‘we'll settle Jewel's perceptions of your penile inadequacies. Not once did I mention the words 'fight', punishment, or violence of any kind, Shaky.'‘It is Shaka!' he growled.‘It is Thomas,' Jewel announced in an amused tone. She'd been locking up.‘Shaky's real name is Thomas?' Mikhail's gaze settled on Jewel. ‘Why the fuck did he pick a shitty nickname like Shaky when he had a perfectly good name like Thomas to go by?'‘It Is Shaka; you pinhead!' Shaka shouted.‘Shaka? What kind of lame name is that?' Mikhail mocked him.‘It is Zulu, you dumbass cracker,' he glared.‘Why didn't you pick a more relevant name; like; Vlad, help me out here?' Mikhail's countenance lost all its humor.‘Like Agaja, Askia, Ewuare, or Samori?' I supplied some viable alternatives.‘Yeah; them. You know; West African war leaders you might have some relation to as opposed to a South African butcher who is as likely related to you as I am to Christopher Columbus, you dumbass nigger.'Silence.A White Boy had called a Black Man a 'nigger' and not just the 'n-word'.‘What did you call me?' Shaka puffed himself up.‘Whatever was the appropriate abusive racial insulting counter to 'cracker', pencil-dick,' Mikhail huffed.‘Say it.'‘Shaky.'‘You little bitch,' he said in a low voice.‘I promised we'd revisit your penile inadequacies at lunch tomorrow, Shaky, not now. If you are not going to 'jump', I've got a dinner to go to.'‘Chicken-shit.'‘I really don't have the time to go down the long list of all the things Jewel called you as she kicked you out of bed, Shaky; ‘ and then Shaka shoved him.‘That'll do, Pig. That'll do,' Mikhail chortled. He was getting ready to fight. We really didn't have the time to clean up this mess; I had no doubt Mikhail would destroy Shaka in ten seconds flat. The problem was we'd have to stick around and deal with the fallout which was time we didn't have.‘Enough,' Jewel intervened both verbally and vocally. She had two of her ladies backing her up. I had a firm hand on Mikhail's shoulder as a reminder we had to be elsewhere. ‘Shaka, I thought better of you,' she looked at her ex. ‘He's playing you.'‘You've been playing with him,' Shaka countered.‘Even if I was; which I was not (she wasn't?), I'm not your property, or your woman,' she sneered. ‘You are pathetic. I dumped you because I know I can do better.'Ouch! That was harsh.‘No; you can't,' Taliyah spoke up aka demarcating Mikhail. ‘Not while I'm standing.'‘Damn you, Jewel,' Shaka grabbed his former girl by the arm. ‘I; ‘And then she laid into him. I was pretty sure it was elbow to the solar plexus, a stomp on the instep and then an arm grab into judo flip, but head-over-heels Shaka went. I say 'pretty sure' because it was dusk and Jewel move freaky-fast. Shaka had been completely flipped over onto his back in that final, fluid move.Even though Jewel still had a painful hold of his wrist, it was clear Shaka was out of the fight. Any sane combatant would have stopped at that point. Not Jewel. Up came her foot and down came that heel on his crotch. Shaka hissed like a punctured Zeppelin. Every single guy who witnessed the blow recoiled instinctively in sympathetic agony as well. Not to be outdone though;‘I guess Shaka Zulu is now just another Bushman Brother,' Mikhail quipped jokingly.‘You are useless,' Taliyah began to drag him away.‘How is any of this my fault?' Mikhail laughed. ‘I didn't lay a hand on him.'‘You opened your fool-mouth,' she groused. She was dragging him off though.‘Alright everyone!' Jewel announced. ‘Time to go home.'Quickly enough there were only nine of us left standing there; Jewel, her six posse members, me and Brandy. Alondra had retreated with Taliyah and Mikhail. Shaka was still on the ground, hands cupping his tenderized privates.‘Yes?' Jewel tilted her head as she examined me.‘I'm hanging around to make sure Shaka makes it to his car okay.'‘I'll see to it.'‘I'll wait.'‘I said I'll see to it,' she reiterated as her eyes narrowed.‘Vlad, let's go,' Brandy tugged on my dress jacket.‘I heard you the first time, Ms. Lafontanté. You are also the one who put him in his current incapacitated condition, so I am going to stick around until I know he can take care of himself.'‘Do you think you can take me?' she shifted into a fighting stance; all subtle-like.‘I don't know. It isn't about me thinking I can beat you up. It is about not leaving any person at the mercy of those who would do them harm,' I explained coolly.‘Really?' she blinked.‘Really.'‘And if I tell you to get lost, or else?'I heard a car trunk shut rather gently; it was the 'click' of the lock engaging. Then came the crunch of the loose gravel on asphalt as my brother returned. Jewel's eyes shifted passed me, to him then back to me.‘You were stalling for time?'‘Pretty much,' I relaxed minutely.‘Here you go,' Mikhail handed me a padded, rattan practice broadsword. He had another broadsword plus a targe, a 20' diameter shield of Scottish origin).‘It is still seven on two odds.' from Jewel.‘We'll fight,' Brandy stated defensively.‘You and I ~' Taliyah directly addressed Jewel.‘Means nothing,' Jewel snorted. I could virtually see her work out the fight in her mind, going over and then discarding the various possibilities and resulting outcomes. Too many left her and hers with too many welts and bruises (rattan swords really sting) without a completely positive outcome.‘You don't even like him,' she motioned to the still moaning Shaka.‘That never matters,' Mikhail shrugged. ‘The moment you stomped on Shaky's peanuts, I knew Vlad wouldn't leave him here; at your mercy; so here we are.'‘Vlad?' Jewel searched my eyes for answers.‘Right is right and wrong is wrong,' I responded. ‘There is just and unjust punishment. You had every right to throw Mr. Sneed to the ground.'‘The heel to the groin was excessive,' I could hear myself channeling my Father. ‘At that point, he became a victim too. As my Brother said, I couldn't leave him at your mercy uncertain of your intentions.'‘So you do think you can take me,' she grinned like a Moray eel.‘I was really unsure until my Brother put this practice sword in my hand and returned to my side,' I related. ‘Even now, I'm not 100% positive. I've never witnessed your style of marital arts and you are certainly very good. Tha

President Joe Biden might give Liz Cheney and Dr. Fauci preemptive pardons, according to an interview the president gave to USA Today’s Susan Page.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Senior Legal Fellow at Heritage gives the basis for pardoning an individual. But pardoning an entire group of people? These are unprecedented actions my friends.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Gregg Jarrett joins Cats and Cosby to ask: Will Biden Preemptively Pardon Other Members of His Family? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Matt Bennett joins to discuss the most dangerous Trump appointments and the worrying signals of fear by MSNBC and others. Highlights / Lowlights Mona: The Iron Man of America's op-ed pages (David Von Drehle, WaPo) and Mona's contribution to the George Will tribute symposium, ‘Conservatism's Vital Champion.' The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America by Jeffrey Rosen Matt: The attempted Martial Law coup in South Korea (lowlight) and the response of South Korean politicians and citizens (highlight). Bill: The DOGE versus the NED by James Piereson (The New Criterion) Linda: Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth See the Same Enemies (Carlos Lozada, NYT) Damon: The killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and the perverse glee of some on the very online left. (Lowlights)

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe [DS]/[WEF] have been creating climate hoaxes for a long time, now the people see through it all. Trump fills more spots in his administration. Bitcoin hits 100,000. Trump taps the number 2 spot to the Treasury. Trump just moved the chess piece in place. The [DS] has been formulating plans to stop Trump before he is inaugurated and after. They have put up many barriers up and they are trying to protect themselves. Biden is looking to preemptively pardon the [DS] people. One problem with all of this, fraud vitiates everything. Plus the states can bring charges.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy   https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/1864625771475595611   Trump Taps Former Rep. Billy Long to Serve as IRS Commissioner President-elect Donald Trump announced that he had picked former Rep. Billy Long (R-MO) to serve as the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I    Since leaving Congress, Billy has worked as a Business and Tax advisor, helping Small Businesses navigate the complexities of complying with the IRS Rules and Regulations. I have known Billy since 2011 - He is an extremely hard worker, and respected by all, especially by those who know him in Congress. Taxpayers and the wonderful employees of the IRS will love having Billy at the helm. He is the consummate “people person,” well respected on both sides of the aisle. Source: breitbart.com   https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1864685415254643129  revenue hit 18%, the highest in 30+ years. Interest expense now exceeds government spending on R&D, infrastructure, and education COMBINED. Meanwhile, the national debt reached $35.95 TRILLION this week, a new all-time high. Something must change here. https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1864471249071595525   difference is even more staggering over a longer time period. Overnight returns have accounted for a massive 1090.2% since 1993. At the same time, the S&P 500 has increased by only 15.9% during trading hours. Overnight returns are incredibly important. Fed Chair Jerome Powell Is Correct: Bitcoin Is In Competition With Gold, Not The Dollar Powell said bitcoin is digital gold. “People use bitcoin as a speculative asset — it's like gold,” Powell said. “It's just like gold, only it's virtual, it's digital. People are not using it as a form of payment or as a store of value. It's highly volatile. It's not a competitor for the dollar, it's really a competitor for gold,” he added. While it sounds like he may have stumbled on his own words, saying no one uses bitcoin as a store of value when that is literally one of its most prominent use cases for it today  Source: bitcoinmagazine.com Trump picks economist Faulkender for No. 2 position at Treasury President-elect Trump announced economist Michael Faulkender as his pick for deputy secretary of the Treasury on Wednesday, the second-highest ranking position at the department. If confirmed, Faulkender would serve under Scott Bessent, Trump's nominee to be Treasury secretary. Source: thehill.com Michael Faulkender, who has served as Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury and is known for his academic work in finance, has expressed skepticism and criticism regarding some policies and actions of the Federal Reserve    Criticism of Monetary Policy: Inflation Concerns: Faulkender has been critical of the Federal Reserve's handling of inflation,

The Israel Defense Force over the weekend detected Hezbollah was preparing to launch another barrage of rockets at them from Lebanon so they preemptively fired on those launch positions. Israel says about one hundred war planes targeted thousands of launch sites with 90-percent of the launch sites in civilian areas. Hezbollah did trade fire but both sides did stop assaults as fears rose again of a broader war. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Trey Yingst, FOX's Foreign correspondent in Tel Aviv, Israel, about the back and forth strikes and the current state of negotiations. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Israel Defense Force over the weekend detected Hezbollah was preparing to launch another barrage of rockets at them from Lebanon so they preemptively fired on those launch positions. Israel says about one hundred war planes targeted thousands of launch sites with 90-percent of the launch sites in civilian areas. Hezbollah did trade fire but both sides did stop assaults as fears rose again of a broader war. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Trey Yingst, FOX's Foreign correspondent in Tel Aviv, Israel, about the back and forth strikes and the current state of negotiations. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Israel Defense Force over the weekend detected Hezbollah was preparing to launch another barrage of rockets at them from Lebanon so they preemptively fired on those launch positions. Israel says about one hundred war planes targeted thousands of launch sites with 90-percent of the launch sites in civilian areas. Hezbollah did trade fire but both sides did stop assaults as fears rose again of a broader war. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Trey Yingst, FOX's Foreign correspondent in Tel Aviv, Israel, about the back and forth strikes and the current state of negotiations. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

*** Share episode on X: https://tinyurl.com/bdd5bvp8 *** Early this morning, after detecting preparations by Hezbollah to launch a large-scale attack, Israel launched a powerful preemptive strike on southern Lebanon. Hours after these events took place, I was joined by Nadav Eyal and Ronen Bergman to make sense of what has taken place, and to discuss possible scenarios moving forward. Ronen Bergman is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine and Senior Correspondent for Military and Intelligence Affairs for Yedioth Ahronoth, an Israeli daily. Ronen recently won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on this war and the pre-war intelligence failures. Nadav Eyal is a columnist for Yediot. He has been covering Middle-Eastern and international politics for the last two decades for Israeli radio, print and television news.

*** Share episode on X: https://tinyurl.com/bdd5bvp8 *** Early this morning, after detecting preparations by Hezbollah to launch a large-scale attack, Israel launched a powerful preemptive strike on southern Lebanon. Hours after these events took place, I was joined by Nadav Eyal and Ronen Bergman to make sense of what has taken place, and to discuss […]

The Orange County Board of Supervisors are requesting money back from the Hand to Hand Relief Organization, a non-profit connected to Supervisor Andrew Do. A California legislature bill for new housing on the coast is being pulled by its author. New UC rules on protesting announced ahead of the arrival of students on campus. Plus, more. Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.com.Support the show: https://laist.com

Doug had a big bathroom painting weekend. The Pirates might be shutting down Paul Skenes. Dropping kids off at college. What's the Champagne townie situation? Jackson's Soviet Propaganda. The Cardinals situation is looking bleak. Audio of Dylan Carlson's walk-off yesterday. Preemptively congratulating Tommy Edman on his World Series MVP. Martial infidelity for the day game on Thursday. Why are none of our listeners happily married? Gatekeeping AirBnBs in Tuscaloosa. Mike Francesa isn't happy about Hawk Tuah throwing out the first pitch. The Cards had the Chaminade champions yesterday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Doug had a big bathroom painting weekend. The Pirates might be shutting down Paul Skenes. Dropping kids off at college. What's the Champagne townie situation? Jackson's Soviet Propaganda. The Cardinals situation is looking bleak. Audio of Dylan Carlson's walk-off yesterday. Preemptively congratulating Tommy Edman on his World Series MVP. Martial infidelity for the day game on Thursday. Why are none of our listeners happily married? Gatekeeping AirBnBs in Tuscaloosa. Mike Francesa isn't happy about Hawk Tuah throwing out the first pitch. The Cards had the Chaminade champions yesterday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How poor emotional regulation skills we normalise in society affect career, sports and relationships.

The time the AP fell for an April Fool’s Day Story. Was KING 5 and Almost Live Told to Destroy the Tapes of the Space Needle Collapse Prank? Niagara Falls preemptively issues a state of emergency for the day of the eclipse. The NCAA somehow missed measured the women’s 3-point line for the sweet 16.. And nobody noticed. President of Guyana destroys UK reporter over climate hypocrisy // More and more of Gen-z is opting for the alcohol free lifestyle… while still paying alcohol prices  “Now This” piece on Gen Z going sober // John Returns from College to Find His Parents Got Divorced… And moved without telling him

Anxiety can often feel like a relentless storm, clouding your thoughts and overwhelming your sense of calm. It's during these turbulent times that finding the right words can be akin to discovering a lifeline amidst the chaos.  To aid you in navigating these stormy waters, we've curated a list of 20 empowering phrases based on expert advice. These phrases are designed to validate your feelings, soothe your inner critic, fill you with encouragement, and help you respond proactively to anxiety. Here's how you can incorporate them into your life to foster resilience, kindness, and self-compassion. VALIDATE THE DIFFICULTY "This is hard, and it's okay that it's hard for me." Acknowledge the challenge without judgment. "I'm doing the best I can in this moment." Remind yourself of your effort and resilience. "My feelings are valid and understandable." Affirm the legitimacy of your emotions. "I am human, and having a difficult day is okay." Normalize the ups and downs of human experience. "I give myself permission to feel this while being kind to myself." Embrace your feelings with compassion. SOOTHE THE CRITICAL VOICE "This is not my fault." Release unwarranted guilt and blame. "It's okay that I'm not perfect." Celebrate your humanity and imperfections. "It's okay to make mistakes." View errors as opportunities for growth. "My challenges do not define my worth." Separate your worth from your struggles. "May I be gentle with myself as I navigate this difficult season?" Practice self-compassion and kindness. FILL YOURSELF WITH ENCOURAGEMENT "It's a beautiful day to do hard things." Empower yourself to face challenges. "I can tolerate this discomfort." Recognize your strength and resilience. "This anxiety or discomfort will not hurt me." Acknowledge your capacity to withstand anxiety. "Humans are innately resilient." Remind yourself of your inherent ability to overcome adversity. "I am more than my worst days." Focus on the breadth of your life's narrative. GET CLEAR ON YOUR RESPONSE TO ANXIETY "I REFUSE to lead a life based on fear." Commit to acting on your values. "I choose to speak to myself with understanding and patience." Cultivate a compassionate inner dialogue. "I have already chosen how I'm going to respond, and now I'm going to honor that decision." Preemptively decide on positive actions. "I will treat myself with the same kindness that I offer others." Extend your empathy inward. "I'm going to honor my journey and respect my own pace." Accept your unique path and timing. BONUS PHRASE FOR CONTINUOUS SUPPORT "We are just going to take one step at a time." Focus on the present moment to manage overwhelm. These phrases, thoughtfully designed to address different facets of anxiety, are tools at your disposal. Use them to navigate through moments of anxiety, to remind yourself of your strength, and to cultivate a kinder relationship with yourself. Remember, it's not about employing all of them at once but finding the ones that resonate most with you. Anxiety is a complex and deeply personal experience, and thus, your approach to managing it should be equally personalized. Let these phrases be your guide as you continue on your journey toward a more peaceful and empowered state of being. TRANSCRIPTION:  Here are 20 phrases to use when you are anxious. Now I get it, when you're anxious, sometimes it's so hard to concentrate. It's so hard to know where you're going, what you want to do, and it's so easy just to focus on anxiety and get totally stuck in the tunnel vision of anxiety or feel completely overwhelmed by it.  Today, I want to offer you 20 phrases that you can use when you're feeling anxious or experiencing OCD. These are yours to try on and see if you like them. You don't have to use all of them. They're here for you to use as you wish, and hopefully, they're incredibly helpful. All right, my loves, let's talk about the 20 phrases you can use when you're feeling anxious. Now, I have prepared these in four different steps. You can actually go through and pick one or several of these and go through these, write them down, and have them in your pocket or in your wallet, or whatever you want, a sticky note on your fridge to use as you need. These are to help guide you towards a life where you lean into your fear. You treat yourself kindly. You encourage yourself. You champion the direction you want to go in. And my hope is that you can use these in many different scenarios, and they can help you get to the life that you want. Let's go and do it.  The first category is validate the difficulty. Most people, when they're anxious, they get caught up in this wrestle of, “I shouldn't have this. Why do I have it? It's not fair,” and I totally get it. But what we want to do is first validate the difficulty. If you can say that, and you can do that by using one of these five phrases: Number one, “This is hard, and it's okay that it's hard for me.” Again, let's say it together. “This is hard, and it's okay that it's hard for me.” The second phrase that I'm going to offer to you is, “I'm doing the best I can in this moment.” The truth is, you are doing the best you can with what you have and given the circumstances. I want you to remember that as best as you can as well.  Number three, “My feelings are valid and understandable.” If anybody else was in this exact situation, they'd probably be thinking, feeling, and acting in the same way. The fourth one is, “I am human, and having a difficult day is okay.” Not only is it okay, it's normal. Humans have difficult days. This is a total normal part about being human. You might be having an immense amount of anxiety, but please do remember the millions of other human beings around the globe who are having a very similar experience to you. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you.  And then the fifth way I want you to validate the difficulty is to say, “I give myself permission to feel this while being kind to myself.” Remember I said “while.” I give myself permission to feel this way while being still kind to myself.  Let's move on to the second category, which is soothing the critical voice. I know when we have anxiety, we can be really, really hard on ourselves. The phrase I want you to practice or trial is, number one, “This is not my fault.” And it's not your fault. You did not ask for this. You can't stop the fact that your brain sometimes gets hijacked and throws a bunch of anxiety or thoughts, or feelings towards your urges. It is not your fault.  The second one is, “It's okay that I'm not perfect.” Nobody is. We want to remember that this is our first time being a human and we're not going to get it right the first time. It's okay that you're not perfect, nobody is.  You might also want to try the phrase, “It's okay to make mistakes.” That is how I learn and grow. Remember here of all the people who have succeeded in their recovery, or all the people who are succeeding in other areas of their life, they didn't get there because of easy, breezy times. They got there by making mistakes, and they'd keep going and they keep trying, and they'd go again and they go again and they learn and they grow. The next thing you may want to try on, and another phrase you can use is, “My challenges do not define my worth.” You're not either better or worse for having this anxiety. You're not less than or more than depending on whether you have a mental illness or not. Your worth is not something that's up for discussion, and it's not up for measurement. We all have equal worth. And this challenge that you're experiencing or this anxiety you're experiencing does not define your worth.  Now, the last one I want you to practice here, you can actually practice more from a meditation or a meditation practice, which is a practice of loving kindness. We could call it a metta meditation or a loving-kindness meditation. And the goal from this is to actually meditate on sending yourself loving kindness.  Now, if you're someone who wants to learn how to do this, we have an entire meditation vault called the Meditation Vault, where I have created over 30 different meditations for people, specifically with anxiety, to help you practice meditation and learn how to practice loving kindness. You can go to CBTSchool.com to learn more about that. I would, again, need to spend a whole other episode talking to you about that. But if you want to practice the art of sending yourself loving kindness, you can go there to learn more.  But for right now, to finish out this category, what we want to do is practice one of those meditations, which is to offer yourself the phrase, “May I be gentle with myself as I navigate this difficult season?” What we are doing here is we're offering ourselves a promise per se of saying, “May I be gentle with myself?” In a true loving-kindness meditation, often what we do say is, “May I be happy? May I be well? May I live with ease?” And if you particularly like my voice and it feels very soothing to you, all of those meditations are there in the meditation vaul, and we go through that extensively.  The next section is to fill yourself up with encouragement. Now, when we are anxious, it's easy to feel very discouraged and just want to run away and change every part of our plans for the day. But what we want to do is we want to fill yourself up with encouragement. Here are some phrases that you can use to help with that goal.  Number one, you know I'm always going to say this, “It's a beautiful day to do hard things.” We can do hard things. We have to keep repeating this to ourselves. You may even want to add some sass to it and add a little swear word. A lot of my patients have said, “It's a beautiful day to blank hard things.” Now that's okay too. You can sass it up, whatever feels most empowering to you.  Another way you can fill yourself up with encouragement is to offer yourself the phrase, “I can tolerate this discomfort,” because you can, and you have, and you will. “I can tolerate this discomfort.” Another thing you can offer is, “This anxiety or this discomfort will not hurt me. I am stronger than I could ever know.” And the truth is, anxiety does not hurt you. It's uncomfortable, and it's painful. I understand that. But it won't hurt you. It won't damage you. It won't destroy you, that we're stronger than we could ever, ever believe we could be.  The next thing you may offer to yourself, and this is one that I particularly love, is that humans are innately resilient. They do most of their growing through hard things. And I've already mentioned this to you before. Most of the really successful people got there, not because it was easy and breezy; it's because we are resilient, and that's how we grow, and that's how we learn, that we can get through very, very difficult things. And then the last thing is, “I am more than my worst days.” That this might be a difficult day, but I am more than this difficult day. There's a bigger story here for me. This uncomfortable moment or this uncomfortable day is just a part of that story. But the bigger picture is that I am much more than these hard, difficult days.  And then the last category, which you have to also include, is to get very clear on how you are going to respond. This is where we get a little more firm with ourselves in the phrases. You will hear, I get a little sassy myself in this, and we get a little more decisive or confident. Even if you don't feel confident, we want to speak in this confident, assured way.  Number one is, “I REFUSE,” and I've written refuse in capital letters. “I REFUSE.” And I say this to myself, I want you to say this to yourself. “I REFUSE to lead a life based on fear.” I will move forward, acting on my values and my beliefs, and who I want to be. That's the first phrase. And we want to emphasize, “I refuse to act out on this fear.” The second is, “I choose to speak to myself with understanding and patience.” I'm choosing that because it's so easy to fall back into criticism and blame and humiliation and critical self-punishing words. I choose to speak to myself with understanding and patience.  Now, the third one involves you being very proactive. Now, I'll give you the phrase first, and then I'll explain it to you. The phrase is, “I have already chosen how I'm going to respond, and now I'm going to honor that decision.” What I want you to do, if you are someone with anxiety, is to create a plan ahead of time—to have a plan on how you are going to respond to anxiety.  Now, if this is difficult for you, we have two courses that I want you to rely on. Number one is Overcoming Anxiety and Panic, and the other one is ERP School. And that's for people with OCD and health anxiety. If you're someone who struggles with generalized anxiety or panic or OCD, you are going to need a plan ahead practice. You're going to need to know what fear and obsessions and thoughts and fear and all the things get you to do normally. And then you're going to have to be able to break that cycle with a specific plan on attack on how you're going to handle that. And we go through those steps in those two courses or any of our courses. We break it down so that you have a specific plan on how you're going to handle this, what you're going to do, what you're not going to do, how you're going to treat yourself, and so forth.  If you haven't got a therapist and you want to learn how to do that, head over to CBTSchool.com. Those courses, there is low cost as we could make them, and they're there for you to help you have a plan so that you can say to your anxiety when you're struggling, “I've already chosen how I wish to respond, and now I'm going to honor that decision. “ Now, the reason that I say that phrase that way is when you have a plan up ahead head, that's one part of it, but then you have to honor your plan. And what often happens is, when we have a plan and we don't honor that plan, that's often when we start to feel like we distrust ourselves. We feel like we've let ourselves down.  And so what we want to do is we want to make a plan, and then we want to choose to honor that plan. And by honoring the plan that you set out -- and I'm not going to tell you what that plan should be. The cost isn't going to tell you what you have to do. You get to decide that for yourself based on your own core values. But once you do that, and when you follow through by honoring that decision that you made ahead of time, that's when you start to trust yourself. That's when you start to really feel empowered. That's when you start to break that cycle of anxiety because you've stood firm on the ground on what your plan was and how you're going to show up.   I'll repeat it again. “I have already chosen how I want to respond, and now I'm going to honor that decision because I matter, and this is my life, and I want to follow through in the way I said I would.” Now, the fourth one is, “I will treat myself with the same kindness that I offer others in this situation.” Again, we're speaking firmly and kindly with conviction to ourselves. “I will treat myself with the same kindness that I would offer to others.”  And then the last one is, “I'm going to honor my journey and respect my own pace.” This doesn't have to be a straightforward, linear process. In fact, it won't be. And we have to honor our own journey and our own pace, because sometimes it takes longer for us than it does for others. And that's okay. We're going to honor our journey. We're going to respect our own pace.  And I will offer you a bonus phrase, which is, “We are just going to take one step at a time.” Just focus on one step at a time. Because if you're looking too far ahead, it will get overwhelming. You are handling a huge, huge discomfort. And so we want to be as gentle as we can. We want to honor our values. We want to lead with our values, not lead with fear. And my hope is one or many of these phrases will help you get there. I hope this has been helpful.  Again, I want to remind you, some of these won't land for you, and that's entirely okay. Just practice and try the ones that you feel will be helpful, and leave the rest. This is your journey. You get to choose it. I just hope that some of these skills and tools that we talk about on Your Anxiety Toolkit are helpful. And I hope you have a wonderful, wonderful day.

The Oklahoma City Thunder are five weeks away from the NBA Trade Deadline, and yet fans are preemptively made at the team, what can the OKC Thunder do at the NBA TRADE DEADLINE? Why does Davis Bertans not play? Will the Thunder make any changes to the rotation with Mark Daigneault? Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is set to age gracefully. Will Oklahoma City win a playoff series? Can the Thunder see Ousmane Dieng help out? 2024 NBA Draft prospects we like, a story about Thunder assistant Chip Engelland. Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors! Hungryroot Hungryroot is the easiest way to get fresh, high-quality food delivered to your door. They've got healthy groceries and simple recipes, all in one place. Just go to Hungryroot.com/LOCKEDON, to get 40% off your first delivery and get your free veggies.  BetterHelp This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Make your brain your friend, with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com/LOCKEDONNBA today to get 10% off your first month. LinkedIn LinkedIn Jobs helps you find the qualified candidates you want to talk to, faster. Post your job for free at LinkedIn.com/LOCKEDONNBA. Terms and conditions apply. PrizePicks Go to PrizePicks.com/lockedonnba and use code lockedonnba for a first deposit match up to $100! Gametime Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDON for $20 off your first purchase. FanDuel Score early this NFL season with FanDuel, America's Number One Sportsbook! Right now, NEW customers get ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS in BONUS BETS with any winning FIVE DOLLAR MONEYLINE BET! That's A HUNDRED AND FIFTY BUCKS – if your team wins! Visit FanDuel.com/LOCKEDON to get started. FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Oklahoma City Thunder are five weeks away from the NBA Trade Deadline, and yet fans are preemptively made at the team, what can the OKC Thunder do at the NBA TRADE DEADLINE? Why does Davis Bertans not play? Will the Thunder make any changes to the rotation with Mark Daigneault? Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is set to age gracefully. Will Oklahoma City win a playoff series? Can the Thunder see Ousmane Dieng help out? 2024 NBA Draft prospects we like, a story about Thunder assistant Chip Engelland.Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors!HungryrootHungryroot is the easiest way to get fresh, high-quality food delivered to your door. They've got healthy groceries and simple recipes, all in one place. Just go to Hungryroot.com/LOCKEDON, to get 40% off your first delivery and get your free veggies. BetterHelpThis episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Make your brain your friend, with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com/LOCKEDONNBA today to get 10% off your first month.LinkedInLinkedIn Jobs helps you find the qualified candidates you want to talk to, faster. Post your job for free at LinkedIn.com/LOCKEDONNBA. Terms and conditions apply.PrizePicksGo to PrizePicks.com/lockedonnba and use code lockedonnba for a first deposit match up to $100!GametimeDownload the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDON for $20 off your first purchase.FanDuelScore early this NFL season with FanDuel, America's Number One Sportsbook! Right now, NEW customers get ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS in BONUS BETS with any winning FIVE DOLLAR MONEYLINE BET! That's A HUNDRED AND FIFTY BUCKS – if your team wins! Visit FanDuel.com/LOCKEDON to get started.FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's been a momentous time for the Fediverse. New versions of Mammoth and Ivory launched. WordPress and Tumblr reaffirmed their commitment to integrating ActivityPub. And then both Threads and Flipboard rolled out their plans to federate.What does this all mean for the Fediverse? How will moderation work as the Fediverse grows in leaps and bounds? Who will be next to federate?Mastodon's founder and CEO Eugen Rochko goes deep with Flipboard CEO Mike McCue for a sprawling conversation that looks back on Mastodon's epic year, dissects the moment we're in today, and ponders a future filled with big changes and new ideas. More urgently, if you're following what's happening with Threads, it is essential listening for understanding Meta's strategy and how the Fediverse is responding. Highlights from this conversation include:0:51 Looking back on Mastodon's epic year3:22 Small team, big goals4:55 The arrival of Threads/Meta: pro or con?9:01 The way Mastodon/Fediverse is architected to provide a better social media experience11:24 The “big win” of Meta adopting an open standard12:10 The game-changing paradigm shift in how social media works17:30 Why Meta is committing to Threads — a significant moment for the social web18:10 Mastodon community's reaction to Threads' entry19:24 Preemptively building walls to block Threads: self-defeating?21:10 Tools and advice for instance owners on interoperating with Threads26:09 Gaining momentum: who will federate next?28:34 Bluesky 30:00 ActivityPub: the beauty of a generic protocol38:24 User experiences in the Fediverse41:06 “Embrace, extend, extinguish” and the XMPP comparison50:28 Funding Mastodon through Patreon donations53:10 U.S. nonprofit version of Mastodon and grant applications54:23 On outside contributions to Mastodon's code base57:42 Hopes and dreams for the future

I have a story to tell you about that bastion of free speech, Pacifica Radio's ailing Los Angeles station KPFK. They tried to hire me as Program Director a few years ago. I turned them down because it was a cluster fuck, among other reasons. A few months ago, the interim Program Director got in touch and offered me a weekly show. I agreed and was to begin this Friday, yes, in two days. This morning the interim General Manager called to tell me they "won't be moving forward" with it. Needless to say, I'm stunned and livid. I'll tell more during the show. Funny, today I have Jason Leopold scheduled to talk about his big FOIA scoop on the White House cocaine. We'll talk about that, but I'll also ask him to use his FOIA skills to call KPFK out on the bullshit excuse they gave me. Yes, this show will be raw. After all, it's online only and I know how to protect a license over the air. I've done it for over 40 years! So, strap in. Should be fun.

(2:50) TNF: Buccaneers at Bills(6:45) SUNDAY EARLY: Texans at Panthers(10:05) Rams at Cowboys(13:30) Vikings at Packers(17:10) Saints at Colts(19:20) Patriots at Dolphins(22:00) Jets at Giants(26:10) Jaguars at Steelers(29:50) Falcons at Titans(32:25) Eagles at Commanders(34:55) SUNDAY LATE: Browns at Seahawks(38:25) Ravens at Cardinals(40:45) Chiefs at Broncos(42:45) Bengals at 49ers(47:50) SNF: Bears at Chargers(52:00) MNF: Raiders at Lions(54:30) Best Bets & Folsom Prison Blues

(2:50) TNF: Buccaneers at Bills(6:45) SUNDAY EARLY: Texans at Panthers(10:05) Rams at Cowboys(13:30) Vikings at Packers(17:10) Saints at Colts(19:20) Patriots at Dolphins(22:00) Jets at Giants(26:10) Jaguars at Steelers(29:50) Falcons at Titans(32:25) Eagles at Commanders(34:55) SUNDAY LATE: Browns at Seahawks(38:25) Ravens at Cardinals(40:45) Chiefs at Broncos(42:45) Bengals at 49ers(47:50) SNF: Bears at Chargers(52:00) MNF: Raiders at Lions(54:30) Best Bets & Folsom Prison Blues

(2:50) TNF: Buccaneers at Bills(6:45) SUNDAY EARLY: Texans at Panthers(10:05) Rams at Cowboys(13:30) Vikings at Packers(17:10) Saints at Colts(19:20) Patriots at Dolphins(22:00) Jets at Giants(26:10) Jaguars at Steelers(29:50) Falcons at Titans(32:25) Eagles at Commanders(34:55) SUNDAY LATE: Browns at Seahawks(38:25) Ravens at Cardinals(40:45) Chiefs at Broncos(42:45) Bengals at 49ers(47:50) SNF: Bears at Chargers(52:00) MNF: Raiders at Lions(54:30) Best Bets & Folsom Prison Blues

(2:50) TNF: Buccaneers at Bills(6:45) SUNDAY EARLY: Texans at Panthers(10:05) Rams at Cowboys(13:30) Vikings at Packers(17:10) Saints at Colts(19:20) Patriots at Dolphins(22:00) Jets at Giants(26:10) Jaguars at Steelers(29:50) Falcons at Titans(32:25) Eagles at Commanders(34:55) SUNDAY LATE: Browns at Seahawks(38:25) Ravens at Cardinals(40:45) Chiefs at Broncos(42:45) Bengals at 49ers(47:50) SNF: Bears at Chargers(52:00) MNF: Raiders at Lions(54:30) Best Bets & Folsom Prison Blues

Today I answer a listener's question about whether or not I take kratom to preempt the need to take kratom? Please support this podcast with a small monthly donation here! https://anchor.fm/everything-kratom/support  !!! GET A DISCOUNT ON HAPPY HIPPO ORDERS: Visit https://happyhippoherbals.com/r?id=ul2k1j and use the coupon code EVERYTHINGKRATOM at check out!     !!! GET A DISCOUNT ON ORDERS from ETHA Natural Botanicals !!! Visit https://ethalivefully.com/discount/EVERYTHINGKRATOM?aff=243 and use the coupon code EVERYTHINGKRATOM at check out! Joining Honey Coupons for free here will also help this podcast! joinhoney.com/ref/4heawuq Available wherever you get your podcasts: YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUsCC1nBchi_xMX9wRyQ_nA Anchor - https://anchor.fm/everything-kratom Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/2fO3Xsx1BbNUs2rpXiQs3s Google Podcasts - https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy82OWUxMzZjNC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw== Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/everything-kratom/id1584592399 Pocket Casts - https://pca.st/mql8q14u RadioPublic - https://radiopublic.com/everything-kratom-WzkkBK Overcast - https://overcast.fm/itunes1584592399/everything-kratom Reason - https://reason.fm/podcast/everything-kratom?user=16e32b81-d623-4dcd-a000-623566fdc41a Website: https://everythingkratom279311648.wordpress.com Thank you all so much for listening!   --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/everything-kratom/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/everything-kratom/support

Le dirigeant nord coréen a réitéré son avertissement selon lequel Pyongyang pourrait utiliser de façon préventive ses armes nucléaires pour lutter contre des forces ennemies.Traduction:North Korean leader has repeated his warning that Pyongyang could "preemptively" use its nuclear weaponry to counter hostile forces. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Le dirigeant nord coréen a réitéré son avertissement selon lequel Pyongyang pourrait utiliser de façon préventive ses armes nucléaires pour lutter contre des forces ennemies. Traduction: North Korean leader has repeated his warning that Pyongyang could "preemptively" use its nuclear weaponry to counter hostile forces. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It used to be just the far right fighting against an income tax. Now that’s the Republican Party. On this show Matt Ford, staff writer for The New Republic explains a case the court soon may or may not take The post This Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban Wealth Tax appeared first on Keeping Democracy Alive.

Le dirigeant nord coréen a réitéré son avertissement selon lequel Pyongyang pourrait utiliser de façon préventive ses armes nucléaires pour lutter contre des forces ennemies.Traduction:North Korean leader has repeated his warning that Pyongyang could "preemptively" use its nuclear weaponry to counter hostile forces. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Le dirigeant nord coréen a réitéré son avertissement selon lequel Pyongyang pourrait utiliser de façon préventive ses armes nucléaires pour lutter contre des forces ennemies. Traduction: North Korean leader has repeated his warning that Pyongyang could "preemptively" use its nuclear weaponry to counter hostile forces. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Le dirigeant nord coréen a réitéré son avertissement selon lequel Pyongyang pourrait utiliser de façon préventive ses armes nucléaires pour lutter contre des forces ennemies. Traduction: North Korean leader has repeated his warning that Pyongyang could "preemptively" use its nuclear weaponry to counter hostile forces. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Le dirigeant nord coréen a réitéré son avertissement selon lequel Pyongyang pourrait utiliser de façon préventive ses armes nucléaires pour lutter contre des forces ennemies.Traduction:North Korean leader has repeated his warning that Pyongyang could "preemptively" use its nuclear weaponry to counter hostile forces. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: With over 93% of the vote counted, Democrat Katie Hobbs leads Republican Kari Lake—50.5% of the total to 49.5%. But the election was nearly one-week ago, why is Arizona still counting? How has chaos become an acceptable routine every election cycle? To suggest there needs to be alterations in the way votes are tabulated is not synonymous with claims of election fraud despite what many Democrats claim. While on CNN, Ana Navarro claimed that Governor Ron DeSantis “gamed the system” in Florida—why isn't she being accused of embracing election fraud? Assuming projections are correct, and Republicans take control of the House of Representatives, will there be investigations into Hunter Biden and the Biden family's business interactions with foreign corporations in China and Ukraine? Democrats are already condemning any Congressional investigation—aren't they being inconsistent considering how frequently they investigated Donald Trump and his administration? Will Kevin McCarthy be the next Speaker of the House? According to ABC's John Karl, McCarthy is no longer a “lock” to win speakership. Meanwhile, Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) warned that Republicans may select former President Donald Trump to serve as Speaker of the House—pointing out that the speaker does not necessarily need to be a member of Congress.

Podcast: The Lunar Society (LS 37 · TOP 2.5% )Episode: Bryan Caplan - Feminists, Billionaires, and DemagoguesRelease date: 2022-10-20It was a fantastic pleasure to welcome Bryan Caplan back for a third time on the podcast! His most recent book is Don't Be a Feminist: Essays on Genuine Justice.He explains why he thinks:* Feminists are mostly wrong,* We shouldn't overtax our centi-billionaires,* Decolonization should have emphasized human rights over democracy,* Eastern Europe shows that we could accept millions of refugees.Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.More really cool guests coming up; subscribe to find out about future episodes!You may also enjoy my interviews with Tyler Cowen (about talent, collapse, & pessimism of sex), Charles Mann (about the Americas before Columbus & scientific wizardry), and Steve Hsu (about intelligence and embryo selection).If you end up enjoying this episode, I would be super grateful if you share it, post it on Twitter, send it to your friends & group chats, and throw it up wherever else people might find it. Can't exaggerate how much it helps a small podcast like mine.A huge thanks to Graham Bessellieu for editing this podcast and Mia Aiyana for producing its transcript.Timestamps(00:12) - Don't Be a Feminist (16:53) - Western Feminism Ignores Infanticide(19:59) - Why The Universe Hates Women(32:02) - Women's Tears Have Too Much Power(46:37) - Bryan Performs Standup Comedy!(51:09) - Affirmative Action is Philanthropic Propaganda(54:12) - Peer-effects as the Only Real Education(58:46) - The Idiocy of Student Loan Forgiveness(1:08:49) - Why Society is Becoming Mentally Ill(1:11:49) - Open Borders & the Ultra-long Term(1:15:37) - Why Cowen's Talent Scouting Strategy is Ludicrous(1:22:11) - Surprising Immigration Victories(1:37:26) - The Most Successful Revolutions(1:55:34) - Anarcho-Capitalism is the Ultimate Government(1:57:00) - Billionaires Deserve their WealthTranscriptDwarkesh PatelToday, I have the great honor of interviewing Bryan Caplan again for the third time. Bryan, thanks so much for coming on the podcast. Bryan CaplanI've got the great honor of being interviewed by you, Dwarkesh. You're one of my favorite people in the world!Don't Be a FeministDwarkesh PatelIt's a greater pleasure every time (for me at least). So let's talk about your book, Don't Be a Feminist. Is there any margin of representation of women in leadership roles at which you think there should be introduced bias to make sure more women get in, even if the original ratio is not because of bias?Bryan CaplanNo, I believe in meritocracy. I think it is a good system. It is one that almost everyone sees the intuitive appeal of, and it works. Just looking at a group and saying, “We need to get more members of Group X,” is the wrong way to approach it. Rather, you need to be focusing on, “Let's try to figure out the best way of getting the top quality people here.”Dwarkesh PatelIf there's an astounding ratio of men in certain positions, could that potentially have an impact on the company's ability to do business well? Perhaps the company could just care about increasing the ratio for that reason alone. Bryan CaplanRight. I mean, one can imagine that! I think in our culture, it really goes the other way. People are more likely to be trying to get rid of men, despite the fact that the men are delivering value. If you really pushed me into starting to think, “Suppose you're running a bar, would you have ladies' night?” well yeah, I would have ladies' night in a bar because that actually works, and it's good business! However, if what you're doing is trying to actually get correct answers to things, if you're trying to go and make something run effectively, and if you're just trying to make progress and you're trying to learn new things, the thing to focus on is what actually leads to knowledge and not focusing on just trying to get demographic representation. I think what we've seen is once you go down that route, it is a slippery slope. So besides defending meritocracy on its merits, I would actually also say that the slippery slope argument is not one that should be dismissed lightly. There's a lot of evidence that it does actually fit the facts. When you make an exception of that kind, it really does lead you to bad places. Dwarkesh PatelOkay. But changing topics a bit, I wonder if this gives you greater sympathy for immigration restrictionists because their argument is similar, that there's no natural shelling point for your keyhole solutions where you let tens of millions of people in, but you don't give them welfare or voting rights. There's a slippery slope when you let them in because, eventually, the civil rights argument is going to extend to them. There'll be adverse consequences that these keyhole solutions can't solve for.Bryan CaplanFirst of all, I would say maybe. That is one of the best arguments against keyhole solutions. I'm also guessing that a lot of your listeners have no idea what keyhole solutions are, Dwarkesh, so maybe we want to back up and explain that. Dwarkesh PatelGo for it. Sure.Bryan CaplanSo I have a totally unrelated book called Open Borders, the Science and Ethics of Immigration. One of the chapters goes over ways of dealing with complaints about immigration that fall short of stopping people from actually excluding or kicking out people that are already there. So just to back up a little bit further, most of the book talks about complaints about immigration–– saying that they're either totally wrong or overstated. But then I have another chapter saying, “Alright, fine, maybe you don't agree with that, but isn't there another way that we could deal with this?” So, for example, if you're worried about immigrants voting poorly, you could say, “Fine, we won't extend voting rights to immigrants or make them wait for a longer time period.” That's one where I would just say that the focal point of citizen versus noncitizen is one of the strongest ones. So I think that it actually is one that has a lot of stability. This line of, “Well, you're not a citizen, therefore…” really does have a lot of intuitive appeal. Although, yes, I do think that keyhole solutions would probably not work multi-generationally, so to go and say this is a keyhole solution where you're not a citizen, your kids are not citizens, and their kids after them are not citizens, that's one that I think would be hard to maintain. However, again, at the same time, the problems people are worried about, if they ever were severe, are also getting diluted over time. So I wouldn't worry about it so much. That is one of the very best objections to keyhole solutions that I know of.Dwarkesh PatelOkay, so going back to feminism. Over time, doesn't feminism naturally become true? One of the things you can say is that the way that society is unfair to men includes how they fight in wars or do difficult and dangerous jobs, but society, over time, becomes more peaceful (or at least has in our timeline), and the difficult jobs get automated. At the same time, the gains for people who are at the very peak of any discipline keep going up fairly, but the implication still is that if men are overrepresented there, even for biological reasons, then the relative gains that they get go up, right? So over time, feminism just becomes more true, not because society necessarily discriminated against women, but just because of the trends in technology. Bryan CaplanOnce again, I feel like we should just back up a little bit. What is feminism anyway, because if we don't know what that is, then it's very hard to talk about whether it's becoming more true over time. In my book, I begin with some popular dictionary definitions that just say feminism is the theory that women should be political, social, economic, and cultural equals of men. I say that this is a terrible definition, which violates normal usage. Why? Well, we actually have public opinion data on, first of all, whether people are or are not feminists, and second of all, what they believe about the political, social, economic, and cultural equality of women. And guess what? An overwhelming majority of people that say they are not feminists still agree with the equality of women in all those mentions, which really makes you realize that really can't be the definition of feminism. That would be like saying feminism is the theory that the sky is blue.Well, feminists do believe the sky is blue, but that isn't what distinguishes feminists from other people. So what distinguishes them? What I say is that the really distinguishing view of feminism is that society treats women less fairly than men. The view is that society treats women less fairly than men or treats men more fairly than women. This definition fits actual usage. It would be very strange for someone to say, “I'm a feminist, but I think that men get terrible treatment in our society, and women are treated like goddesses.” Then you say, “Well, then you're not really a feminist, are you?” That doesn't make sense. On the other hand, for someone to say, “I am not a feminist, but God, we treat women so terribly, we're awful.” That, again, just would not fit. So I'm not saying this is the one true definition, but rather that it is much closer to what people actually mean by feminism than what dictionaries say. So to be fair, every now and then, there'll be a better definition. I think the Wikipedia definition in the second sentence adds that it also has the view that women are treated very unfairly. Dwarkesh PatelIs another way of defining feminism just that we should raise the status of women? That's slightly different from the fairness issue because if you think of a feminist historian, maybe their contention is not that women were treated unfairly in the past. Maybe they just want to raise the status of women in the past who are underrepresented. If you think of somebody today who wants to, let's say, raise the status of Asians in our society, and they want to acknowledge the great things that Asians are doing in our society, then maybe their contention is not even that Asians are treated unfairly. They just want to raise their status. So what would you think of that definition?Bryan CaplanSo first of all, it could be, but I don't think so. Here's what I think. There could be a few people like that, but that's not what the word means in normal use. If someone were to say, “Women are treated absolutely fantastically, way better than men, and I want it to get even higher.” You say, hmm. Well, that's not what I think. Somebody might say, “Well, I can still be a feminist and think that,” okay, but that's not what the word actually means. It's not the typical view of people who call themselves feminists. The typical view is precisely that women are treated very unfairly. They want to raise that and alleviate that in a way that's almost by definition. If you think that someone's being treated unfairly, then to say, “I think they're being really unfair, but I think it's great that it's unfair.” It's almost self-contradictory. Dwarkesh PatelI guess I was making a slightly different point, which is not even that these people don't want to raise the status (the actual living standards of women) in some way. It's just that they want to raise the rhetorical status.Bryan CaplanYes, but again, if someone were to say, “I think that women are treated absolutely fantastically in society, way better than men, who we treat like dogs. But I also want women's status to be even higher than it already is.” That would be something where you could argue that “Well, that person may still be a feminist, but that is not what the word means.” Because hardly anyone who calls themselves a feminist believes that weird thing that you're talking about. Dwarkesh PatelLet me make an analogy. Let's say you or I are libertarians, right? And then we think we should raise the status of billionaires. Now, it's not like we think society mistreats billionaires. They're pretty fine, but we think their status should be even higher.Bryan CaplanYeah, I mean, this just goes to the definition. In order to find out whether a definition is correct, you just have to think, “Well, how is the word commonly used?” Logically speaking, it's possible to have a different view or two things that are compatible. The whole idea of a definition is that, ideally, you're trying to find necessary and sufficient conditions such that everybody who satisfies the conditions falls under the category and that everybody who doesn't satisfy the conditions doesn't. In ordinary language, of course, it's notoriously hard to really do that. Defining a table is actually quite difficult in a necessary and sufficient-condition sense, but we can still say, “Well, a table is not by definition something that people sit on, right?” Someone could say, “Well, I suppose you could sit on a table, but that's not the definition in ordinary use in any language of which I'm aware.”But why don't we actually go back to your real question. Which was..Dwarkesh PatelOverall, the left tail of society is being compressed, and the right tail is being expanded. Does feminism become more true over time?Bryan CaplanThe answer is that we really need to look at all of the main measures to get an idea of this. With some of the ones that you're talking about, it does make more sense. As jobs become less physically dangerous, then at least you might say that things are less unfair to men. Although in the book, what I say is that even that is a bit more superficially complicated, at least on the surface. The immediate reaction is that society's less fair to men because they do the most dangerous jobs. Although I also say, “Yeah, but they get monetary compensation for that.” So, all things considered, you probably shouldn't think of it as unfair. It's something where it's reasonable to say, “Hey, wait a second, how come men are the ones that are enduring 90 percent of the workplace deaths” and say, “Well, because they're getting 90 percent of the combat pay.” Broadly construed it's not mostly actual for combat. So anyway, that's one area where you should be careful. But I can see the possibility there. I do have a section in the book where I go over what's happening over time. What I'll say is, well, one big thing that's happened over time is that people have become very hyper-concerned with the mistreatment of women, which means that feminism is becoming less true as a result because when people are really hyper-concerned that they might be unfair to someone, they are even less likely to be unfair to them. So I think that's one thing where society where feminisms become less true over time. Another area that I talk about and which I think really does tip the scales, although again, you really need to go through the book because I do try to work through a lot of different margins…I think the one that really does settle it against feminism in today's age is precisely the level of false feminist accusations about unfairness. When we go over all the objective measures, then you say, well, it's close to a wash in terms of which gender is treated more or less fairly overall. But then you realize, “Yes, but there's one gender that has to endure a whole lot of grossly exaggerated hyperbolic accusations and unfairness and another gender that gets to make those accusations.” The gender that has to endure the unfair accusations is men, and the gender that gets to make them is women. Obviously, not all women make them, and not all men receive them. But still, if we're talking about the average fairness of the treatment of men and women or society, I say that this climate of false accusation and intimidation is what really tips it. It didn't have to be this way, Dwarkesh! [laughs] We could have just had conditions change without a whole lot of flinging of wildly inaccurate accusations, but that's not the world we're in. Dwarkesh PatelWhen would you say was the flipping point? Was there a particular decade that you thought “unbalanced things are equal now?”Bryan CaplanYeah. So one of the things I say in the book is that there are a bunch of ways where you can say that women were treated less fairly in earlier decades, but there are aspects that are probably more important overall where women are treated worse now. The main one is paternal support for children. In 1940, the odds that you could count on the biological father of your children to help you to raise them was maybe 90%. Now it's probably more like 60%, 70%. So that's one of the main ways that I say that women probably are treated less fairly than men. And the unfairness has gotten worse over time. Again, just understand this is not the kind of book that most people are used to where someone argues like a lawyer and they just say, look, I've got 20 arguments for why I'm right. And everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is the kind of book that I liked to write where I really say, let's just calm down and just go through every issue separately, weigh each one on its merits. There are a bunch of points where someone could say, “Why do you concede that? That makes your argument weaker.” Well, I concede it because it's true! Then in the end, I have my overall judgment. I will just say that there are a number of books that are written in this terrible modern style of lawyerly reasoning, where you basically have a thesis that you just try to defend in every possible way. I don't write books like that. I try to write books that are honest and self-reflective, and where if there's some weakness in what I'm saying, I don't just acknowledge it if someone points it out; I try to be the first person to reveal it so that people feel like they can trust me. It's my own conscience. I don't feel right when I say something not really quite right. I feel like I should've always said the other thing. So I try to just write with candor. Dwarkesh PatelNow, would you say that feminism in the United States is overcorrected but that it's still true in the global sense? In the way that, on average, across the world, women are treated more unfairly than men. Because if that's the case, then if the US is at the center of global feminism, then, of course, they're going to overcorrect here, but overall they're making the world a better place. Bryan CaplanSo that is a much better argument. I would say that if we think about most areas of Europe, then I think that it's very similar to what's going on in the US. In the book, I do go over this especially. I start with Saudi Arabia, where it's really obvious what's going on and how poorly women are treated. But then I go over to India and China and just think about plausible rates of female infanticide. I think it is very likely that overall the treatment of women in India and China is more unfair than that of men. In Saudi Arabia, I'm almost sure that it is. In terms of “Is the US providing a useful corrective for the world while messing up things in the US?” It's possible. I think the problem is that it does discredit a lot of the reasonable points because the US just doesn't focus on the really big issues. The amount of time that American feminists spend on female infanticide in China and India… I don't think it would even be 1% of the rhetoric. It's just not something that they care about.So I would say that there's more harm being done by the sheer distraction of putting so much emphasis upon small, exaggerated, or reverse problems that bother feminists in the first world while ignoring and indirectly causing people to forget or neglect actual serious problems in some other countries. Positively shifting the Overton WindowWestern Feminism Ignores InfanticideDwarkesh PatelBut let me apply the argument you make in Open Borders that you can effect change by shifting the Overton window. So advocating for open borders just shifts immigration policy slightly towards the open end. Can American feminists make the same point that through making the crazy arguments they make in America, they're making Saudi Arabia more liberal for women? Bryan CaplanI would say that when the arguments are crazy, then it's not clear that shifting the Overton window actually happens. That may be where you discredit the other view. In particular, I think what I say in that part of the book is that people generally confuse being radical with being unfriendly. And most of the harm that is done to radical causes is due to the unfriendliness rather than the radicalism. So in that case, I would say that feminism has a definite friendliness problem. It is not a movement that goes out of its way to go and make other people feel like they are respected, where even if you disagree with me, I want to be your friend and listen to what you have to say, and maybe we could go and come to some understanding. I think it is a movement where the main emotional tenure of the elites is, “We are totally right, and anyone who disagrees had better watch out.” So I think that there is a discrediting of it. The other thing is just that I think there's too much cultural separation between the feminist movement as we know it and places like China and India, where I just don't see the attitude of being really angry about exaggerated or false complaints about unfair treatment of women in the United States is going to do anything for infanticide in India. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dwarkesh. Do you see much influence of Western feminism on infanticide in India?Dwarkesh PatelI don't know, but maybe yes. More generally, one of the common arguments that libertarians make about India and its elites is, “Oh, all of India's elites go study in Oxford or something, and they learn about the regulations the West is adopting that make no sense for a country with $2,000 GDP per capita.” I feel like some of the things could be true of feminism where all these Indian elites go to American universities and UK universities where they learn about radical feminism, and they go back, and they adopt some of these things.Bryan CaplanYes, although you might remember what Alex Tabarrok says about these very things. You can go to India and have people pushing paper straws on you, and yet the streets are still totally covered in trash. In fact, the pushing of the paper straws probably actually distracts people from the much more serious problem of the horrible trash, right? Again, I don't know enough about India to speak with any confidence here, but if you go and learn radical feminism in Western universities, come back to India and start complaining about how we need to have more female CEOs in a country where you have millions of female infanticides per year, I think it probably is like the paper straws problem where you are so focused on a trivial problem that maybe is not only a problem, is not even a problem at all. At the same time, that anger really blinds you to an actual, really serious problem that's going on. But you know India better than me, I could be wrong. Why The Universe Hates WomenDwarkesh PatelI believe rape within a marriage is still legal in India and is still not recognized. Maybe it was just recently changed. Let's say this is an interview, and a feminist says, “Oh my gosh, okay Bryan, maybe you're right that society as a whole doesn't mistreat women, but maybe the cosmos mistreats women.” So women are forced to have children. All of these things combined make women's lives worse on average than men's lives. It's not because society mistreats them, but in some sense, there's still unfairness geared toward women. What do you make of this argument?Bryan CaplanSo unfairness, where there's no human being that does it, seems like a very strange idea to me. Just from the get-go, well, so who was unfair to you? “The universe is unfair.” Then I mean, the correct term there is unfortunate, not unfair. So that aside, I would say it's a really interesting question. Who actually has better lives just as a matter of biological endowments, men or women? I mean, in terms of demonstrated preference, I think the overwhelming result is that most people just want to remain in whatever gender they're born in. So this is not actually transgenderism. This is like a genie wish. If you could change your gender just with a wish, costlessly, perfectly, I think a very large majority of people would still want to stay with whatever gender they have because it's part of their identity. It's some kind of endowment effect, status quo bias, or whatever. But then if you say, “Okay, yeah, right, fine. Like you, like you just want to stay whatever you were because that's your identity, but if you could put that aside, what would you want to be?” It's a tough question. You can say, “Well, women have a harder personality to deal with because of higher neuroticism, and they've also got higher agreeableness.” But that gives them some other advantages in terms of getting along with other people. For example, men's disagreeableness makes it hard for men to just bite their tongues and shut up when someone's saying something they don't like. I think that is easier for women to do. You may have noticed that having to shut up and bite your tongue while someone around you says something stupid you don't like is actually a big part of life. That is one thing. Now, in terms of things that I feel that I would get out of being a woman, just being able to have as many kids as I wanted would matter a lot to me. So I only have four kids right now. If it were totally up to me, I would have had more kids. I think, as a woman, it would have been easy to do. [laughs] So again, you know, there is the issue. How are you going to find a guy that wants to have a lot of kids? This is one where I've looked at the data on family size and what determines it. While both men and women seem to have a say on family size, it just looks like women's traits have a much larger effect. Men are more likely to say, “OK, fine, whatever. We'll do what you want to do on family size.” Whereas women seem to have much more pronounced preferences, which they then tend to get. I think that if I were a woman, I could have had more kids, and it would have been easier for me to do it. That would be something that matters to me. It's not something that matters to everybody, but that's something there. Again, there is just the nice fact of people caring about your suffering. In the book, I do talk about the ethos of women and children first, which is very pronounced. It's a modern society where we can simultaneously have something like “women and children first”, but then also have a lot of rhetoric about how people don't care about women. It's like, “Hmm, that's not right.”Dwarkesh PatelWhat do you think of this theory that maybe society cares a lot more about women suffering, but it sympathizes a lot more with men's success? If you think of a default character in a movie or a novel, at least for me, then the default is a man. Then maybe there's some victim that defaults as a woman. But I'd rather be the sympathy of some sort of success than get it for suffering.Bryan CaplanI mean, do you need sympathy for success? Or do you want admiration? I mean, I guess what I would say is that everybody's got suffering, and only a small share of people have any notable success. If all that you knew was you're going to be a man or woman, I would say, “Well, gee, if I'm a woman, then people will sympathize with my suffering, which is almost definitely coming because that's the human condition.” Whereas to have admiration for your success is something where it just affects a much smaller number of people. I know that hanging out in Austin among hyper-successful people may be biasing your sample a bit, but I do think it's believable that men get more unmitigated admiration for their success. Of course, there are also differences in the mating opportunities that you get for being a successful man versus a successful woman. So that is there too, but again, this is something that really is only relevant for a very small share of the population.But then the argument is, “Well, that small share of the population matters so much in terms of the story we tell ourselves about our civilization or just in terms of who controls more resources overall.” So if being a woman billionaire is harder, maybe for biological reasons, maybe for the reasons of our society, you can say, “Well, that only affects a small percentage of women in society.” But on the other hand, billionaires matter a lot.In terms of what life is like for most people, the main way they matter is that billionaires just provide awesome stuff. In terms of the stories that people tell, it's true that if you go and look at most classic movies or novels, the main characters are male. Even in cartoons, actually, the main characters traditionally have been male. But on the other hand, that's just fiction. In terms of daily life. I'd rather have people be really concerned about me in real life but have my perspective underrepresented stories than the other way around. Dwarkesh PatelSo what do you make of the argument that employers hold defects in women's personalities much more against them than they hold defects in men's personalities? I think Tyler cited some of this research in his new book on talent that being too agreeable or being too aggressive harms women more than it harms men. Bryan CaplanI would say that it's complicated in terms of willingness to fire. I think employers are much more willing to fire men. For defects and for insubordination. Another thing on the list is a small one, but I think that it is indicative of a broader trend. For people working at workplaces with dress codes, men are much more likely to be dinged on dress code violations than women because for men, there's a definite thing men are supposed to do. If you're not doing it, you are in violation. For women, on the other hand, it's like, “Well, gee, I mean, it seems kind of like that's not what you should be wearing, but I don't want to be the person that says anything about it. And who knows? Who am I to judge what a woman ought to be wearing on the job?”  But a man, on the other hand, needs to be wearing a suit in 110-degree weather. What was the high this summer over in Austin? [laughter] Dwarkesh PatelWhy do you think that women have gotten less happy since the sixties in America?Bryan CaplanRight. So the main thing I know about this is Stevenson and Wolfer's research on this. The main thing to remember is the magnitude. If I remember correctly, they find that in the sixties, women had about a two percentage point advantage relative to men in terms of their odds of saying they're very happy. 25% of men said they were very happy, then 27% of women in the sixties said that they were very happy. Whereas now, it seems like women have a two percentage point deficit relative to men. So now, if 25% of men say they're very happy, then 23% of women say they're very happy. It's always important in these papers to look at those magnitudes because the media coverage is going to say, “Oh, women are miserable now.” It's not that women are miserable now! We're talking about a two-percentage point difference. It's a data set large enough for this to actually be meaningful, but we do want to keep it in perspective in terms of what's really going on. The paper probably actually goes over a bunch of stories and says the obvious ones are all wrong. That would be what Justin Wolfersustin especially would normally do. I think he's usually right that simple stories about something like this are wrong. In terms of what I would pursue if I read through the paper and reminded myself of what they found and then said, “Okay, well, what will work?” I think I would, on one end, focus on single moms because they'll become much more common, and their lives really are hard. A rise in single motherhood is coming. I would guess that's one important part of it. Then, I would also be wondering how much of it is actual feminism telling women that they should be unhappy because the world is unfair and that causes unhappiness. Again, I'm not saying that these are right. It's plausible to me. The main thing I would say about feminism causing unhappiness in the adherents is that it probably doesn't matter most for most self-identified feminists because most people just are not that intellectual and they don't think about their ideas very often. So it's one thing to say, look, if you believe you're going to hell, you'll be unhappy. It's like, well, if you believe it once a year, does it make you unhappy? If you remember, “Oh yeah, once a year, I think I'm going to hell.” The rest of the time, you don't think it.On the other hand, the person who is always thinking, “I'm going to hell, I'm going to hell,” probably will be unhappy. So I think feminism is very likely to reduce the happiness of people who are feminist elites and take it really seriously, where they're talking about it all the time. That is likely to cause unhappiness. I'd be amazed if it didn't. But on the other hand, for the vast majority of people who say, “Yeah, I am a feminist. Moving on…” I don't think it's too likely to be messing up their lives. Dwarkesh PatelThat raises an interesting possibility. This is not my theory, but let's run with this. So feminism has actually gotten more true over time, but it's precisely because of feminism.  Maybe it's made elite women more unhappy. As you said earlier, the amount of single mothers has gone up. Maybe part of that is the reason, and part of that is because of feminist trends in terms of family formation. Maybe women prefer to be at home caring for children on average more, but then feminism encourages them to have careers, which makes them less happy. So if you add all these things up, plus mentorship, which men are less likely to give because of #metoo. So add all these things up, maybe they're the result of feminism, but they still make feminism more right. Would you agree with that?Bryan CaplanYeah. If we go back to this definition of feminism and this theory that our society treats women less fairly than men, then if the story is that women have made a lot of false accusations against men and then men have responded by changing their behavior, that would seem to be a strange example of saying the society is treating women less fairly than men. It would seem to be a case that society is treating men unfairly, and this is having some negative side effects for women as well. But it's one where if you really were trying to draw the line… Well actually, here's actually one of the weaknesses of the definition that I proposed. So foot binding in China. From my understanding, the main drivers of foot binding in China were women. So women are binding feet, and they're also telling their daughters they have to have their feet bound. Men seemed to care less, actually, it was more of an intra-female abuse. This is one where you could say that in China, women are treated less fairly than men, even though the perpetrators are women. I think that does actually make sense. I would just say that the definition that we use in our society isn't really calibrated to deal with that kind of thing. When it comes to what the right way to describe it would be, it just gets a bit confusing. It's useful just to say, all right, well, if women are mistreating women and that's what's making women's lives hard, how do we count that? I think I would just say that we don't have any really good way of counting it, and might be useful to just come up with a new word to describe this kind of thing. Women's Tears Have Too Much PowerDwarkesh PatelWhat do you make of Hanania's argument that women's tears win in the marketplace of ideas? Bryan CaplanYeah. So we might want to back up a little bit and explain what the argument is. So Richard Hanania on his substack has a very famous essay where he points out that in fiction, when there is a mob of angry college students, it's very demographically diverse. But when you look at actual footage, it seems like women are highly overrepresented. He generalizes this by saying that a lot of what's going on in terms of cancel culture and related problems is that women are the main ones that get angry about these things, and people don't know what to do about it. So he, if I remember correctly, says that a man can, in a way, actually enjoy an argument with another man. Even if you lose or even if it's a physical fight, he says, you can sort of feel invigorated by it. We got through this. We resolved something. Whereas no guy feels this way about an argument with his wife. “What do I need to do in order for this argument to end as soon as possible” would be a more normal reaction. This sort of generalizes to the majority of social arguments, specifically ones that involve someone being offended or angry, or hurt. He says a lot of what's going on is that it is mainly women that are presenting these complaints and that it's hard to deal with it because men don't want to argue with angry women. It just makes them feel bad. It's sort of a no-win situation. So anyway, that is Hanania's argument. Overall, it seemed pretty plausible to me. I haven't thought about it that much more, but it's one that does seem to make a fair bit of sense in terms of just what I'm writing about feminism. You know, one really striking thing is just how one-sided this conversation is. It is a conversation where women have complaints, and men mostly just listen in silence. Ofcourse, men will sometimes complain amongst each other when women aren't around. It's not a real dialogue where women have complaints about men, and then men are very eager to say, “Oh, but I have something I would like to say in rebuttal to that.” A lot of it is what he calls “women's tears.” It's sadness, but mingled with or supported by intimidation: “If you don't give me what I want, if you don't pretend that you agree with me, I will be very angry, and I will be fairly sad.” So you should be afraid. I think a lot of what's probably going on with the rhetorical dominance of feminism, is that people are just afraid to argue against it because, in a way, it does sort of violate the women and children first ethos. If women complain about something, you aren't supposed to go and say, “I disagree. Your complaints are unjustified.” You're supposed to say, “Look, what can I do to make it better?” Dwarkesh PatelBut that seems like a good description of race issues and class issues as well. Bryan CaplanI mean, the main difference there is that there are a lot of people who have a lot more firsthand experience of intergender relations, and they spend a lot more time in intergender relations than they spend in all of the other ones. So I mean, the dynamic is probably pretty similar, but in terms of the really negative firsthand experience that men have, Hanania probably is right about that. Then that generalizes to bigger issues. Dwarkesh PatelYou have an essay about endogenous sexism. Could this just not be the cause of society being unfair to a woman? We start off with men being in power, they get sexist just because they're around other men and they like them more. So then, the starting position matters a lot, even if men aren't trying to be sexist. Bryan CaplanSo let me just back up and explain the argument. The argument says to imagine that in reality, men and women are equally good in absolutely every way, but people are more likely to have close friends with their own gender, (which is totally true). So if I remember the essay, I think that for close male friends, the male-to-female ratio was 6:1, and for women, it was 4:1. So most people's close friends are of the same gender. When you meet these people, and they're your close friends, you know them really well. Furthermore, because you have handpicked them, you're going to think well of them. So then the question is, “What about people of the opposite gender? What will your interaction with them be like?” What I point out is that a lot of the opposite gender you hang out with will be the spouses and partners of your friends. On average, you're going to think worse of them because you didn't pick them. Basically, there are two filters there: I like you because you're my friend, and I put up with your partner because that person is your partner. So this means that the women that men are around are going to be the partners of their friends. They're not going to like them less and think less of them than they think of their friends. On the other hand, the partners of women's friends will be men, and women will get to know them and say, “Wow, they're not that great. They're at least kind of disappointing relative to my same-gender friends.” So anyway, this is an argument about how the illusion of your own gender being superior could arise. Now, as to whether this is actually the right story, I leave that open. This was just more of a thought experiment to understand what could happen here. Could this actually explain the unfair treatment of women in society? Especially if we start off with men being the gatekeepers for most of the business world? It's totally plausible that it could. That's why we really want to go to the data and see what we actually find. In the data I know of, the evidence of women earning less money than men while doing the same job is quite low. So there's very little gender disparity in earnings once you make the obvious statistical adjustments for being in the same occupation. Again, the main area that probably actually has gotten worse for women is mentoring. Mentoring is partly based on friendship. I like this person. I like working with them. So I will go and help them to go and acquire more human capital on the job. This is one that feminism has visibly messed up, and many feminists will, in a strange way, admit that they have done it while not taking responsibility for the harm. I've got an essay on that in the book as well.Looking at the evidence, it is totally standard now for male managers to admit that they are reluctant to mentor female employees because they're so worried. When I go and track down a bunch of feminist reactions to this, they basically just say, “I can't believe how horrible these guys are.” But it's like, look, you're asking them for a favor to get mentorship. They're scared. If someone's scared, do you really want to yell at them more and offer more mostly empty threats? It's really hard to scare someone into doing something this informal, so you really do need to win them over. Dwarkesh PatelTactically, that might be correct, but it seems to just be a matter of “Is their argument justified?” I can see why they'd be frustrated. Obviously, you want to point out when there's a sexual harassment allegation, and that may have the effect of less mentorship. Bryan CaplanWell, is it obvious that you want to point that out? Part of what I'm saying is that there are different perceptions here. There are differences of opinion. If you want to get along with people, a lot of it is saying, “How does it seem from the other person's point of view?” Obviously, do not assume that the most hypersensitive person is correct. So much of the problem with mentorship comes down to hypersensitivity. I've got another piece in the book where I talk about misunderstandings and how we have so much lost sight of this very possibility. When there's a conflict between two people, who's right and who's wrong? Ofcourse, it could be that one person is the conscious malefactor and the other person is an obvious victim that no one could deny. That does happen sometimes. But much more often in the real world, there's a misunderstanding where each person, because of the imperfection of the human mind, has the inability to go and get inside another person's head. To each person, it seems like they're in the right and the other person is in the wrong, and one of the most helpful ways for people to get along with each other is to realize that this is the norm. Most conflicts are caused by misunderstandings, not by deliberate wrongdoing. This is the way the people who keep their friends keep their friends. If any time there's a conflict with a friend, you assume that you're right and your friend is in the wrong, and you demand an immediate abject apology, you're going to be losing friends left and right. It is a foolish person who does that. Friendship is more important than any particular issue. This is not only my personal view, it is the advice that I give to everyone listening. Keep your friends, bend over backward in order to keep your friends, and realize that most conflicts are caused by misunderstandings. It's not the other person is going out of their way to hurt you. They probably don't see it that way. If you just insist, “I'm right, I demand a full apology and admission of your wrongdoing,” you're probably going to be losing friends, and that's a bad idea. The same thing I think is going on in workplaces where there is an ideology saying that we should take the side of the most hypersensitive person. This is not a good approach for human beings to get along with each other.Dwarkesh PatelYeah. That's very wise. What do you make the argument that a lot of these professions that are dominated by men are not intrinsically things that must appeal to men, but the way that they are taught or advertised is very conducive to what males find interesting? So take computer science, for example; there are claims that you could teach that or economics in a way that focuses on the implications on people from those practices rather than just focusing on the abstractions or the “thing-focused stuff.” So the argument is these things shouldn't be inherently interesting to men. It's just in the way they are taught. Bryan CaplanThe word inherently is so overused. It's one where you say, "Well, are you saying that inherently X?” Then someone says, “Well, not inherently X, just you'd have to bend over backward and move heaven and earth for it not to be. So I guess it's not really inherent.” That is a lot of what is worth pointing out. So if you're going to put the standard to that level, then it's going to be hard to find differences. You could say, “There's absolutely no way under the sun to go and teach math in a less male way.” On the other hand, maybe we should ask, “Is it reasonable to expect the whole world to revolve around making every subject equally appealing to men and women?” That's an unreasonable demand. If there's a subject like math that is male-dominated, the reasonable thing is to say, “Well, if you want to get in on that, you're going to need to go and become simpatico with the mindset of the people that are already there and then push the margin.” You can say that it's “so unfair that male ways of doing math are dominant.” Or maybe you could say that it's unfair for someone who's just shown up to demand that an entire discipline change its way of doing things to make you feel better about it. Obviously, there are large areas that are very female-dominated, and there's no pressure on women to go and change the way that flower arranging is done, or cooking in order to make it more welcoming to men.So this is one where if you had a really high bar for how things are fair, then unless the rigorous conditions are met, you're going to see a lot of unfairness in the world. Although even then, as long as you have an equally high bar for both men and women, I don't think it's going to make feminism any more true by my definition. I also just say, I think these really high bars are unreasonable. If a friend had these bars of standards saying, “Look, why is it that when we meet for food, we have to go and meet at standard hours of breakfast, lunch, and dinner? I actually like meeting in the middle of the night. Why can't we have half of the time be my way?” You respond, “Well yeah, but you're only one person, so why should I change?” It depends upon what subfield you're in as well. There are actually groups of people really like hanging out in the middle of the night, so if you ask, “Why is it we always have to meet in the middle of the night? Why can't we do it my way?” You are entering into a subculture that works this way. You could demand that we totally change our way of being to accommodate you, but it just seems like an unreasonable imposition on the people who are already here. Now, when you sort of go through the list of different things that people think of as making something a male or a not-male field, sometimes people will treat things like acting like there's an objectively correct answer as a male trait. If that's a male trait, then we need to keep that trait because that is vital to really any field where there are right and wrong answers. I mean, that's an area where I am very tempted rhetorically to say, “It's just so sexist to say that it's male to think that things are right and wrong. I think that is a trait of both genders”. In a way, I end the essay stating, “Yes, these are not male; not only do they not make a male monopoly, but they are also not uniquely male virtues. They are virtues that can and should be enjoyed by all human beings.” At the same time, you could ask whether virtues are equally represented by both genders and well, that's an empirical question. We have to look at that. Bryan Performs Standup Comedy!Dwarkesh PatelWe're shifting subjects. You recently performed at the Comedy Cellar. How was that experience? Bryan CaplanYeah, that was super fun and a big challenge! I am a professional public speaker. Standup comedy is professional public speaking. I was curious about how much transfer of learning there would be. How many of the things that I know as a regular public speaker can I take with me to do standup comedy? I'm also just a big fan of standup comedy– if you know me personally, I just find life constantly funny. Dwarkesh PatelYes, I can confirm that. You're a very pleasant person to be around. Bryan CaplanLife is funny to me. I like pointing out funny things. I like using my imagination. A lot of comedy is just imagination and saying, look, “Imagine that was the opposite way. What would that be like?” Well, actually, just to back up again: during COVID, I did just create a wiki of comedy ideas just on the idea that maybe one day I'll go and do standup comedy. Comedy Cellar actually has a podcast, kind of like Joe Rogan, where comedians go and talk about serious issues. I was invited to that, and as a result, I was able to talk my way into getting to perform on the actual live stage of the biggest comedy club in New York. The main thing I could say about my performance is that it was me and nine professional comedians, and I don't think I was obviously the worst person. So that felt pretty good.Dwarkesh PatelIt was a pretty good performance.Bryan CaplanI felt good about it! There were some main differences that I realized between the kind of public speaking I was used to doing and what I actually did there. One is the importance of memorizing the script. It just looks a lot worse if you're reading off a note. Normally I have some basic notes, and then I ad-lib. I don't memorize. The only time I have a script is if I have a very time-constrained debate, then I'd normally write an opening statement, but otherwise, I don't. The thing with comedy is it depends so heavily upon exact word choice. You could go and put the same sentence into Google Translate and then back-translate it and get another sentence that is synonymous but isn't funny at all. That was something that I was very mindful of. Then obviously, there are things like timing and being able to read an audience (which I'm more used to). That was what was so hard during COVID–– not being able to look at the faces of a live audience. I can see their eyes, but I can't tell their emotions or reactions to their eyes. I don't know whether I should talk more or less about something. I don't know whether they're angry or annoyed or curious or bored. So these are all things that I would normally be adjusting my talk for in normal public speaking. But with comedy, it's a bit hard to do. What successful comedians actually do is they try it in a bunch of different ways, and then they remember which ways work and which ones don't. Then they just keep tweaking it, so finally, when they do the Netflix special, they have basically done A/B testing on a hundred different audiences, and then it sounds great–– but the first time? Not that funny. Dwarkesh PatelIt didn't occur to me until you mentioned it, but it makes a lot of sense that there are transfers of learning there in both disciplines. There are a lot of hypotheticals, non-extra events, and putting things in strange situations to see what the result is…Bryan CaplanA lot of it is just not having stage fright. So I probably had just a tiny bit of stage fright at the Comedy Cellar, which normally I would have basically zero, but there it was a little bit different because it's like, “Am I going to forget something?” I actually have a joke in the set about how nothing is scarier than staying silent while thousands of people stare at you. So that was a self-referential joke that I worked in there.Dwarkesh PatelI can't remember if it was Robin Hanson who said this, but didn't he have a theory about how the reason we have stage fright is because somehow, you're showing dominance or status, and you don't want to do that if you're not actually the most confident. Bryan CaplanYou're making a bid for status. In the ancestral environment, we're in small groups of 20-40 people. If you go and want to speak, you're saying, “I'm one of the most important people in this band here.” If you're not, or if there are a lot of people voicing that that guy is not important, then who knows? They might shove you off the cliff the next time they get a chance. So yeah, watch out. Affirmative Action is Philanthropic PropagandaDwarkesh PatelI wonder if this explains the cringe emotion. When somebody makes a bid for status, and it's not deserved. Okay, I want to talk about discrimination. So as you know, there's a Supreme court case about Harvard and affirmative action. You might also know that a lot of companies have filed a brief in favor of Harvard, saying that affirmative action is necessary for them to hire diverse work for ourselves, including Apple, Lyft, General Motors. So what is the explanation for corporations wanting to extend affirmative action? Or are they just saying this, but they don't want it? Bryan CaplanIf those individual corporations could press a button that would immunize them from all employment lawsuits, I think they would press it. When you look at their behavior, they don't just give in whenever they get sued. They have a normal team of lawyers that try to minimize the damage to the company and pay as little as possible to make the problem go away. So I think really what's going on is public relations. They are trying to be on that team. As to whether it's public relations vis a vis their consumers or public relations vis a vis other people in the executive boardroom is an interesting question. I think these days, it probably is more of the latter. Although even under Reagan, there were a bunch of major corporations that did make a similar statement saying that they wanted affirmative action to continue. I think that the real story is that they want to get the status of saying, “we are really in favor of this. We love this stuff.” But at the same time, if it just went away, they wouldn't voluntarily adopt a policy where they give you a right to go and sue them for mistreatment.I think there would still be a lot of propaganda. I mean, here's the general thing. You think about this as a species of corporate philanthropy sticking your neck out in favor of a broad social cause. Some people disagree and say that it's self-interest. They say, “Look, the odds that even Apple is going to change the Supreme Court's mind is super low.” So I don't think it's that. Basically, what they're doing is a kind of philanthropy. What's the deal with corporate philanthropy? The deal with corporate philanthropy is you are trying to go and, first of all, make the public like you, but also, you're trying to look good and jockey for influence within your own company. One really striking thing about corporate philanthropy is when you look closer, normally, they spend way more resources marketing the philanthropy and letting everyone know, “Oh, we did all this philanthropy!” Then they actually spend on philanthropy. So I had a friend who was a marketing person in charge of publicizing her company's philanthropy. They gave away about a thousand dollars a year to the Girl Scouts, and she had a hundred thousand dollars salary telling everyone about how great they were for giving this money to the Girl Scouts. So I think that's the real story. Get maximally cynical. I think without denying the fact that there are true believers now in corporate boardrooms who are pushing it past the point of profitability. The cost of philanthropy is just the production budget of the TV commercial. A rounding error. The donations are a rounding error, and then they go, “Hey, everyone, look at us. We're so freaking philanthropic!” Peer effects as the Only Real EducationDwarkesh PatelOkay. So this question is one that Tyler actually suggested I ask you. So in The Myth of the Rational Voter, you say that education makes you more pro-free market. Now, this may have changed in the meantime, but let's just say that's still true. If you're not really learning anything, why is education making you more free market? Bryan CaplanIt's particularly striking that even people who don't seem to take any economics classes are involved. I think that the best story is about peer effects. When you go to college, you're around other peers who though not pro-market, are less anti-market than the general population. The thing about peer effects is that they really are a double-edged sword from a social point of view. Think about this. Right now, if you are one of the 1% of non-Mormons that goes to Brigham Young University, what do you think the odds are that you'll convert to Mormonism? Dwarkesh PatelHigher than normal. Bryan CaplanYeah. I don't know the numbers, but I think it's pretty high. But suppose that Brigham Young let in all the non-Mormons. What would Brigham Young do for conversion to Mormonism? Probably very little. Furthermore, you realize, “Huh, well, what if those Mormons at Brigham Young were dispersed among a bunch of other schools where they were that were a minority?” Seems quite plausible. They'd be making a lot more converts over there. So if you achieve your peer effects by segregation (which is literally what college does, it takes one part of society and segregates it from another part of society physically when you're in school, and then there's social segregation caused by the fact that people want to hang out with other people in their own social circles, your own education levels, etc.), in that case, in terms of whether or not education actually makes society overall pro-free market, I think it's totally unclear because, basically, when people go to college, they make each other more pro-free market. At the same time, they remove the possibility of influencing people of other social classes who don't go to college, who probably then influence each other and make each other less free market. I think that's the most plausible story.Dwarkesh PatelWhat about the argument that the people who go to elite universities are people who are going to control things? If you can engineer a situation in which the peer effects in some particular direction are very strong at Harvard (maybe because the upper class is very liberal or woke), they make the underclass even more woke, and then it's a reinforcing cycle after every generation of people who come into college. Then that still matters a lot, even though presumably somebody becomes more right-wing once they don't go to Harvard because there are no peers there. But it doesn't matter. They're not going to be an elite, or it doesn't matter as much. Bryan CaplanIt could be, although what we've seen is that we now just have very big gaps between elite opinion and mass opinion. Of course, it is a democracy. If you want to run for office, that is a reason to go and say, “Yeah, what is the actual common view here? Not just the view that is common among elites.” However, I will say that this is a topic that deserves a lot more study. Now the other thing to question is, “Wouldn't there be peer effects even without college?” If elites didn't go to college and instead they went and did elite apprenticeships at top corporations instead, I think you'd still wind up getting a very similar elite subculture. I think that this kind of social segregation is very natural in every human society. Of course, you can see it under communism very strongly where it's like, “I don't want my kid going and playing with a kid whose parents aren't in the communist party.” So every society has this kind of thing. Now, if you push the dynamics enough…. let's put it this way. If you were the prophet of the Mormon religion, what would be the very best thing for you to do to maximize the spread of Mormonism? It is not at all clear to me that trying to get all Mormons to go bring them young is a good strategy.Dwarkesh PatelI wonder if there are nonlinear dynamics to this. Bryan CaplanYeah. Well, there's gotta be, right? But as soon as you're talking about nonlinear dynamics, those are truly hard to understand. So I would just say to keep a much more open mind about this, and if anyone is listening and wants to do research on this, that sounds cool, I'll read it. Dwarkesh PatelRight. I remember you saying that one of the things you're trying to do with your books is influence the common view of elite opinion. So in that sense, there are elite subcultures in every society, but they're not the same elite subcultures, and therefore you might care very much about which particular subculture it is. Bryan CaplanNotice that that's one where I'm taking it as a given that we have the current segregation, and I'm going to try to go and take advantage of it. But if it were a question of if I could change the dial of what kind of segregation we have, then it's much less clear. The Idiocy of Student Loan Forgiveness Dwarkesh PatelStudent loan forgiveness. What is your reaction? Bryan CaplanOh, give me a freaking break. This is one subject where I think it's very hard to find almost any economist, no matter how left-wing and progressive, who really wants to stick their necks out and defend this garbage. Look, it's a regressive transfer. Why then? Why is it that someone who is left-wing or progressive would go and favor it? Maybe it's because people who have a lot of education and colleges are on our team, and we just want to go and help our team. Obviously, the forgiveness really means, “We're going to go and transfer the cost of this debt from the elites that actually ran up the bill to the general population.” Which includes, of course, a whole lot of people who did not go to college and did not get whatever premium that you got out of it. So there's that. In terms of efficiency, since the people have already gotten the education, you're not even “increasing the amount of education” if you really think that's good. The only margin that is really increasing education is how it's making people think, “Well, maybe there'll be another round of debt forgiveness later on, so I'll rack up more debt. The actual true price of education is less than it seems to be.” Although even there, you have to say, “Huh, well, but could people knowing this and the great willingness to borrow actually wind up increasing the ban for college and raising tuition further?” There's good evidence for that. Not 100%, but still a substantial degree.Again, just to back up–– that can be my catchphrase [laughter]. So I have a book called The Case Against Education, and my view is much more extreme than that of almost any normal economist who opposes student loan debt forgiveness. I think that the real problem with education is that we have way too much of it. Most of it is very socially wasteful. What we're doing with student loan forgiveness is we're basically going and transferring money to people who wasted a lot of social resources. The story that you are on the slippery slope to free college for all is, in a way, the best argument in favor of it. If you thought that free college for all was a good idea, then this puts us on th

President Biden is already blaming a future GOP-led Congress for next year's continued economic recession, caused by his policies.

It was a fantastic pleasure to welcome Bryan Caplan back for a third time on the podcast! His most recent book is Don't Be a Feminist: Essays on Genuine Justice.He explains why he thinks:* Feminists are mostly wrong,* We shouldn't overtax our centi-billionaires,* Decolonization should have emphasized human rights over democracy,* Eastern Europe shows that we could accept millions of refugees.Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.More really cool guests coming up; subscribe to find out about future episodes!You may also enjoy my interviews with Tyler Cowen (about talent, collapse, & pessimism of sex), Charles Mann (about the Americas before Columbus & scientific wizardry), and Steve Hsu (about intelligence and embryo selection).If you end up enjoying this episode, I would be super grateful if you share it, post it on Twitter, send it to your friends & group chats, and throw it up wherever else people might find it. Can't exaggerate how much it helps a small podcast like mine.A huge thanks to Graham Bessellieu for editing this podcast and Mia Aiyana for producing its transcript.Timestamps(00:12) - Don't Be a Feminist (16:53) - Western Feminism Ignores Infanticide(19:59) - Why The Universe Hates Women(32:02) - Women's Tears Have Too Much Power(46:37) - Bryan Performs Standup Comedy!(51:09) - Affirmative Action is Philanthropic Propaganda(54:12) - Peer-effects as the Only Real Education(58:46) - The Idiocy of Student Loan Forgiveness(1:08:49) - Why Society is Becoming Mentally Ill(1:11:49) - Open Borders & the Ultra-long Term(1:15:37) - Why Cowen's Talent Scouting Strategy is Ludicrous(1:22:11) - Surprising Immigration Victories(1:37:26) - The Most Successful Revolutions(1:55:34) - Anarcho-Capitalism is the Ultimate Government(1:57:00) - Billionaires Deserve their WealthTranscriptDwarkesh PatelToday, I have the great honor of interviewing Bryan Caplan again for the third time. Bryan, thanks so much for coming on the podcast. Bryan CaplanI've got the great honor of being interviewed by you, Dwarkesh. You're one of my favorite people in the world!Don't Be a FeministDwarkesh PatelIt's a greater pleasure every time (for me at least). So let's talk about your book, Don't Be a Feminist. Is there any margin of representation of women in leadership roles at which you think there should be introduced bias to make sure more women get in, even if the original ratio is not because of bias?Bryan CaplanNo, I believe in meritocracy. I think it is a good system. It is one that almost everyone sees the intuitive appeal of, and it works. Just looking at a group and saying, “We need to get more members of Group X,” is the wrong way to approach it. Rather, you need to be focusing on, “Let's try to figure out the best way of getting the top quality people here.”Dwarkesh PatelIf there's an astounding ratio of men in certain positions, could that potentially have an impact on the company's ability to do business well? Perhaps the company could just care about increasing the ratio for that reason alone. Bryan CaplanRight. I mean, one can imagine that! I think in our culture, it really goes the other way. People are more likely to be trying to get rid of men, despite the fact that the men are delivering value. If you really pushed me into starting to think, “Suppose you're running a bar, would you have ladies' night?” well yeah, I would have ladies' night in a bar because that actually works, and it's good business! However, if what you're doing is trying to actually get correct answers to things, if you're trying to go and make something run effectively, and if you're just trying to make progress and you're trying to learn new things, the thing to focus on is what actually leads to knowledge and not focusing on just trying to get demographic representation. I think what we've seen is once you go down that route, it is a slippery slope. So besides defending meritocracy on its merits, I would actually also say that the slippery slope argument is not one that should be dismissed lightly. There's a lot of evidence that it does actually fit the facts. When you make an exception of that kind, it really does lead you to bad places. Dwarkesh PatelOkay. But changing topics a bit, I wonder if this gives you greater sympathy for immigration restrictionists because their argument is similar, that there's no natural shelling point for your keyhole solutions where you let tens of millions of people in, but you don't give them welfare or voting rights. There's a slippery slope when you let them in because, eventually, the civil rights argument is going to extend to them. There'll be adverse consequences that these keyhole solutions can't solve for.Bryan CaplanFirst of all, I would say maybe. That is one of the best arguments against keyhole solutions. I'm also guessing that a lot of your listeners have no idea what keyhole solutions are, Dwarkesh, so maybe we want to back up and explain that. Dwarkesh PatelGo for it. Sure.Bryan CaplanSo I have a totally unrelated book called Open Borders, the Science and Ethics of Immigration. One of the chapters goes over ways of dealing with complaints about immigration that fall short of stopping people from actually excluding or kicking out people that are already there. So just to back up a little bit further, most of the book talks about complaints about immigration–– saying that they're either totally wrong or overstated. But then I have another chapter saying, “Alright, fine, maybe you don't agree with that, but isn't there another way that we could deal with this?” So, for example, if you're worried about immigrants voting poorly, you could say, “Fine, we won't extend voting rights to immigrants or make them wait for a longer time period.” That's one where I would just say that the focal point of citizen versus noncitizen is one of the strongest ones. So I think that it actually is one that has a lot of stability. This line of, “Well, you're not a citizen, therefore…” really does have a lot of intuitive appeal. Although, yes, I do think that keyhole solutions would probably not work multi-generationally, so to go and say this is a keyhole solution where you're not a citizen, your kids are not citizens, and their kids after them are not citizens, that's one that I think would be hard to maintain. However, again, at the same time, the problems people are worried about, if they ever were severe, are also getting diluted over time. So I wouldn't worry about it so much. That is one of the very best objections to keyhole solutions that I know of.Dwarkesh PatelOkay, so going back to feminism. Over time, doesn't feminism naturally become true? One of the things you can say is that the way that society is unfair to men includes how they fight in wars or do difficult and dangerous jobs, but society, over time, becomes more peaceful (or at least has in our timeline), and the difficult jobs get automated. At the same time, the gains for people who are at the very peak of any discipline keep going up fairly, but the implication still is that if men are overrepresented there, even for biological reasons, then the relative gains that they get go up, right? So over time, feminism just becomes more true, not because society necessarily discriminated against women, but just because of the trends in technology. Bryan CaplanOnce again, I feel like we should just back up a little bit. What is feminism anyway, because if we don't know what that is, then it's very hard to talk about whether it's becoming more true over time. In my book, I begin with some popular dictionary definitions that just say feminism is the theory that women should be political, social, economic, and cultural equals of men. I say that this is a terrible definition, which violates normal usage. Why? Well, we actually have public opinion data on, first of all, whether people are or are not feminists, and second of all, what they believe about the political, social, economic, and cultural equality of women. And guess what? An overwhelming majority of people that say they are not feminists still agree with the equality of women in all those mentions, which really makes you realize that really can't be the definition of feminism. That would be like saying feminism is the theory that the sky is blue.Well, feminists do believe the sky is blue, but that isn't what distinguishes feminists from other people. So what distinguishes them? What I say is that the really distinguishing view of feminism is that society treats women less fairly than men. The view is that society treats women less fairly than men or treats men more fairly than women. This definition fits actual usage. It would be very strange for someone to say, “I'm a feminist, but I think that men get terrible treatment in our society, and women are treated like goddesses.” Then you say, “Well, then you're not really a feminist, are you?” That doesn't make sense. On the other hand, for someone to say, “I am not a feminist, but God, we treat women so terribly, we're awful.” That, again, just would not fit. So I'm not saying this is the one true definition, but rather that it is much closer to what people actually mean by feminism than what dictionaries say. So to be fair, every now and then, there'll be a better definition. I think the Wikipedia definition in the second sentence adds that it also has the view that women are treated very unfairly. Dwarkesh PatelIs another way of defining feminism just that we should raise the status of women? That's slightly different from the fairness issue because if you think of a feminist historian, maybe their contention is not that women were treated unfairly in the past. Maybe they just want to raise the status of women in the past who are underrepresented. If you think of somebody today who wants to, let's say, raise the status of Asians in our society, and they want to acknowledge the great things that Asians are doing in our society, then maybe their contention is not even that Asians are treated unfairly. They just want to raise their status. So what would you think of that definition?Bryan CaplanSo first of all, it could be, but I don't think so. Here's what I think. There could be a few people like that, but that's not what the word means in normal use. If someone were to say, “Women are treated absolutely fantastically, way better than men, and I want it to get even higher.” You say, hmm. Well, that's not what I think. Somebody might say, “Well, I can still be a feminist and think that,” okay, but that's not what the word actually means. It's not the typical view of people who call themselves feminists. The typical view is precisely that women are treated very unfairly. They want to raise that and alleviate that in a way that's almost by definition. If you think that someone's being treated unfairly, then to say, “I think they're being really unfair, but I think it's great that it's unfair.” It's almost self-contradictory. Dwarkesh PatelI guess I was making a slightly different point, which is not even that these people don't want to raise the status (the actual living standards of women) in some way. It's just that they want to raise the rhetorical status.Bryan CaplanYes, but again, if someone were to say, “I think that women are treated absolutely fantastically in society, way better than men, who we treat like dogs. But I also want women's status to be even higher than it already is.” That would be something where you could argue that “Well, that person may still be a feminist, but that is not what the word means.” Because hardly anyone who calls themselves a feminist believes that weird thing that you're talking about. Dwarkesh PatelLet me make an analogy. Let's say you or I are libertarians, right? And then we think we should raise the status of billionaires. Now, it's not like we think society mistreats billionaires. They're pretty fine, but we think their status should be even higher.Bryan CaplanYeah, I mean, this just goes to the definition. In order to find out whether a definition is correct, you just have to think, “Well, how is the word commonly used?” Logically speaking, it's possible to have a different view or two things that are compatible. The whole idea of a definition is that, ideally, you're trying to find necessary and sufficient conditions such that everybody who satisfies the conditions falls under the category and that everybody who doesn't satisfy the conditions doesn't. In ordinary language, of course, it's notoriously hard to really do that. Defining a table is actually quite difficult in a necessary and sufficient-condition sense, but we can still say, “Well, a table is not by definition something that people sit on, right?” Someone could say, “Well, I suppose you could sit on a table, but that's not the definition in ordinary use in any language of which I'm aware.”But why don't we actually go back to your real question. Which was..Dwarkesh PatelOverall, the left tail of society is being compressed, and the right tail is being expanded. Does feminism become more true over time?Bryan CaplanThe answer is that we really need to look at all of the main measures to get an idea of this. With some of the ones that you're talking about, it does make more sense. As jobs become less physically dangerous, then at least you might say that things are less unfair to men. Although in the book, what I say is that even that is a bit more superficially complicated, at least on the surface. The immediate reaction is that society's less fair to men because they do the most dangerous jobs. Although I also say, “Yeah, but they get monetary compensation for that.” So, all things considered, you probably shouldn't think of it as unfair. It's something where it's reasonable to say, “Hey, wait a second, how come men are the ones that are enduring 90 percent of the workplace deaths” and say, “Well, because they're getting 90 percent of the combat pay.” Broadly construed it's not mostly actual for combat. So anyway, that's one area where you should be careful. But I can see the possibility there. I do have a section in the book where I go over what's happening over time. What I'll say is, well, one big thing that's happened over time is that people have become very hyper-concerned with the mistreatment of women, which means that feminism is becoming less true as a result because when people are really hyper-concerned that they might be unfair to someone, they are even less likely to be unfair to them. So I think that's one thing where society where feminisms become less true over time. Another area that I talk about and which I think really does tip the scales, although again, you really need to go through the book because I do try to work through a lot of different margins…I think the one that really does settle it against feminism in today's age is precisely the level of false feminist accusations about unfairness. When we go over all the objective measures, then you say, well, it's close to a wash in terms of which gender is treated more or less fairly overall. But then you realize, “Yes, but there's one gender that has to endure a whole lot of grossly exaggerated hyperbolic accusations and unfairness and another gender that gets to make those accusations.” The gender that has to endure the unfair accusations is men, and the gender that gets to make them is women. Obviously, not all women make them, and not all men receive them. But still, if we're talking about the average fairness of the treatment of men and women or society, I say that this climate of false accusation and intimidation is what really tips it. It didn't have to be this way, Dwarkesh! [laughs] We could have just had conditions change without a whole lot of flinging of wildly inaccurate accusations, but that's not the world we're in. Dwarkesh PatelWhen would you say was the flipping point? Was there a particular decade that you thought “unbalanced things are equal now?”Bryan CaplanYeah. So one of the things I say in the book is that there are a bunch of ways where you can say that women were treated less fairly in earlier decades, but there are aspects that are probably more important overall where women are treated worse now. The main one is paternal support for children. In 1940, the odds that you could count on the biological father of your children to help you to raise them was maybe 90%. Now it's probably more like 60%, 70%. So that's one of the main ways that I say that women probably are treated less fairly than men. And the unfairness has gotten worse over time. Again, just understand this is not the kind of book that most people are used to where someone argues like a lawyer and they just say, look, I've got 20 arguments for why I'm right. And everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is the kind of book that I liked to write where I really say, let's just calm down and just go through every issue separately, weigh each one on its merits. There are a bunch of points where someone could say, “Why do you concede that? That makes your argument weaker.” Well, I concede it because it's true! Then in the end, I have my overall judgment. I will just say that there are a number of books that are written in this terrible modern style of lawyerly reasoning, where you basically have a thesis that you just try to defend in every possible way. I don't write books like that. I try to write books that are honest and self-reflective, and where if there's some weakness in what I'm saying, I don't just acknowledge it if someone points it out; I try to be the first person to reveal it so that people feel like they can trust me. It's my own conscience. I don't feel right when I say something not really quite right. I feel like I should've always said the other thing. So I try to just write with candor. Dwarkesh PatelNow, would you say that feminism in the United States is overcorrected but that it's still true in the global sense? In the way that, on average, across the world, women are treated more unfairly than men. Because if that's the case, then if the US is at the center of global feminism, then, of course, they're going to overcorrect here, but overall they're making the world a better place. Bryan CaplanSo that is a much better argument. I would say that if we think about most areas of Europe, then I think that it's very similar to what's going on in the US. In the book, I do go over this especially. I start with Saudi Arabia, where it's really obvious what's going on and how poorly women are treated. But then I go over to India and China and just think about plausible rates of female infanticide. I think it is very likely that overall the treatment of women in India and China is more unfair than that of men. In Saudi Arabia, I'm almost sure that it is. In terms of “Is the US providing a useful corrective for the world while messing up things in the US?” It's possible. I think the problem is that it does discredit a lot of the reasonable points because the US just doesn't focus on the really big issues. The amount of time that American feminists spend on female infanticide in China and India… I don't think it would even be 1% of the rhetoric. It's just not something that they care about.So I would say that there's more harm being done by the sheer distraction of putting so much emphasis upon small, exaggerated, or reverse problems that bother feminists in the first world while ignoring and indirectly causing people to forget or neglect actual serious problems in some other countries. Positively shifting the Overton WindowWestern Feminism Ignores InfanticideDwarkesh PatelBut let me apply the argument you make in Open Borders that you can effect change by shifting the Overton window. So advocating for open borders just shifts immigration policy slightly towards the open end. Can American feminists make the same point that through making the crazy arguments they make in America, they're making Saudi Arabia more liberal for women? Bryan CaplanI would say that when the arguments are crazy, then it's not clear that shifting the Overton window actually happens. That may be where you discredit the other view. In particular, I think what I say in that part of the book is that people generally confuse being radical with being unfriendly. And most of the harm that is done to radical causes is due to the unfriendliness rather than the radicalism. So in that case, I would say that feminism has a definite friendliness problem. It is not a movement that goes out of its way to go and make other people feel like they are respected, where even if you disagree with me, I want to be your friend and listen to what you have to say, and maybe we could go and come to some understanding. I think it is a movement where the main emotional tenure of the elites is, “We are totally right, and anyone who disagrees had better watch out.” So I think that there is a discrediting of it. The other thing is just that I think there's too much cultural separation between the feminist movement as we know it and places like China and India, where I just don't see the attitude of being really angry about exaggerated or false complaints about unfair treatment of women in the United States is going to do anything for infanticide in India. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dwarkesh. Do you see much influence of Western feminism on infanticide in India?Dwarkesh PatelI don't know, but maybe yes. More generally, one of the common arguments that libertarians make about India and its elites is, “Oh, all of India's elites go study in Oxford or something, and they learn about the regulations the West is adopting that make no sense for a country with $2,000 GDP per capita.” I feel like some of the things could be true of feminism where all these Indian elites go to American universities and UK universities where they learn about radical feminism, and they go back, and they adopt some of these things.Bryan CaplanYes, although you might remember what Alex Tabarrok says about these very things. You can go to India and have people pushing paper straws on you, and yet the streets are still totally covered in trash. In fact, the pushing of the paper straws probably actually distracts people from the much more serious problem of the horrible trash, right? Again, I don't know enough about India to speak with any confidence here, but if you go and learn radical feminism in Western universities, come back to India and start complaining about how we need to have more female CEOs in a country where you have millions of female infanticides per year, I think it probably is like the paper straws problem where you are so focused on a trivial problem that maybe is not only a problem, is not even a problem at all. At the same time, that anger really blinds you to an actual, really serious problem that's going on. But you know India better than me, I could be wrong. Why The Universe Hates WomenDwarkesh PatelI believe rape within a marriage is still legal in India and is still not recognized. Maybe it was just recently changed. Let's say this is an interview, and a feminist says, “Oh my gosh, okay Bryan, maybe you're right that society as a whole doesn't mistreat women, but maybe the cosmos mistreats women.” So women are forced to have children. All of these things combined make women's lives worse on average than men's lives. It's not because society mistreats them, but in some sense, there's still unfairness geared toward women. What do you make of this argument?Bryan CaplanSo unfairness, where there's no human being that does it, seems like a very strange idea to me. Just from the get-go, well, so who was unfair to you? “The universe is unfair.” Then I mean, the correct term there is unfortunate, not unfair. So that aside, I would say it's a really interesting question. Who actually has better lives just as a matter of biological endowments, men or women? I mean, in terms of demonstrated preference, I think the overwhelming result is that most people just want to remain in whatever gender they're born in. So this is not actually transgenderism. This is like a genie wish. If you could change your gender just with a wish, costlessly, perfectly, I think a very large majority of people would still want to stay with whatever gender they have because it's part of their identity. It's some kind of endowment effect, status quo bias, or whatever. But then if you say, “Okay, yeah, right, fine. Like you, like you just want to stay whatever you were because that's your identity, but if you could put that aside, what would you want to be?” It's a tough question. You can say, “Well, women have a harder personality to deal with because of higher neuroticism, and they've also got higher agreeableness.” But that gives them some other advantages in terms of getting along with other people. For example, men's disagreeableness makes it hard for men to just bite their tongues and shut up when someone's saying something they don't like. I think that is easier for women to do. You may have noticed that having to shut up and bite your tongue while someone around you says something stupid you don't like is actually a big part of life. That is one thing. Now, in terms of things that I feel that I would get out of being a woman, just being able to have as many kids as I wanted would matter a lot to me. So I only have four kids right now. If it were totally up to me, I would have had more kids. I think, as a woman, it would have been easy to do. [laughs] So again, you know, there is the issue. How are you going to find a guy that wants to have a lot of kids? This is one where I've looked at the data on family size and what determines it. While both men and women seem to have a say on family size, it just looks like women's traits have a much larger effect. Men are more likely to say, “OK, fine, whatever. We'll do what you want to do on family size.” Whereas women seem to have much more pronounced preferences, which they then tend to get. I think that if I were a woman, I could have had more kids, and it would have been easier for me to do it. That would be something that matters to me. It's not something that matters to everybody, but that's something there. Again, there is just the nice fact of people caring about your suffering. In the book, I do talk about the ethos of women and children first, which is very pronounced. It's a modern society where we can simultaneously have something like “women and children first”, but then also have a lot of rhetoric about how people don't care about women. It's like, “Hmm, that's not right.”Dwarkesh PatelWhat do you think of this theory that maybe society cares a lot more about women suffering, but it sympathizes a lot more with men's success? If you think of a default character in a movie or a novel, at least for me, then the default is a man. Then maybe there's some victim that defaults as a woman. But I'd rather be the sympathy of some sort of success than get it for suffering.Bryan CaplanI mean, do you need sympathy for success? Or do you want admiration? I mean, I guess what I would say is that everybody's got suffering, and only a small share of people have any notable success. If all that you knew was you're going to be a man or woman, I would say, “Well, gee, if I'm a woman, then people will sympathize with my suffering, which is almost definitely coming because that's the human condition.” Whereas to have admiration for your success is something where it just affects a much smaller number of people. I know that hanging out in Austin among hyper-successful people may be biasing your sample a bit, but I do think it's believable that men get more unmitigated admiration for their success. Of course, there are also differences in the mating opportunities that you get for being a successful man versus a successful woman. So that is there too, but again, this is something that really is only relevant for a very small share of the population.But then the argument is, “Well, that small share of the population matters so much in terms of the story we tell ourselves about our civilization or just in terms of who controls more resources overall.” So if being a woman billionaire is harder, maybe for biological reasons, maybe for the reasons of our society, you can say, “Well, that only affects a small percentage of women in society.” But on the other hand, billionaires matter a lot.In terms of what life is like for most people, the main way they matter is that billionaires just provide awesome stuff. In terms of the stories that people tell, it's true that if you go and look at most classic movies or novels, the main characters are male. Even in cartoons, actually, the main characters traditionally have been male. But on the other hand, that's just fiction. In terms of daily life. I'd rather have people be really concerned about me in real life but have my perspective underrepresented stories than the other way around. Dwarkesh PatelSo what do you make of the argument that employers hold defects in women's personalities much more against them than they hold defects in men's personalities? I think Tyler cited some of this research in his new book on talent that being too agreeable or being too aggressive harms women more than it harms men. Bryan CaplanI would say that it's complicated in terms of willingness to fire. I think employers are much more willing to fire men. For defects and for insubordination. Another thing on the list is a small one, but I think that it is indicative of a broader trend. For people working at workplaces with dress codes, men are much more likely to be dinged on dress code violations than women because for men, there's a definite thing men are supposed to do. If you're not doing it, you are in violation. For women, on the other hand, it's like, “Well, gee, I mean, it seems kind of like that's not what you should be wearing, but I don't want to be the person that says anything about it. And who knows? Who am I to judge what a woman ought to be wearing on the job?”  But a man, on the other hand, needs to be wearing a suit in 110-degree weather. What was the high this summer over in Austin? [laughter] Dwarkesh PatelWhy do you think that women have gotten less happy since the sixties in America?Bryan CaplanRight. So the main thing I know about this is Stevenson and Wolfer's research on this. The main thing to remember is the magnitude. If I remember correctly, they find that in the sixties, women had about a two percentage point advantage relative to men in terms of their odds of saying they're very happy. 25% of men said they were very happy, then 27% of women in the sixties said that they were very happy. Whereas now, it seems like women have a two percentage point deficit relative to men. So now, if 25% of men say they're very happy, then 23% of women say they're very happy. It's always important in these papers to look at those magnitudes because the media coverage is going to say, “Oh, women are miserable now.” It's not that women are miserable now! We're talking about a two-percentage point difference. It's a data set large enough for this to actually be meaningful, but we do want to keep it in perspective in terms of what's really going on. The paper probably actually goes over a bunch of stories and says the obvious ones are all wrong. That would be what Justin Wolfersustin especially would normally do. I think he's usually right that simple stories about something like this are wrong. In terms of what I would pursue if I read through the paper and reminded myself of what they found and then said, “Okay, well, what will work?” I think I would, on one end, focus on single moms because they'll become much more common, and their lives really are hard. A rise in single motherhood is coming. I would guess that's one important part of it. Then, I would also be wondering how much of it is actual feminism telling women that they should be unhappy because the world is unfair and that causes unhappiness. Again, I'm not saying that these are right. It's plausible to me. The main thing I would say about feminism causing unhappiness in the adherents is that it probably doesn't matter most for most self-identified feminists because most people just are not that intellectual and they don't think about their ideas very often. So it's one thing to say, look, if you believe you're going to hell, you'll be unhappy. It's like, well, if you believe it once a year, does it make you unhappy? If you remember, “Oh yeah, once a year, I think I'm going to hell.” The rest of the time, you don't think it.On the other hand, the person who is always thinking, “I'm going to hell, I'm going to hell,” probably will be unhappy. So I think feminism is very likely to reduce the happiness of people who are feminist elites and take it really seriously, where they're talking about it all the time. That is likely to cause unhappiness. I'd be amazed if it didn't. But on the other hand, for the vast majority of people who say, “Yeah, I am a feminist. Moving on…” I don't think it's too likely to be messing up their lives. Dwarkesh PatelThat raises an interesting possibility. This is not my theory, but let's run with this. So feminism has actually gotten more true over time, but it's precisely because of feminism.  Maybe it's made elite women more unhappy. As you said earlier, the amount of single mothers has gone up. Maybe part of that is the reason, and part of that is because of feminist trends in terms of family formation. Maybe women prefer to be at home caring for children on average more, but then feminism encourages them to have careers, which makes them less happy. So if you add all these things up, plus mentorship, which men are less likely to give because of #metoo. So add all these things up, maybe they're the result of feminism, but they still make feminism more right. Would you agree with that?Bryan CaplanYeah. If we go back to this definition of feminism and this theory that our society treats women less fairly than men, then if the story is that women have made a lot of false accusations against men and then men have responded by changing their behavior, that would seem to be a strange example of saying the society is treating women less fairly than men. It would seem to be a case that society is treating men unfairly, and this is having some negative side effects for women as well. But it's one where if you really were trying to draw the line… Well actually, here's actually one of the weaknesses of the definition that I proposed. So foot binding in China. From my understanding, the main drivers of foot binding in China were women. So women are binding feet, and they're also telling their daughters they have to have their feet bound. Men seemed to care less, actually, it was more of an intra-female abuse. This is one where you could say that in China, women are treated less fairly than men, even though the perpetrators are women. I think that does actually make sense. I would just say that the definition that we use in our society isn't really calibrated to deal with that kind of thing. When it comes to what the right way to describe it would be, it just gets a bit confusing. It's useful just to say, all right, well, if women are mistreating women and that's what's making women's lives hard, how do we count that? I think I would just say that we don't have any really good way of counting it, and might be useful to just come up with a new word to describe this kind of thing. Women's Tears Have Too Much PowerDwarkesh PatelWhat do you make of Hanania's argument that women's tears win in the marketplace of ideas? Bryan CaplanYeah. So we might want to back up a little bit and explain what the argument is. So Richard Hanania on his substack has a very famous essay where he points out that in fiction, when there is a mob of angry college students, it's very demographically diverse. But when you look at actual footage, it seems like women are highly overrepresented. He generalizes this by saying that a lot of what's going on in terms of cancel culture and related problems is that women are the main ones that get angry about these things, and people don't know what to do about it. So he, if I remember correctly, says that a man can, in a way, actually enjoy an argument with another man. Even if you lose or even if it's a physical fight, he says, you can sort of feel invigorated by it. We got through this. We resolved something. Whereas no guy feels this way about an argument with his wife. “What do I need to do in order for this argument to end as soon as possible” would be a more normal reaction. This sort of generalizes to the majority of social arguments, specifically ones that involve someone being offended or angry, or hurt. He says a lot of what's going on is that it is mainly women that are presenting these complaints and that it's hard to deal with it because men don't want to argue with angry women. It just makes them feel bad. It's sort of a no-win situation. So anyway, that is Hanania's argument. Overall, it seemed pretty plausible to me. I haven't thought about it that much more, but it's one that does seem to make a fair bit of sense in terms of just what I'm writing about feminism. You know, one really striking thing is just how one-sided this conversation is. It is a conversation where women have complaints, and men mostly just listen in silence. Ofcourse, men will sometimes complain amongst each other when women aren't around. It's not a real dialogue where women have complaints about men, and then men are very eager to say, “Oh, but I have something I would like to say in rebuttal to that.” A lot of it is what he calls “women's tears.” It's sadness, but mingled with or supported by intimidation: “If you don't give me what I want, if you don't pretend that you agree with me, I will be very angry, and I will be fairly sad.” So you should be afraid. I think a lot of what's probably going on with the rhetorical dominance of feminism, is that people are just afraid to argue against it because, in a way, it does sort of violate the women and children first ethos. If women complain about something, you aren't supposed to go and say, “I disagree. Your complaints are unjustified.” You're supposed to say, “Look, what can I do to make it better?” Dwarkesh PatelBut that seems like a good description of race issues and class issues as well. Bryan CaplanI mean, the main difference there is that there are a lot of people who have a lot more firsthand experience of intergender relations, and they spend a lot more time in intergender relations than they spend in all of the other ones. So I mean, the dynamic is probably pretty similar, but in terms of the really negative firsthand experience that men have, Hanania probably is right about that. Then that generalizes to bigger issues. Dwarkesh PatelYou have an essay about endogenous sexism. Could this just not be the cause of society being unfair to a woman? We start off with men being in power, they get sexist just because they're around other men and they like them more. So then, the starting position matters a lot, even if men aren't trying to be sexist. Bryan CaplanSo let me just back up and explain the argument. The argument says to imagine that in reality, men and women are equally good in absolutely every way, but people are more likely to have close friends with their own gender, (which is totally true). So if I remember the essay, I think that for close male friends, the male-to-female ratio was 6:1, and for women, it was 4:1. So most people's close friends are of the same gender. When you meet these people, and they're your close friends, you know them really well. Furthermore, because you have handpicked them, you're going to think well of them. So then the question is, “What about people of the opposite gender? What will your interaction with them be like?” What I point out is that a lot of the opposite gender you hang out with will be the spouses and partners of your friends. On average, you're going to think worse of them because you didn't pick them. Basically, there are two filters there: I like you because you're my friend, and I put up with your partner because that person is your partner. So this means that the women that men are around are going to be the partners of their friends. They're not going to like them less and think less of them than they think of their friends. On the other hand, the partners of women's friends will be men, and women will get to know them and say, “Wow, they're not that great. They're at least kind of disappointing relative to my same-gender friends.” So anyway, this is an argument about how the illusion of your own gender being superior could arise. Now, as to whether this is actually the right story, I leave that open. This was just more of a thought experiment to understand what could happen here. Could this actually explain the unfair treatment of women in society? Especially if we start off with men being the gatekeepers for most of the business world? It's totally plausible that it could. That's why we really want to go to the data and see what we actually find. In the data I know of, the evidence of women earning less money than men while doing the same job is quite low. So there's very little gender disparity in earnings once you make the obvious statistical adjustments for being in the same occupation. Again, the main area that probably actually has gotten worse for women is mentoring. Mentoring is partly based on friendship. I like this person. I like working with them. So I will go and help them to go and acquire more human capital on the job. This is one that feminism has visibly messed up, and many feminists will, in a strange way, admit that they have done it while not taking responsibility for the harm. I've got an essay on that in the book as well.Looking at the evidence, it is totally standard now for male managers to admit that they are reluctant to mentor female employees because they're so worried. When I go and track down a bunch of feminist reactions to this, they basically just say, “I can't believe how horrible these guys are.” But it's like, look, you're asking them for a favor to get mentorship. They're scared. If someone's scared, do you really want to yell at them more and offer more mostly empty threats? It's really hard to scare someone into doing something this informal, so you really do need to win them over. Dwarkesh PatelTactically, that might be correct, but it seems to just be a matter of “Is their argument justified?” I can see why they'd be frustrated. Obviously, you want to point out when there's a sexual harassment allegation, and that may have the effect of less mentorship. Bryan CaplanWell, is it obvious that you want to point that out? Part of what I'm saying is that there are different perceptions here. There are differences of opinion. If you want to get along with people, a lot of it is saying, “How does it seem from the other person's point of view?” Obviously, do not assume that the most hypersensitive person is correct. So much of the problem with mentorship comes down to hypersensitivity. I've got another piece in the book where I talk about misunderstandings and how we have so much lost sight of this very possibility. When there's a conflict between two people, who's right and who's wrong? Ofcourse, it could be that one person is the conscious malefactor and the other person is an obvious victim that no one could deny. That does happen sometimes. But much more often in the real world, there's a misunderstanding where each person, because of the imperfection of the human mind, has the inability to go and get inside another person's head. To each person, it seems like they're in the right and the other person is in the wrong, and one of the most helpful ways for people to get along with each other is to realize that this is the norm. Most conflicts are caused by misunderstandings, not by deliberate wrongdoing. This is the way the people who keep their friends keep their friends. If any time there's a conflict with a friend, you assume that you're right and your friend is in the wrong, and you demand an immediate abject apology, you're going to be losing friends left and right. It is a foolish person who does that. Friendship is more important than any particular issue. This is not only my personal view, it is the advice that I give to everyone listening. Keep your friends, bend over backward in order to keep your friends, and realize that most conflicts are caused by misunderstandings. It's not the other person is going out of their way to hurt you. They probably don't see it that way. If you just insist, “I'm right, I demand a full apology and admission of your wrongdoing,” you're probably going to be losing friends, and that's a bad idea. The same thing I think is going on in workplaces where there is an ideology saying that we should take the side of the most hypersensitive person. This is not a good approach for human beings to get along with each other.Dwarkesh PatelYeah. That's very wise. What do you make the argument that a lot of these professions that are dominated by men are not intrinsically things that must appeal to men, but the way that they are taught or advertised is very conducive to what males find interesting? So take computer science, for example; there are claims that you could teach that or economics in a way that focuses on the implications on people from those practices rather than just focusing on the abstractions or the “thing-focused stuff.” So the argument is these things shouldn't be inherently interesting to men. It's just in the way they are taught. Bryan CaplanThe word inherently is so overused. It's one where you say, "Well, are you saying that inherently X?” Then someone says, “Well, not inherently X, just you'd have to bend over backward and move heaven and earth for it not to be. So I guess it's not really inherent.” That is a lot of what is worth pointing out. So if you're going to put the standard to that level, then it's going to be hard to find differences. You could say, “There's absolutely no way under the sun to go and teach math in a less male way.” On the other hand, maybe we should ask, “Is it reasonable to expect the whole world to revolve around making every subject equally appealing to men and women?” That's an unreasonable demand. If there's a subject like math that is male-dominated, the reasonable thing is to say, “Well, if you want to get in on that, you're going to need to go and become simpatico with the mindset of the people that are already there and then push the margin.” You can say that it's “so unfair that male ways of doing math are dominant.” Or maybe you could say that it's unfair for someone who's just shown up to demand that an entire discipline change its way of doing things to make you feel better about it. Obviously, there are large areas that are very female-dominated, and there's no pressure on women to go and change the way that flower arranging is done, or cooking in order to make it more welcoming to men.So this is one where if you had a really high bar for how things are fair, then unless the rigorous conditions are met, you're going to see a lot of unfairness in the world. Although even then, as long as you have an equally high bar for both men and women, I don't think it's going to make feminism any more true by my definition. I also just say, I think these really high bars are unreasonable. If a friend had these bars of standards saying, “Look, why is it that when we meet for food, we have to go and meet at standard hours of breakfast, lunch, and dinner? I actually like meeting in the middle of the night. Why can't we have half of the time be my way?” You respond, “Well yeah, but you're only one person, so why should I change?” It depends upon what subfield you're in as well. There are actually groups of people really like hanging out in the middle of the night, so if you ask, “Why is it we always have to meet in the middle of the night? Why can't we do it my way?” You are entering into a subculture that works this way. You could demand that we totally change our way of being to accommodate you, but it just seems like an unreasonable imposition on the people who are already here. Now, when you sort of go through the list of different things that people think of as making something a male or a not-male field, sometimes people will treat things like acting like there's an objectively correct answer as a male trait. If that's a male trait, then we need to keep that trait because that is vital to really any field where there are right and wrong answers. I mean, that's an area where I am very tempted rhetorically to say, “It's just so sexist to say that it's male to think that things are right and wrong. I think that is a trait of both genders”. In a way, I end the essay stating, “Yes, these are not male; not only do they not make a male monopoly, but they are also not uniquely male virtues. They are virtues that can and should be enjoyed by all human beings.” At the same time, you could ask whether virtues are equally represented by both genders and well, that's an empirical question. We have to look at that. Bryan Performs Standup Comedy!Dwarkesh PatelWe're shifting subjects. You recently performed at the Comedy Cellar. How was that experience? Bryan CaplanYeah, that was super fun and a big challenge! I am a professional public speaker. Standup comedy is professional public speaking. I was curious about how much transfer of learning there would be. How many of the things that I know as a regular public speaker can I take with me to do standup comedy? I'm also just a big fan of standup comedy– if you know me personally, I just find life constantly funny. Dwarkesh PatelYes, I can confirm that. You're a very pleasant person to be around. Bryan CaplanLife is funny to me. I like pointing out funny things. I like using my imagination. A lot of comedy is just imagination and saying, look, “Imagine that was the opposite way. What would that be like?” Well, actually, just to back up again: during COVID, I did just create a wiki of comedy ideas just on the idea that maybe one day I'll go and do standup comedy. Comedy Cellar actually has a podcast, kind of like Joe Rogan, where comedians go and talk about serious issues. I was invited to that, and as a result, I was able to talk my way into getting to perform on the actual live stage of the biggest comedy club in New York. The main thing I could say about my performance is that it was me and nine professional comedians, and I don't think I was obviously the worst person. So that felt pretty good.Dwarkesh PatelIt was a pretty good performance.Bryan CaplanI felt good about it! There were some main differences that I realized between the kind of public speaking I was used to doing and what I actually did there. One is the importance of memorizing the script. It just looks a lot worse if you're reading off a note. Normally I have some basic notes, and then I ad-lib. I don't memorize. The only time I have a script is if I have a very time-constrained debate, then I'd normally write an opening statement, but otherwise, I don't. The thing with comedy is it depends so heavily upon exact word choice. You could go and put the same sentence into Google Translate and then back-translate it and get another sentence that is synonymous but isn't funny at all. That was something that I was very mindful of. Then obviously, there are things like timing and being able to read an audience (which I'm more used to). That was what was so hard during COVID–– not being able to look at the faces of a live audience. I can see their eyes, but I can't tell their emotions or reactions to their eyes. I don't know whether I should talk more or less about something. I don't know whether they're angry or annoyed or curious or bored. So these are all things that I would normally be adjusting my talk for in normal public speaking. But with comedy, it's a bit hard to do. What successful comedians actually do is they try it in a bunch of different ways, and then they remember which ways work and which ones don't. Then they just keep tweaking it, so finally, when they do the Netflix special, they have basically done A/B testing on a hundred different audiences, and then it sounds great–– but the first time? Not that funny. Dwarkesh PatelIt didn't occur to me until you mentioned it, but it makes a lot of sense that there are transfers of learning there in both disciplines. There are a lot of hypotheticals, non-extra events, and putting things in strange situations to see what the result is…Bryan CaplanA lot of it is just not having stage fright. So I probably had just a tiny bit of stage fright at the Comedy Cellar, which normally I would have basically zero, but there it was a little bit different because it's like, “Am I going to forget something?” I actually have a joke in the set about how nothing is scarier than staying silent while thousands of people stare at you. So that was a self-referential joke that I worked in there.Dwarkesh PatelI can't remember if it was Robin Hanson who said this, but didn't he have a theory about how the reason we have stage fright is because somehow, you're showing dominance or status, and you don't want to do that if you're not actually the most confident. Bryan CaplanYou're making a bid for status. In the ancestral environment, we're in small groups of 20-40 people. If you go and want to speak, you're saying, “I'm one of the most important people in this band here.” If you're not, or if there are a lot of people voicing that that guy is not important, then who knows? They might shove you off the cliff the next time they get a chance. So yeah, watch out. Affirmative Action is Philanthropic PropagandaDwarkesh PatelI wonder if this explains the cringe emotion. When somebody makes a bid for status, and it's not deserved. Okay, I want to talk about discrimination. So as you know, there's a Supreme court case about Harvard and affirmative action. You might also know that a lot of companies have filed a brief in favor of Harvard, saying that affirmative action is necessary for them to hire diverse work for ourselves, including Apple, Lyft, General Motors. So what is the explanation for corporations wanting to extend affirmative action? Or are they just saying this, but they don't want it? Bryan CaplanIf those individual corporations could press a button that would immunize them from all employment lawsuits, I think they would press it. When you look at their behavior, they don't just give in whenever they get sued. They have a normal team of lawyers that try to minimize the damage to the company and pay as little as possible to make the problem go away. So I think really what's going on is public relations. They are trying to be on that team. As to whether it's public relations vis a vis their consumers or public relations vis a vis other people in the executive boardroom is an interesting question. I think these days, it probably is more of the latter. Although even under Reagan, there were a bunch of major corporations that did make a similar statement saying that they wanted affirmative action to continue. I think that the real story is that they want to get the status of saying, “we are really in favor of this. We love this stuff.” But at the same time, if it just went away, they wouldn't voluntarily adopt a policy where they give you a right to go and sue them for mistreatment.I think there would still be a lot of propaganda. I mean, here's the general thing. You think about this as a species of corporate philanthropy sticking your neck out in favor of a broad social cause. Some people disagree and say that it's self-interest. They say, “Look, the odds that even Apple is going to change the Supreme Court's mind is super low.” So I don't think it's that. Basically, what they're doing is a kind of philanthropy. What's the deal with corporate philanthropy? The deal with corporate philanthropy is you are trying to go and, first of all, make the public like you, but also, you're trying to look good and jockey for influence within your own company. One really striking thing about corporate philanthropy is when you look closer, normally, they spend way more resources marketing the philanthropy and letting everyone know, “Oh, we did all this philanthropy!” Then they actually spend on philanthropy. So I had a friend who was a marketing person in charge of publicizing her company's philanthropy. They gave away about a thousand dollars a year to the Girl Scouts, and she had a hundred thousand dollars salary telling everyone about how great they were for giving this money to the Girl Scouts. So I think that's the real story. Get maximally cynical. I think without denying the fact that there are true believers now in corporate boardrooms who are pushing it past the point of profitability. The cost of philanthropy is just the production budget of the TV commercial. A rounding error. The donations are a rounding error, and then they go, “Hey, everyone, look at us. We're so freaking philanthropic!” Peer effects as the Only Real EducationDwarkesh PatelOkay. So this question is one that Tyler actually suggested I ask you. So in The Myth of the Rational Voter, you say that education makes you more pro-free market. Now, this may have changed in the meantime, but let's just say that's still true. If you're not really learning anything, why is education making you more free market? Bryan CaplanIt's particularly striking that even people who don't seem to take any economics classes are involved. I think that the best story is about peer effects. When you go to college, you're around other peers who though not pro-market, are less anti-market than the general population. The thing about peer effects is that they really are a double-edged sword from a social point of view. Think about this. Right now, if you are one of the 1% of non-Mormons that goes to Brigham Young University, what do you think the odds are that you'll convert to Mormonism? Dwarkesh PatelHigher than normal. Bryan CaplanYeah. I don't know the numbers, but I think it's pretty high. But suppose that Brigham Young let in all the non-Mormons. What would Brigham Young do for conversion to Mormonism? Probably very little. Furthermore, you realize, “Huh, well, what if those Mormons at Brigham Young were dispersed among a bunch of other schools where they were that were a minority?” Seems quite plausible. They'd be making a lot more converts over there. So if you achieve your peer effects by segregation (which is literally what college does, it takes one part of society and segregates it from another part of society physically when you're in school, and then there's social segregation caused by the fact that people want to hang out with other people in their own social circles, your own education levels, etc.), in that case, in terms of whether or not education actually makes society overall pro-free market, I think it's totally unclear because, basically, when people go to college, they make each other more pro-free market. At the same time, they remove the possibility of influencing people of other social classes who don't go to college, who probably then influence each other and make each other less free market. I think that's the most plausible story.Dwarkesh PatelWhat about the argument that the people who go to elite universities are people who are going to control things? If you can engineer a situation in which the peer effects in some particular direction are very strong at Harvard (maybe because the upper class is very liberal or woke), they make the underclass even more woke, and then it's a reinforcing cycle after every generation of people who come into college. Then that still matters a lot, even though presumably somebody becomes more right-wing once they don't go to Harvard because there are no peers there. But it doesn't matter. They're not going to be an elite, or it doesn't matter as much. Bryan CaplanIt could be, although what we've seen is that we now just have very big gaps between elite opinion and mass opinion. Of course, it is a democracy. If you want to run for office, that is a reason to go and say, “Yeah, what is the actual common view here? Not just the view that is common among elites.” However, I will say that this is a topic that deserves a lot more study. Now the other thing to question is, “Wouldn't there be peer effects even without college?” If elites didn't go to college and instead they went and did elite apprenticeships at top corporations instead, I think you'd still wind up getting a very similar elite subculture. I think that this kind of social segregation is very natural in every human society. Of course, you can see it under communism very strongly where it's like, “I don't want my kid going and playing with a kid whose parents aren't in the communist party.” So every society has this kind of thing. Now, if you push the dynamics enough…. let's put it this way. If you were the prophet of the Mormon religion, what would be the very best thing for you to do to maximize the spread of Mormonism? It is not at all clear to me that trying to get all Mormons to go bring them young is a good strategy.Dwarkesh PatelI wonder if there are nonlinear dynamics to this. Bryan CaplanYeah. Well, there's gotta be, right? But as soon as you're talking about nonlinear dynamics, those are truly hard to understand. So I would just say to keep a much more open mind about this, and if anyone is listening and wants to do research on this, that sounds cool, I'll read it. Dwarkesh PatelRight. I remember you saying that one of the things you're trying to do with your books is influence the common view of elite opinion. So in that sense, there are elite subcultures in every society, but they're not the same elite subcultures, and therefore you might care very much about which particular subculture it is. Bryan CaplanNotice that that's one where I'm taking it as a given that we have the current segregation, and I'm going to try to go and take advantage of it. But if it were a question of if I could change the dial of what kind of segregation we have, then it's much less clear. The Idiocy of Student Loan Forgiveness Dwarkesh PatelStudent loan forgiveness. What is your reaction? Bryan CaplanOh, give me a freaking break. This is one subject where I think it's very hard to find almost any economist, no matter how left-wing and progressive, who really wants to stick their necks out and defend this garbage. Look, it's a regressive transfer. Why then? Why is it that someone who is left-wing or progressive would go and favor it? Maybe it's because people who have a lot of education and colleges are on our team, and we just want to go and help our team. Obviously, the forgiveness really means, “We're going to go and transfer the cost of this debt from the elites that actually ran up the bill to the general population.” Which includes, of course, a whole lot of people who did not go to college and did not get whatever premium that you got out of it. So there's that. In terms of efficiency, since the people have already gotten the education, you're not even “increasing the amount of education” if you really think that's good. The only margin that is really increasing education is how it's making people think, “Well, maybe there'll be another round of debt forgiveness later on, so I'll rack up more debt. The actual true price of education is less than it seems to be.” Although even there, you have to say, “Huh, well, but could people knowing this and the great willingness to borrow actually wind up increasing the ban for college and raising tuition further?” There's good evidence for that. Not 100%, but still a substantial degree.Again, just to back up–– that can be my catchphrase [laughter]. So I have a book called The Case Against Education, and my view is much more extreme than that of almost any normal economist who opposes student loan debt forgiveness. I think that the real problem with education is that we have way too much of it. Most of it is very socially wasteful. What we're doing with student loan forgiveness is we're basically going and transferring money to people who wasted a lot of social resources. The story that you are on the slippery slope to free college for all is, in a way, the best argument in favor of it. If you thought that free college for all was a good idea, then this puts us on that slippery slope. It's terrible because the real problem with education is that we just spend way too many years in school. It is generally

With the rollout of Covid jabs for kids as young as 6-months-old, the powers that be do not want anyone noticing deaths from adverse reactions. So, they're telling us about all the other ways kids can die randomly that totally won't be the jabs.

Texte: Le dirigeant nord coréen a réitéré son avertissement selon lequel Pyongyang pourrait utiliser de façon préventive ses armes nucléaires pour lutter contre des forces ennemies. Traduction: North Korean leader has repeated his warning that Pyongyang could "preemptively" use its nuclear weaponry to counter hostile forces. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Meanwhile, Puppet-President Joe Biden is so discredited that world leaders are now REFUSING to take his calls over Ukraine and the global energy crisis while instead choosing to talk to Putin!https://www.infowars.com/posts/breaking-state-dept-admits-us-ran-bioweapons-labs-in-ukraine/Today's broadcast is LOADED with special guests including Mike Adams, Joel Skousen, and Tyler Bennett who is breaking EXCLUSIVE info on JonesTaxRelief.com! Don't let the IRS overcollect ever again!

This week, Kennedy sits down with co-host of the Tyrus and Timpf Podcast and FOX News Contributor Kat Timpf to share her best dating tips. Kat emphasizes the importance of being confident in your dating choices and to not overthink conversations with romantic partners. Follow Kennedy on Twitter: @KennedyNation

2022 - the year of anti-perfectionism! No theme music, probably a random 5 minute coffee break silence, who knows what else. Preemptively canceling ourselves for anything problematic we say, we will do better and try to focus on listening more. Solidarity forever! Insurrections are in fact BAD and democracy is DECENTLY BETTER THAN THE ALTERNATIVE ON OFFER!

Andy Behrens and Scott Pianowski go through the waiver wire and help you with some advice on which WRs, RBs, QBs and TEs you should be adding to your team to get you through the injuries and bye weeks that are ravaging fantasy football leagues this time of year.The guys also debate who the most valuable WR in fantasy football is right now and if it's worth it to preemptively add Deshaun Watson to your team.Stay up to date with the latest fantasy football news and coverage from Yahoo Sports on Twitter @YahooFantasyFollow Andy @AndyBehrensFollow Dalton @DaltonDelDonFollow Liz @LizLoza_FFFollow Matt @MattHarmon_BYBFollow Scott @Scott_PianowskiCheck out the rest of the Yahoo Sports podcast family at https://apple.co/3zEuTQj or at yahoosports.com/podcasts See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Good News: A biotech company is revolutionizing the way artificial skin is created for burn victims, and the potential is amazing! Link HERE. The Good Word: A brilliant quote from Jane Austen… Good To Know: Another mind-boggling fact about trees! Good News: An announcement from the nations around the Arctic Ocean to PREEMPTIVELY exclude commercial […]

When Kim and I met, we were both fresh out of awful marriages. Once we got together, we knew we had to make sure that, this time, things would be different. We vowed to start the work necessary to become better people and better partners before we ran into problems in our relationship. We learned a lot about how to handle conflict, so today, I'm going to share the three principles we use to cut off arguments before they even happen. If you do the work, these will drastically improve your relationship. In This Conversation We Cover:  [05:13] Seeking self-development before shit hits the fan [14:35] Crafting a vision and going after it as a couple [16:23] Asking for what they want [21:03] Men need to empty [26:28] Women need to fill up [31:40] Not dying on that hill [37:31] Allowing your partner to be who they are Resources: gottman.com Text "Dream Life" to 310- 388-9724 to get our FREE dream life course Mastermind: workhardplayhardpodcast.com/mastermind Connect with Rob on Instagram: @robmurgatroyd Connect with Kim on Instagram: @kimmurgatroyd To learn more, and for the complete show notes, visit: workhardplayhardpodcast.com Work Hard Play Hard is a production of Crate Media

When Kim and I met, we were both fresh out of awful marriages. Once we got together, we knew we had to make sure that, this time, things would be different. We vowed to start the work necessary to become better people and better partners before we ran into problems in our relationship. We learned a lot about how to handle conflict, so today, I’m going to share the three principles we use to cut off arguments before they even happen. If you do the work, these will drastically improve your relationship. In This Conversation We Cover:  [05:13] Seeking self-development before shit hits the fan [14:35] Crafting a vision and going after it as a couple [16:23] Asking for what they want [21:03] Men need to empty [26:28] Women need to fill up [31:40] Not dying on that hill [37:31] Allowing your partner to be who they are Resources: https://www.gottman.com/ (gottman.com) Text "Dream Life" to 310- 388-9724 to get our FREE dream life course Mastermind: https://workhardplayhardpodcast.com/mastermind/ (workhardplayhardpodcast.com/mastermind) Connect with Rob on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/robmurgatroyd/ (@robmurgatroyd) Connect with Kim on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kimmurgatroyd/ (@kimmurgatroyd) To learn more, and for the complete show notes, visit: https://workhardplayhardpodcast.com/ (workhardplayhardpodcast.com) Work Hard Play Hard is a production of http://crate.media (Crate Media)

On May 14, Colorado executive orders laid the foundation for a vaccine passport by distinguishing between the unvaccinated and "any fully vaccinated individual [who] may go without any type of face covering in any setting" and by declaring that "managers of any business or service may, at their discretion, continue to require individuals entering or within their locations to... show proof of full vaccination." And on May 12 the state Democrats stopped the Republicans from preemptively blocking such a "passport". So Rebecca Messal, lead attorney in the Denver Bible Church and Community Baptist Church covid lawsuit, responding in the U.S. Supreme Court to an objection filed by the state attorney general, presented our own preemptive strike against the passport. Bob also describes the sad fall of the Pacific's Darwin's Arch as a metaphor for the collapse of the guy's theory. Then he gives a warning and delivers on his promise to present false teaching to the audience. As the pastor of Denver Bible Church and in rare form on today's program, Bob may just have delivered the best false teaching in the history of false teaching! Today's Resource: Bob Enyart's Life's Work - The PlotGrasping the overview of the Bible is the key to its details! You can read Bob's best-selling book, The Plot in paperback or as a downloadable PDF or in Spanish as La Trama. Or you can listen to Bob's Plot Seminar or get the entire set of all five of Bob's Plot Bible Study Albums on MP3 CD or even check out The Plot Boys for kids and Bible students of all ages! You'll love this powerful teaching through Scripture or take advantage of our 30-day money-back guarantee!

1 hour and 13 minutes. Don’t forget: Next Saturday is our Roast of John U Bacon The Sponsors "Thank you to Underground Printing for making this all possible. Rishi and Ryan have been our biggest supporters from the beginning. They're also behind our Ann Arbor Institutions t-shirt program. They have awesome custom tees and hoodies and low, affordable prices. They also have tons of great Michigan apparel that you can wear proudly to support the maize and blue! Check out their wide selection of officially licensed Michigan fan gear at their 3 store locations in Ann Arbor or learn about their custom apparel business at undergroundshirts.com." And let’s not forget our associate sponsors: HomeSure Lending, Ann Arbor Elder Law, the Residence Inn Ann Arbor Downtown, Michigan Law Grad, Human Element, The Phil Klein Insurance Group, and Information Entropy, and introducing the Raw Power app for iOS by Gentleman Coders. 1. A Tribute to Louis Nix, and Indiana starts at 1:00 We pay tribute to the life of one of our favorite players from a rival. Used the same gameplan as Iowa because why not. Hunter Dickinson: one of the best offensive big men but also one of the best defensive big men? Player of the Year? Franz also playing out of his mind. IU made some weird decisions. Was the first half clunky? [The rest of the writeup and the player after The Jump] 2. Iowa starts at 23:51 We kind of talked about Iowa in the last segment but this is the real Iowa talk because HOLY COY. Remember when Garza went mano-a-mano with Jon Teske and scored 44 points? Yeah, Dickinson shut THAT guy down. Also Brandon Johns and Austin Davis did too while Franz took over the game. Most impressive win this year? 3. Around the Big Ten, WBB, Hockey, and a Softball Note starts at 39:58 Illinois can win out but needs MSU to beat Michigan twice. Also Ayo-less Illinois almost let Wisconsin come back and end it. Thank you MSU for doing that to them. Also: MSU—what the heck, beating Illinois and Ohio State? They went to a hack-a-thon against Illinois and dared the refs to call a foul on literally everything. OSU has a point about the officiating but also: LOL. Hockey gets a Red Tie, where they pepper their goalie (and crossbar) with shots and nothing goes in and the other team gets a stupid weird bounce. WBB also frustrating—note that we recorded this before the Maryland game was rescheduled for March 4. Meghan Beubien K-thon. 4. Raw Takes and Football Recruiting starts at 58:18 Will Johnson Hello! What this means for the in-state class and some other big targets that Johnson talks to. We also run quickly through the boards that I have a handle on (IE not LB, DL, or OL) and the shadow effect of recruiting 5-star quarterbacks in the class before. MUSIC: "I’d Fly Away"—Al Green “Mr. Big Stuff"—Jean Knight “Stupid Dreams"—Born Ruffians “Across 110th Street”

When you get caught between the moon and New York City, you hang out with Heather and Jameson and raise a glass to Arthur! Our favorite Gen Xperts explore both the original 1981 and rebooted 2011 versions of Arthur. Preemptively issuing an apology, Jameson is shocked to learn Liza Minnelli is in fact, alive, and Heather challenges him to an impromptu game of iconic gay diva icon Dead or Alive. Jameson wishes a happy birthday to honorary Gen Xer, Elizabeth Carr (https://www.ejordancarr.com/) the first test tube baby and resident badass lady (check out her podcast here: https://anchor.fm/the1st). Heather and Jameson leave you with this sweet little tribute to Dudley Moore, playing the piano: https://tinyurl.com/qgsfzql

Episode Notes In this aviation-themed episode, our cohosts delve into the many conspiracy theories surrounding the Denver International Airport, and recount the harrowing tale of the Gimli Glider. This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

צַדִּיק הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּרִיבוֹ [וּבָא] (יבא) רֵעֵהוּ וַחֲקָרוֹIn our morning Mishlei shiur (11/17/20 at YBT) we continued learning Mishlei 18:17, this time according to Rabbeinu Yonah, who had a different take on the facts of the pasuk. After defining the according to him and fleshing out the practical implications, we clarified our understanding of the ideas we had yesterday based on Metzudas David and Ralbag.---------------------------------------------------------------------------מקורות:משלי יח:יזרבינו יונה - משלי יח:יז---------------------------------------------------------------------------If you have questions, comments, or feedback, I would love to hear! Please feel free to contact me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.---------------------------------------------------------------------------Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweissYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/rabbischneeweissBlog: https://kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/Twitter: https://twitter.com/rmschneeweiss"The Mishlei Podcast": https://mishlei.buzzsprout.com"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: https://thestoicjew.buzzsprout.comOur Yeshiva: https://www.yeshivabneitorah.org/Our Women's Program: https://www.lomdeha.org/

Listen, Subscribe, Share the show with friends, Donate. Help us keep this train rollin! Share and subscribe. The Propaganda Report Podcast: DNB: Preemptively Discrediting The Election, TikTok TikTok TikTok, & A Karen On Every Street Corner (8.7.20) https://www.neighborsfeedandseed.com/ Neighbors Feed & Seed In Smyrna, GA https://www.neighborsfeedandseed.com/ Neighbors Feed & Seed Instagram https://www.instagram.com/neighborsfeedandseed/ DONATE LINKS If you find value in the content we produce and want to help us keep this train rollin, drop us a donation via Paypal or become a Patreon. (links below) Every little bit helps. Thank you! And thank you to everyone who has and continues to support the show. It’s your support that enables us to continue producing shows. Paypal Patreon SUBSCRIBE LINKS Subscribe on iTunes  Subscribe on Google Play Music Listen on Google Podcasts Listen on Tunein Listen on Stitcher Follow on Spotify Like and Follow us on Facebook Follow Monica on Twitter Follow Binkley on Twitter Subscribe to Binkley’s Youtube Channel https://www.paypal.me/BradBinkley https://www.patreon.com/propagandareport https://twitter.com/freedomactradio https://twitter.com/MonicaPerezShow https://www.youtube.com/bradbinkley https://www.youtube.com/monicaperez 

Being able to prevent phishing attacks is getting harder and with email still as the preferred method of social engineering there is no end in sight. The Chief Security Officer and Co-Founder of Area 1 Security, Mr. Blake Darché appears on Episode #145 of Task Force 7 Radio to talk about how to preemptively track phishing campaigns while they are being built. He discusses his perspective on what is lacking in cloud email suites, secure email gateways, and user awareness programs. Darché also sheds some light on how the work from home trend related to Covid-19 has been impacted by phishing, how a company can still protect themselves if a supply chain partner gets phished, and some of the work he is doing with politicians in advance of the election. Don't miss everything he has to say on Episode #145 of Task Force 7 Radio.

Christchurch City Council is preemptively cancelling events - and looking at whether pools and libraries should stay open.The South Island's now had its first confirmed case of Covid-19 - a tourist who landed at Christchurch Airport before driving a rental car to Queenstown.Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel told Chris Lynch council staff are meeting today to discuss what action to take.She says even citizenship ceremonies are likely to be put on hold - to reduce unnecessary risk.The Prime Minister's expected to make an announcement on public gatherings this afternoon. 

Hey Everyone! Welcome to another episode of the Digital Marketing Dive Podcast. I'm Shawn Swaim of Shawn Swaim Consulting and the self-proclaimed king of the Internet. With me as always is Seth Goldstein, the Creative Director of Goldstein Media. It's our 30th episode. We made it! Let's see if we can come up with 30 more! This week we're talking about how to recover your SEO after Google goes crazy with the algorithm updates. We wanted to make this episode because of some new stats that have come out about SEO… In 2012 people thought Google was crazy because they updated the algorithm on average 3 times per day… Today, in 2020, that number is up to 9 times per day. Understand that fluctuations are natural… so chill out, grab a beer, and your rankings will likely recover. (As long as you're not doing anything that is inherently risky) Preemptively eliminate the risky baggage. If you partook in “sub-par” SEO efforts in the past and Google has not dinged you yet, count your lucky stars and start removing the negative stuff Look for keyword stuffed pages & blog posts Analyze your backlink profile Start adding new, baller ass (that's Shawn speak for “high quality”) content. The best antidote to bad SEO is Good SEO. This week we're doing our favorite Internet finds: Shawn: Acorns Seth: Rev Well that was fun. As always please give us a review in the podcast directory of your choice. We're all of the major directories. We also want to hear from you. Email us at hello@digitalmarketingdive.com. Leave us questions, comments, critiques, rants, you name it. If you don't want us to read the note on the show, please tell us, because we probably will! So that's it. It's been fun! See you on the flip side! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey Everyone! Welcome to another episode of the Digital Marketing Dive Podcast. I'm Shawn Swaim of Shawn Swaim Consulting and the self-proclaimed king of the Internet. With me as always is Seth Goldstein, the Creative Director of Goldstein Media. It's our 30th episode. We made it! Let's see if we can come up with 30 more! This week we're talking about how to recover your SEO after Google goes crazy with the algorithm updates. We wanted to make this episode because of some new stats that have come out about SEO… In 2012 people thought Google was crazy because they updated the algorithm on average 3 times per day… Today, in 2020, that number is up to 9 times per day. Understand that fluctuations are natural… so chill out, grab a beer, and your rankings will likely recover. (As long as you're not doing anything that is inherently risky) Preemptively eliminate the risky baggage. If you partook in “sub-par” SEO efforts in the past and Google has not dinged you yet, count your lucky stars and start removing the negative stuff Look for keyword stuffed pages & blog posts Analyze your backlink profile Start adding new, baller ass (that's Shawn speak for “high quality”) content. The best antidote to bad SEO is Good SEO. This week we're doing our favorite Internet finds: Shawn: Acorns Seth: Rev Well that was fun. As always please give us a review in the podcast directory of your choice. We're all of the major directories. We also want to hear from you. Email us at hello@digitalmarketingdive.com. Leave us questions, comments, critiques, rants, you name it. If you don't want us to read the note on the show, please tell us, because we probably will! So that's it. It's been fun! See you on the flip side! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey Everyone! Welcome to another episode of the Digital Marketing Dive Podcast. I’m Shawn Swaim of Shawn Swaim Consulting and the self-proclaimed king of the Internet. With me as always is Seth Goldstein, the Creative Director of Goldstein Media. It’s our 30th episode. We made it! Let’s see if we can come up with 30 more! This week we’re talking about how to recover your SEO after Google goes crazy with the algorithm updates. We wanted to make this episode because of some new stats that have come out about SEO… In 2012 people thought Google was crazy because they updated the algorithm on average 3 times per day… Today, in 2020, that number is up to 9 times per day. Understand that fluctuations are natural… so chill out, grab a beer, and your rankings will likely recover. (As long as you’re not doing anything that is inherently risky) Preemptively eliminate the risky baggage. If you partook in “sub-par” SEO efforts in the past and Google has not dinged you yet, count your lucky stars and start removing the negative stuff Look for keyword stuffed pages & blog posts Analyze your backlink profile Start adding new, baller ass (that’s Shawn speak for “high quality”) content. The best antidote to bad SEO is Good SEO. This week we’re doing our favorite Internet finds: Shawn: Acorns Seth: Rev Well that was fun. As always please give us a review in the podcast directory of your choice. We’re all of the major directories. We also want to hear from you. Email us at hello@digitalmarketingdive.com. Leave us questions, comments, critiques, rants, you name it. If you don’t want us to read the note on the show, please tell us, because we probably will! So that’s it. It’s been fun! See you on the flip side! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/digital-marketing-dive/support

In the impeachment trial, Democrats detailed their defense of Joe Biden’s actions regarding Ukraine in anticipation that it will be a major portion of the White House’s defense later this week.

From "The Daily 202" podcast: in the impeachment trial, Democrats detailed their defense of Joe Biden’s actions regarding Ukraine in anticipation that it will be a major portion of the White House’s defense later this week.

Maybe this about more than just end of year liquidity, and the fact that markets are hooked on stimulus. Get your Silver Fortune silver bar here! Use SF10 for 10% off: https://mkbarzandbullion.com/collections/social-media-community-collaboration-bars (I am compensated per bar sold) Support Silver Fortune, shop at SD Bullion! Free shipping over $99, and a 1 oz. round for new customers! https://sdbullion.com/sf (I am compensated by SD Bullion when the at spot round is claimed by new customers) Support Silver Fortune through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/silverfortune Any content within this video or any other video by the Silver Fortune channel is merely one man's opinion, commentary, and analysis, or actual information obtained from elsewhere, and should not be constituted as legal, investment, or financial advice. Make your own financial decisions, or consult a professional if you'd prefer to go that route. The Silver Fortune channel disclaims any liability for legal, financial, or investment decisions made. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/silver-fortune/support

During this episode, You Me and Your Top Three host, Gregg Garrett, speaks with Roy Verstraete, a founding member of the Private Directors Association; a group helping to build advisory boards for private companies and owners.  Roy discusses the importance of an independent advisory network and the critical role of mentors and advisors in today’s day and age. Specifically, Roy talks about his career leading manufacturing and product companies in Europe, North America, and South America. Additionally, he speaks about what it was like to work with iconic brands like Velcro and the excitement of working with founders and owners in these spaces. Finally, Roy shares his “Top Three” and talks about how when he was growing up in management, having mentors was actually a sign of weakness and how he turned to virtual mentors to help guide his career. About Roy Verstraete Roy is a corporate director, advisor, senior executive and internationalist with 30+ years of leadership experience. He is currently a Director for 4 Private manufacturing companies in the US, Canada, the UK and Germany. Roy has served on Boards of Directors and Advisory Boards for public, private and start-up companies as well as not-for-profit organizations. Also he is Past Chair of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association and the Private Directors Association. Roy holds a degree in Chemical Engineering from McMaster University and earned an MBA from the Schulich School of Business. In addition, Roy completed “Making Corporate Boards More Effective”- a Certificate program, from the Harvard Business School. Show Highlights Segment 1: Overview 1:00        What is the role of a board in a successful career; both personally and professionally? 4:33        Roy Verstraete: A global citizen in manufacturing whose career also became his hobby. Segment 2: Evolution of Mentorships & the “Top Three” 6:00        What made Roy, Roy? Learning to evolve from management to leadership in various cultures.(Velcro Corporation.) 9:33        Roy’s “Top Three”: A hunger for information & learning fed through attending conferences with key thinkers and leaders - Peter Drucker, Management Theory. 10:50      Roy’s “Top Three”: Evolution from management to leadership – Jim Collins (Good to Great), Clayton Christensen (The Innovator’s Dilemma), Michael Porter 12:55      “Those were foundational pieces that came together to make something.” 13:30      The importance of being vulnerable. 14:44      Attending conferences: what’s the relationship makeup? Segment 3: Becoming an Advisor, Mentor & Board Member 16:40      The journey of becoming an advisor, mentor and board member. 18:42      The Private Directors Association: Filling the whitespace of private companies. 22:54      The four pillars of PDA – private owners, private equity owners, ESOPs, and startups. 25:00      The evolution of the board in startups. 26:35      75% of the clients that  he had would not have lost their business if they would have had an external advisor of two. - Bruce Goldstein. 27:44      Hints to management and board members. Segment 4: Industries & Disruption 34:38      The greatest impact on industries: The geopolitical state and cyber security.  37:20      Current trends: consolidation and divestitures. 39:43      Evolutionary changes in manufacturing. 42:23      “All of our training, all of our education, was how to grow, how to push....nowhere was the training of how to handle a true, serious, heavy recession.” 43:43      What to do now to prepare for a recession? “Preemptively look at what you don’t need.” Segment 5: Wrapping Up 48:33      Best piece of advice he has received: “Being curious and remaining curious leads to continuous learning....but decide what direction you want to go and share that” 50:45      How to get started? “Rather than the morning, tonight write down what you want to do tomorrow. And tomorrow you start on it.” 52:11      The Private Directors Association – 80 Detroit members. 4 major chapters. And growing. 55:11      For owners: the only environment where owners can come to a meeting and ‘window shop’. 56:46      Contact Roy via LinkedIn or Email (Roy@RoyVerstraete.com! Additional Information Contact Roy Verstraete: Roy’s LinkedIn

For this week's dose of evil, I discuss defense measures for the lair and minion diversification

Hard Factor's VP of Football Operations PFTcommenter comes on the show to discuss the ins and outs of the Barstool union controversy that has been dominating the internet. In the process he inadvertently let his greatest fear slip… Hard Factor unionizing against PFT directly.Also in the News Buffet:Philadelphia Police Stand-Off UpdateMike Tyson Claims to Smoke $40k of Weed a Month Congressman Steve King (R) of Iowa publicly questioned whether there would be “any population of the world left” if not for rape and incest throughout history..

In this episode, you'll learn: The step-by-step 7-day launch strategy and how to apply it to Facebook Groups The best way to close the sale How to get insane engagement in your brand new group Timestamp: 2:00 - It doesn’t matter where you are in your business 2:29 - Biggest mistake people make 3:15 - What’s the problem that needs to be solved 5:00 - How do I sell it? (The method) 6:30 - What do we teach them? 8:00 - Choosing a topic that compliments what you want to sell 8:50 - Preemptively overcome their objections 10:50 - Close all the exits 12:00 - Do it inside a Facebook group and be like Hugh Hefner 13:30 - Day 1 - Promote like crazy 14:45 - Bonus: Creating a course in the process 15:15 - Day 2 - Train your guests to engage 17:00 - Core members are crucial 18:00 - Incentivize members to use the training 20:20 - Days 3, 4, and 5, give insane value and get them on the training calls 21:20 - Pitch them on the 2nd day of training 22:05 - Overcome their objections on the 3rd day of training 23:25 - Learning how to coach from Simon Cowell 26:00 - The #1 secret to close the sale 27:18 - The benefit of making them apply 28:45 - The three questions to ask 29:15 - The timeline - Close it on Sunday 29:45 - Bonus: Get the full course 30:30 - Get into Podcasting 101 Group 32:00 - Jamie the #overdeliverer 33:30 - Outro Jamie Atkinson Email: jamie@entrepreneurjunkie.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jamieatkinson Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Jamieatkinsonmedia Website: https://www.thepodcastjunkie.com/content-launch-secrets-offer Podcast: https://www.entrepreneurjunkie.co/home Free Podcasting 101 Community Susan Leonardson Email:hi@susanleonardson.com Website: https://www.susanleonardson.com/discover Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/susleonardson Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/sleonardson/

We watch A WINTER PRINCESS (2019) and confess: I went to a Mets game, and this movie made me come down with something ... THEME ... Happy Father's Dave! ... Preemptively apologizing ... Summer power outage ... The Expositional Challenge ... Dee's Nuts ... Zealous pro-family convert ... A double-guitar tuned to John Gielgud ... Happy Hour ... Ontario's #1 Michael York ... BREAK ... Echoes of "The Sweetest Christmas" ... A latticework pie-crust plot ... The Princess-to-Mom Party-Planner Axis ... Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson's birthday party ... Brendon Zub Appreciation Station ... Spot the Angel: A relay race of angels ... Romantic après-ski Dave and Busters ... Eat Your Heart Out: Nashville hot chicken; mostly food-free; jump-scare cookie; Snowden Peak Yogurt ... No, Donnie, these are event planners ... BREAK ... The Hallmark Expanded Universe: Katrina Bowden accidentally breaking a royal story vs. Denver Medley or Balkan PUA Prince ... Happy Birthday Sara Kate! ... We all know janissaries ... Overdetermined: "What is overdetermined?" vs. "The Emile Arc" ... The Hallmark Bechdel Test: Introducing the concept of work exhaustion and alienation ... This miserable lady gets it ... BREAK ... Partner Chat: Early negativity on Natalie Hall; "circle back"; peekin' rolls; begrudging for; toe-parries ... LINK TO GOFUNDME FOR SIMON MALOY ... DAJAM: The only podcast AND inhalant available ... Rating: 2 ... Is she aware she's being filmed? ... The Leftovers: Not romantic fog, dangerous fog ... Jesse tries to suicide-by-car ... Building darted out in front of me ... Guess I forgot to put the fog lights in ... Is Chris McNally a good actor? ... Rick Ankiel ... BREAK ... IMDB dive ... Mystery Seizures and Sex Sent Me to the ER ... Autopsy ... Three kiss fakeouts ... Put it in your mouth or let him have it ... "Please wear the goggles" ... Decontextualized snowball fight ... Mackenzie Gray's incredible IMDB ... Christopher Lloyd ... Metallica videos ... Talkin' 'bout chemtrails ... No band help ... Is this a long story? ... Iron sharpens iron ... Merry Christmas • MUSIC: "Fuck You If You Don't Like Christmas," from Crudbump, by Drew Fairweather • "Mucha Muchacha," by Esquivel • "Punch Drunk," by Lock Up • All other music by Chris Collingwood of Look Park and Fountains of Wayne, except: "Orchestral Sports Theme" by Chris Collingwood and Rick Murnane

Joe Biden—is it inevitable? We explore the former VP's recent announcement that he'll be running for President in 2020 with Robyn Pennacchia, writer for Wonkette and early denizen of the the internet. Robyn, who wrote a piece about Biden’s run, talks to David and Michael about why Biden's biggest selling point is attacking Trump and questions how the media seems to have forgotten about the slew of female politicians running for the top office. Robyn also definitively proves why she's been right about everything since the seventh grade while drinking Totally Roasted from Vander Mill Cider.

Preemptively banning strawsID of criminal who was in police standoff Friday in Vernon - his name, criminal record. His female accomplice too Today SB 50 is taken up by the State Appropriations CommitteeNBC 4: Joel Grover on about an investigative story on homeless encampment clean up costs LAT story on money (over $600M) LA has spent on homeless with no effect we may soon find out LAT says yes to LA's Measure EE, property tax increase for schoolsFelicity Huffman pleads guilty Florida woman goes berserk in a Florida burger king and has 7 syringes in a vagina Florida single mom of 5 sends daughter to school with feces crusted underwear and a backpack full of bugs

In the 2019 job market, chances are you’re familiar with the term ghosting. You’ve probably experienced at least one scenario where you’ve landed an interview, you do all of the necessary prep, you’ve completed the interview and sent a thank you note, only for the company to go silent. This situation is difficult to navigate because you’re likely wondering when you should reach out, how often, and what you should say. Mike Wood, Orion’s Southeast Recruiting Manager, joins the show to discuss his insight on ghosting and how candidates can try to combat it. Topics include: • The appropriate frequency to follow up • Preemptively asking about the next step during the interview • If/when to mention other opportunities you’re pursuing

Freedom Warrior 2-7-2019 • In this episode I cover the scandals spawning for scandals spawning from scandals on the Democrat side, more on the Russia hoax, and why Venezuela’s military remain loyal. Lastly, I spend some time going through the Green New Deal and the end of society as we know it.

There are three primary kinds of issues covered in the home inspection process. Let’s review what they are.   Home inspections are an essential step in the real estate process. Assuming no major issues are uncovered, they can provide buyers with peace of mind before closing. But buyers who are about to go through this process are often curious about what to expect. In general terms, there are three primary kinds of issues home inspections are meant to identify, and we’ll be reviewing each of them today. 1. Safety. Some of the most important issues an inspection may uncover are those that could pose a real danger to people occupying the home. Problems with the home’s electrical or plumbing systems and broken door locks are just two examples of such issues. Anything that renders a property unsafe must be identified and resolved. 2. Structural. All of the structural components of a home, such as its foundation and roof, should be in good, sound condition. 3. Mechanical. Air conditioning units, water heaters, and other mechanical components of the home should be in good working order before you move in. Preemptively assessing these units during an inspection will help save you from needing to fix them after closing. “Anything that renders a property unsafe must be identified and resolved.” If you have any other questions or would like more information, feel free to give me a call or send me an email. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

John Watson and his team of 50 PCB designers at Legrand are beta partners in using Altium Nexus, the new Altium solution that takes Altium Designer and pumps it up with a healthy dose of project management capabilities. Find out why John is more excited about Altium Nexus than Altium Designer 18, and how he and his team have combat rogue libraries to tighten process and improve quality.   Show Highlights: Defining Your Design Process: What?, How?, Why? 5 mil boards was once amazing but now… old news Getting Parts You Can Trust Project Management in Altium Nexus - Streamlining and auditing processes Increasing the reliability of the design. LeGrand closes the loop - did we accomplish the why and what? AltiumLive is where you rub shoulders with leaders in the industry; 2 days of great learning. Passing the Torch - There is a concern that there are more jobs than there are designers.   Links and Resources: Fundamentals of RF/Microwave PCBs Signal Integrity By Example PCB Design: Prototyping and the PCB Design Flow (National Instruments White Paper) IPC Saturn PCB Design Tool Favourite White Papers Top 10 DFM Problems That Affect Every Design Adopting Signal Integrity In Your High Speed Design Process   Best PCB Design Books: Printed Circuit Handbook by Coombs & Holden High Speed Digital Designs: A Handbook of Black Magic by Howard Johnson and Martin Graham   Find all Episodes at: https://resources.altium.com/altium-podcast   Hi everyone this is Judy Warner with the OnTrack Podcast. Thanks for joining us again. Today we are here at the La Jolla headquarters of Altium and I have with me, John Watson of Legrand and we're going to have a great talk today about, just design in general, and then some of his vast experience. Before we get going though, I'd like to invite you to connect with me on LinkedIn, @AltiumJudy on Twitter and Altium is also on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. So if you are listening on the podcast be also aware that we record simultaneously on video. So, if you want to see our beautiful faces you can always tune into Altium's YouTube channel and click under videos, and you'll find that we are recording here in-office, which is a rare treat because we do this a lot on Skype. So John, welcome to the office. Thank you, thank you for having me. It's a pleasure being here. Yeah thanks for joining. So, why don't you start by sharing with our listeners and watchers about what you do at Legrand, and because you really have kind of a wide... you do a lot! I don't know how you, if you have any time at home ever? No, no I don't. No I'm the senior PCB engineer for Legrand, and we are a conglomerate of several divisions of what's called the building control systems and these divisions could basically go around the world; and in each one of these divisions we have designers, PCB designers and librarians and people who work on schematics and everything else. So I'm responsible for that, I'm the Administrator also, responsible for kind of mentoring them and training them, answering any other questions that they may have that come up. So we also then make sure that we constantly have the PCB designs that we're working on moving, flowing through there, so that's basically what I do. Well, what I thought we'd talk about today, based on our recent conversation is, you kind of drill down to sort of the basics of designs - now tell us about how many designers you have overall at Legrand? We have about 50 right now, 50 designers and a lot of those are, some of those are in Asia and the rest are in America here. Okay so you started talking yesterday or... yeah it was just yesterday, we spoke right? Yes. You kind of talked about what I will call the why, what, how and when. So, I thought that was an interesting way to sort of distill down the design process, but can you start talking us through that. Kind of start with the why and the what? Yeah, I think as designers we'd love to jump into the how, we'd love to: give me the schematic and let me dive into the PCB, let me start laying copper down. Yeah, but we we never get back to taking a step and really what has brought this on has been your new Nexus system with your design processes and your design flow charts that you guys have created. It's really caused us as a company, to take a step back and and ask, first off, ask the question: what are we doing? It may sound simplistic but the what is a direction pointer, it's an objective, it's the goal that you put up there and a lot of times it's kind of skimmed over... In designing, because we want to get to the how, we want to get to - we want to get to the interactive routing part of this you know. And all the exciting tools that we can use and all this and that, but we never take a step back and determine are we pointed in the right direction? Are we accomplishing what we want to start with? So, and I would actually take what we do is, we actually take it a step further back and we ask why are we doing this? The why is the foundation, the why is the motivation of why we're doing this. Because what we have seen - what I've seen in PCB design - now I've been in this for about 20 years and what I've seen is that we actually, have different parameters - people look at PCB design differently. In the company, somebody for example the PCB designer, looks at a design and he's looking at: okay, here's my schematic, here's my PCB, here's my trace routing and everything else, you know. The part procurement people; they're concerned about okay, is this part even available? How do we buy this part? How do we buy this component? How do we do this ? Then you have upper-management who looks and says how quickly can we get this thing to market. That's their concern, they're not concerned about the routing. The, designer gets into the details and he's all, yeah look at that I'm doing the... doing differential pairs! Yeah whatever, when do I get it back? [laughter] Exactly, the upper management people, they're actually sitting there going, oh we really don't care. Does it work? When can we get this to market? I've had been asked that question several times by Vice Presidents of companies and things like that, and you say in interviews, they go: we have such a terrible lead time in our designs from concept to market and by the time we get this whole thing through the process we're gone... the market is gone. So, one of their major concerns is, how do we speed this whole process up? And one of the things that I've always pushed on, is the best way to do that, and accomplish it is, first off, know why you're doing something. What are you doing that gets you pointed in the right direction and how are you gonna do it? And that then brings in the how. And and once you get that established, then you can start talking about how we're gonna do this. And what tools we're going to use and those things are not major in any way just sit down, in one sentence, what do you do? Right. Because I think, what struck me when you said that it's like well, yeah of course but sometimes we breeze over that because we're all making assumptions but I think, what you're saying is, five different people could be making five different assumptions and they're assuming they're all on the same page. Right, exactly. So unless you spell that out up front... You're right. -And the direction is clear, it can get messy real quick. Right, and as I said, what has really brought this on has been the Nexus system. So, I should mention to our listeners and watchers that, John and Legrand were part of our Beta group for Nexus, so they have been really instrumental in working with us giving us great feedback and also really showing us, instructing us, as much as we're instructing you I think. Oh yeah. It's been a real strong partnership, so he's way down the road from most people that are just starting to onboard Nexus now. So we're very excited - I'm actually more excited about Nexus than I am Altium 18, and Altium 18 I tell you, you guys knocked it out of the park. I'm actually more excited about Nexus because this, this is beyond PCB design, you guys have taken this now beyond the PCB. You've taken it into the Project Management area. You've taken this whole design process, and I have project managers now, that have seen the Nexus system and they go: we can use that, we can use that process. The project managers now can look at the process, see whatever area that they're concerned with, they can now look at that process and understand where it's at. So you guys have now taken the whole PCB design process and kind of put it on it's head and you, you've caused me at least, to rethink this whole process. Which is really exciting to hear from somebody who's been laying out boards and even instructing other people how to lay out boards for 20 years. Yeah. So that's exciting to hear. It's very exciting, but I think this would work in any situation to  understand what you're doing and how you're going to do it and having a clear plan is going to be vital. Especially with the environment we live in today, I mean especially with the whole electronic industry and where it's headed. Yeah well, it's gotten so complex that it's hard to get your head around it sometimes. Oh it is always... I mean,  and any one part of that, the design process is incredibly complex, the manufacturing, sourcing parts is incredibly complex and shifting all the time, and nothing's static. Right so it's like you're shooting at a target that's moving all the time, and you're trying to get you know... what do you call that - a bull's-eye. Right, exactly I remember, several years ago, about four or five years ago, when I was sitting at PCB West and people were amazed about how they were now going to be able to do five mill traces on boards! You know, and it was supposed to...people were gasping, oh that's amazing you know? And now that's old technology. Think about that. It's just stunning. It is, it’s absolutely stunning, but it tells you, it tells you not where we've been, but where we're heading. What's the industry going to look like in five more years? What's the industry going to look like in ten years, and it's exciting, it's an exciting time to be a part of this. I agree it is an exciting time and I think that those of us in the electronics industry that’s part of what motivates us is, is the excitement right? Yes exactly. And being on that forefront like seeing what is next right, and what can we do. Yesterday you talked to us about the Item Manager, would you touch on that slightly and how that sort of impacted your own design process? Yes, one of the important parts for us was when I first started at Legrand, we had various designers who were using various libraries but the bigger the organization the worst that can be. The harder it is right, it becomes much, much more difficult the bigger a company becomes. But it also brings in a lot of risk with the PCB design, when what I would call 'rogue libraries' are used and you know, when someone creates their own library or things like that - and we had a lot of libraries... Like how many, how many designers how many libraries we talking about? We had about, at that time, we had probably thirty designers and we probably had over 900 libraries that were total and our library set and Item Manager is a great tool that you guys have placed into Altium, that allows me to look at a design, and look at the sourcing for those parts for those individual components and what it does, is it identifies whether a part is what you guys call managed or unmanaged. So a managed part would be an example of a part that is under the vault system, or under a specific library. We specifically use the vault system. And what it does is, it tells me where the part came from, whether it's managed or unmanaged first off, and where it came from. And then, if that part is managed, it then tells me what the life cycle is. It tells me if there's been updates done on the part, or whether there's new a new part for that in the library so it will say that the part is out of date or needs to be updated. Okay. Okay so, and then you simply go through a small process to update those components in that design. But we use it a lot too when we are bringing in a new design and we're comparing it and we're starting with the design review process, we want to know where those parts came from. So that's our first question, is we say, ok where are these parts from? So it tells us managed and unmanaged parts. And then we want to know, if those parts are managed, are they up to date with our library? So then we use that a lot - the item manager is probably one of the biggest tools we use, because that tells us exactly where the design is at. So you're ensuring them that you have the most current revision of any given part, at any time so that's what you said kind of like the risk mitigation or increasing the reliability right of the design? Exactly. Before you actually make the board? You don't want to get to that point. Yeah I was saying yesterday about, we've all been in this industry any period of time. You've put all the work into a fabrication and you play your part down and you get everything nice and shiny and everything else and and then you create your Gerber set and you send it out to a fab house and the fab house builds the boards you know. Then they go over to the assembly house, and you're sitting there and your phone starts ringing like, I'm sorry but the part that you gave us doesn't fit on your board okay, and you have to make that, what I call the long walk to the manager's office, where he then has to toe it you know, you just have to tell him: excuse me but we just spent so much money on this project we spent three months on this, and we have... it's the boards are useless we can't build the boards and we've all been there I mean... It happens to everyone and that speaks not to the ineptitude of the designer but the complexity of the process and the craziness of managing component libraries and keeping that up to date because the data is fluid and rolling all the time, and parts are coming in and out of the supply chain and it's a very difficult thing to track. It's a very difficult thing to track, but what we try to do is where there are steps that can be taken to definitely lower the risk of that situation. So you told a story yesterday which made me laugh but also, made me gasp at the same time. So why don't you - you know what I'm talking about right, about the weekend - so why don't you share that story, and sort of what got you to that place of, coming from a place when you had all those designers and hundreds of libraries, and discovering that when you did a root cause analysis that most of the problems were either from footprint problems or component problems and then you did what about it? Well what we did was you know this, I'm the sort of person as you know, it's a little thing called baptism of fire I guess we'll call it, but we had so many libraries in our system and people were using their own libraries and different tools that they had developed. I mean, they were setting up their own things so we had about over 1,200 libraries at that time, and when we ran things through the Item Manager, we would see 'Joe's library.' Well, Joe we need to have a chat. Yeah Joe, that's not going to work anymore. I mean, we need to because we had to centralize, that was the biggest problem, we had people that had rogue libraries and they were causing problems, failures, they were costing the company money. Right, which back to your point is when the manager’s agenda is to say; if we miss our window time-to-market heads will roll okay, so you drilled down and said: okay what's causing that? Yes. And you're like... rogue libraries? Rogue libraries, and what we did was after work on a Friday evening after everyone had left I basically went in and deleted all the libraries, so that was an interesting Monday morning. I would've liked to be a fly on the wall that Monday morning did you show up for work on Monday? Yes I did, because I was going to be there because basically it had to be done. The integrity of a PCB design which means that we try to put out the highest quality board that we can put out the very first time - we don't have time to do four, five, six spins of this the very first time, how do we have a high integrity board? Well number one is our libraries - I want all designers pulling a single part from a single library, that has a single footprint, a single sourcing and everything was in line and everything was correct, and that was how we began to basically rebuild our libraries. Right, and that is, at that time is that when you were onboarding Vault, or you had vault but just all these rogue libraries? All the rogue libraries yeah. So you just we shut them off and said, there's one place you can get components. Right exactly, and that was our whole purpose for getting the vault system was a single library source, that was it. Tell us a little bit, we had talked several months ago, and I was really impressed with your whole vetting system really, that you've built internally of making sure. How do you make sure that the parts that you're putting in the vault are known, good parts and that they're verified and that they're up to date? Right, well what we do is we, first off in the part itself, we follow IPC standard for our part creation we use the IPC 7351 and the IPC standards are our guideline for creating parts, and what we have now done is, because of Altium's sourcing capabilities now, we're able now to see sourcing. One of the greatest features that I have now looked at with Altium 18, has been your active BOM feature. The ability to take a BOM and throw it out there to all the vendors and suppliers and get feedback from them to determine what is the quality, what is the probability of this part, and we've actually taken several of our boards that are in production right now, through this active BOM process and what we got back was, we would get red flags on components. We would get notices like this part is end of life. And on active parts that you're building? That we're building. Oh boy. So we would get, you know, red flags stating ok, this part is the end of life, this part is not recommended for new designs, this part is obsolete and it was a situation where that was the information we needed really. That gives us the red flags, not at the end of the project, not after the fabrication's there, not after the assemblies' done or started and after it's gone to the customer especially, it tells us at the beginning, the very first day when our schematic is complete we run it through the active BOM feature and we get the red flags, because a lot of times, what designers do is, they will either copy a design from a previous design or they will simply lay down a part. All right, that's their job, that's the double E's responsibility. What has happened now, is we have been given the ability and the tools to make sure that we are using good parts. So if I run a board now, through the active active BOM feature and it gives me a red flag, saying this is not the best part, this is not recommended for new designs, then I can go back to the EE now; and I can say, you know what we should consider not using this. Preemptively and proactively, before you're to the expensive part... Exactly yes, and so that now, we're able to constantly keep our sourcing information up to date so that we know exactly who we're buying the part from. And then also whether that part is deprecating in the lifecycle. So how many parts are is Legrand managing inside of your vault in your library now? Right now we have about 5,000 6,000 parts. And how do you... so using the active BOM is one; but didn't you tell me that you have a system of verification before things go in or out, come out your vault? Yeah. Just an internal process? It's an internal process that when anybody creates a new part it's given a life cycle of 'new' so that tells us it's a new part and what we then do, is we very go through and verify it, a verification process of that part. We'll pull up the data sheet, we'll verify the footprint, we'll verify the 3D model, the schematic symbol of course, and everything else and before then we can change the lifecycle to 'released', to where it's now available. So we make sure that, this is one of the features, also on Item Manager, it will tell you if the component lifecycle is new or if it's in a release state. So we can actually see: oh that part hasn't been verified yet, so we can then go in and make sure that everything's perfectly okay with it. How nice, by the way, to have that clean of a library. like I think that's really rare, I don't think that's something everybody could boast about. I don't know, maybe I don't know. Oh I wouldn't say it's too clean, it's a effort it's a constant... Well yeah I'm sure it's something you have to continually manage? Yeah you constantly have to manage it, you constantly have to keep a look at and watch after it, a lot of times we have components that pop up there and they just don't match - nothing matches on the datasheet or anything and they easily get deleted. So we try to keep in control of that. So, you'd mentioned to me about, that in your multiple locations, you have three different PLM systems too? Yeah. How does that come into play? Well we have different divisions, and each one of those; some of those have different PLM systems, and they also have different numbering systems for the part. So for example, you can have like a 1K resistor, 805 resistor, that you have in your library. Well for us there's - for one division - it's one part number, for another division it's another part number, and for another division it could be another part number. So what we did was, we actually set up parameters inside of that part. We set up, what's called a CPN, a Company Part Number, so we then set up a list of company part numbers that we would use for that single item, so we could put in there then, all the different part numbers. So whenever anyone lays that part down, they're also laying down all the information for that part. So all the information, for whatever division is going to use it, so it makes it very handy to then integrate the whole process. So now that you've got this centralized and cleaned up and nobody wants to kill you anymore for deleting their parts - tell us how the overall, now kind of backing the camera up here, what's the overall effect that it's had actually on your quality your time to market, you know, the role of sanitization. What has that done for you guys really, as a company? It's really helped to streamline the whole process because once we're starting with good information from the library, then we can talk now; what we're talking about is how are we going to streamline - how we're going to standardize our process, how we - we want to make sure that all the designers are first off, they're starting off from the same sheet, they're starting off at the same location, so they're all working from the same library. They're working from the same templates now, and they're working from the same guidelines, procedures, things like that. So what has helped is it's streamlined. Basically taking a design through different divisions and it can be handed off from division to division and it can just be carried, and continue to be worked on. Without the disconnect. Without a disconnect without - except for a couple of people - I'll tell you... [laughter] There's always those couple people. Yeah there's always a couple people. I have to tell you that there's the one person in particular he, what he does is, the convention is, in Altium, is that the component layer is red, and the solder side is blue, well what he does is he'll go and he'll swap those. Just to mess with your head. [laughter] Just to mess with my head right. So but it's - other than that, once it's done, is it's called us to streamline the process, so now with the Nexus system coming in, we are going to be bringing that online, with the Nexus system coming online, we are now looking deeper at our processes, looking further about our process, and I'm kind of looking at it in the way of where, if you have a set process and you have a set group of people, a team that is responsible for certain tasks, then we can actually have milestone setups in our process where we simply say, at this gate keeping item, or this moment of our process, we want to do for example, a design review- Oh like an audit... -of an audit, of where the design is at and then also, we can assign people specific tasks in that process. So basically, we can go from there into then checklist... we say, ok we give a checklist to an individual that says check one, two, three, and four is it correct? So what we're looking now at, is streamlining our entire design review process, looking at decreasing our time to market, decreasing the time that that board is in design, and the Nexus system is going to definitely be a major part of that whole process. Because with that then, we're able to go into web reviews, which we're very excited about doing. Being able to do web reviews and have people actually go onto a website to look at this, they don't need to have Altium installed and go through the licensing and all this and that, they just get the email and the link, and they go in, review documents. So that's really exciting for us, but we're actually seeing a quicker time to market we're seeing better, improved boards, and it's really helped us also to do a self-audit which means that when we do a fabrication of a board for example, and we then go into assembly, what we then do is, we do a DFM we do a design for manufacturing review. We then look at the board and say, okay now what was the design flaws here? What was then - we also do a build review - from an assembly house they come back with a report that says, oh we had this, and this, and this issue. Okay so now, what we're able to do is that drives the design from there, then we look back at our libraries, whether we need to improve our footprints, or do we need to improve in some way, our process. Or we look at the specific layout, or we look at component problems and such like a build review, then we can look at our design review checklist. So it's like, it sounds like an ongoing real-time, optimization of your entire process. Yeah. Whenever you begin a process and you go out and you do that process, we're closing the circle. We bring it back to the beginning: say, did we accomplish what we started out to do right? We talk about how we, talked about it at the beginning, 'why' and 'how' or we talked about 'why' and 'what'. Well at the very back end it gets looped back there did we accomplish, why, what we were doing? Because I'll tell you, a lot of times, we can start a project and we can - and we just kind of go down the primrose path of design and we never get to what we were accomplishing. Right that can't happen. And and we never get to it, we never accomplish it, and a lot of times those sort of designs and those sort of PCB just kind of die by the wayside. That was fun, that was a nice fun project. Now let's go do another one! Let's do another yeah. But I always said, I've always told the designers that I work with, I said: look you do not get paid for designing, you don't get paid for designing. This company is in business for one thing, and it's not to pay you to be a designer. It's a company, we’re in the manufacturing field now, not maybe in a service area, but in manufacturing. You're here designing because you're building something that ultimately needs to be put on a shelf somewhere and someone needs to buy. We're here to sell stuff and a lot of times we lose sight of that - we lose sight of the fact that, oh well this is a nice fun project, but do we ever accomplish what we started out to do? So what we try to do is, we're definitely trying to constantly improve our process, and constantly improving our designs and things like that, and I think that's done through our review process and looking at the very forefront of what what are we accomplishing? Did we do it? How well did we do it you know? And where did we maybe fall down and how can we improve that. Here at Altium internally, we call that a post mortem. We've set up a process we said, well we're gonna go through it and then when it's done, we come back and we do what's known, sort of in the marketplace, as a post mortem and go, well how did that go? Did we do what we set out to do at the beginning you know, so it's very much the same of what you're talking about. Yes. Because if you don't come back and do that check, you could be left to center by the time you get to the end but you're like, oh that looks good, it works yeah, and you miss the target, but it's together, and it's functional. But you missed the mark right. So it's not a board of high quality, you got 98%, you missed that 2%. I'm actually concerned about the 2%, how can we improve the process, how can we make this quicker, how can we better this? Right well it's...I'm just in awe of the work you do actually John and I never get tired of hearing you talk about it because it's it's refreshing, and you've got a big team and it's a complex process but the discipline that you've brought to it is just, it's really impressive. So now I'd like to ask you about - is there anything else - first of all, that I missed that I asked you about.. I don't think so. Okay, so now I want to just kind of put a microphone in front of your mouth and do a self-serving moment here, it's not really self-serving. But last October you were one of our speakers for Altium Live. And you had a lot of really positive things to say about that. I would like your honest input, because hopefully you'll be back again to speak at AltiumLive, I'd like you to encourage other designers, that maybe didn't have the chance to go. Tell them reasons why you found it valuable and so on and so forth. So if you would? I - it was of course - it was the first one so, and it was phenomenal and I felt, when you first told me, I first heard of it I thought about AltiumLive, okay this is going to be a three-day or a two- day commercial regarding Altium 18 and you're going to sit there and just see the demos and you guys are just gonna pat each other on the back as designers, and everyone's gonna you know - but it didn't turn out to be that way, what happened was this was far more than just about Altium 18. This was about the design process, this was about designers, this was an opportunity for designers to rub shoulders with some phenomenal people and some of the leaders in the industry and this was just two days of, just great learning, to hear from experts, to hear from the people that are the leaders that's the only way I can really describe it. They really are, I mean, the keynotes we had were thought leaders. They were, they were phenomenal, just absolutely! Mr. Holden... Yeah Happy Holden. -was just phenomenal I've been reading one of his, my favorite books, it sits on my desk right now it's The Printed Circuit Handbook. Isn't that a great book? This thick. Is that thick yeah. [gestures] But Happy doesn't ever sign up for anything that is short. That's right. Brevity is not his skill in life. But it was a phenomenal time and I'm really looking forward to October I mean, to have it again, and I understand we're gonna add the one day? We are gonna add the day on the front end because and we're doing that, again, we really are trying to make it all about people like you, and and not make it an Altium commercial because I think EDA tool companies in general have been absolutely guilty of putting on, what they call user conferences, but it's like, we're going to lock you in a room, and beat you over the head with our products - see if you'll buy some more stuff from us right. So we try to really focus on what do you guys want; what's the value to you, and again this is a complex world we swim in so let's just bring all the experts in, bring on this. And of course we did launch Altium 18 and we talked about Nexus there, but only you know, 45 minutes on day one; 45 minutes on day two - that's all, the rest of the time it was not us at all - it was about celebrating designers and the and the craft of design but when we did the exit surveys we asked. What did you like, what you didn't like? And most of the feedback was largely good. But the one piece of feedback that people gave us is; gee I wish there was just a little bit more that was actually tool training, getting into some of the more advanced features that maybe during the workaday world, they don't have time to just sit down and learn and drill deep into some of the advanced features. So we've added a day on the front end that we're calling Altium University, and then we're gonna just do tracks all day, on the first day. And it's optional, you can go or not go, you know. If you're an expert and you don't need initial training, you don't have to go. But at least it's there and we've kept it out, so that we can kind of stay, design - somewhat design agnostic - on those other two days and really give you good depth and training and bringing in the experts, wait til you see, so far for AltiumLive - this is like breaking news right here, really you're the first to know... Oh my goodness. Okay, since you've been so generous with your time... so three keynote speakers that we have signed up right now is Eric Bogatin... Oh right! I bet you've read a few of his books, Rick Hartley, and then a young buck by the name of Jeremy Blum, who has worked at Google, went to Cornell; sharp Electrical Engineer and he's at a start-up now called Shaper and so he is like 'Forbes 30 under-30 Technologist', and he's like the startup whiz-bang kid. So that'll appeal, I think, to the younger designers and I haven't picked the fourth yet, but stay tuned - I'll keep one secret to myself. Those are three for San Diego. Dan Beeker will be joining us in Munich and I haven't decided yet, we're still working on the other ones in Munich, but it should be another great lineup of keynotes and I will put out a call for presentation soon so, and I've already inked you in, so. Yes you have. You don't get a vote. I know, and you're probably gonna ink me into Munich also. Good, good whatever we have to do to suck you in. So thank you for the AltiumLive commercial. Right I would just add to that, I would just add to that, I would just say, that if you, if you're kind of sitting on the fence about going or not going. Go, you won't be sorry, you won't be sorry I can promise you that. It's definitely a great time; it's a learning experience, it's a time to rub shoulders, is a time to kind of get away from your job - kind of get away from all the hassles. For those of you who are going to be in the cold areas of the country, such as Montana in the middle of October, I would highly recommend you to come please, come to beautiful San Diego where it will be a chilly 72 degrees. On Coronado Island with water on both sides of the hotel. Exactly, so it's gonna be a great time, but above that, it's gonna be a great learning experience. It's going to be a great time to come learn and grow, I'm really a senior, not just in age, but also in this industry, and one of our concerns is, and one of the concerns that was brought up in PCB magazine, just last year; was how there's a mass exodus right now of PCB designers, and that there is a vacuum happening that there are now more jobs available than there are designers and that is not just a concern for me, it's also a challenge, a challenge to train and to teach the younger generation coming up. To teach them and train them about this whole thing. It's a phenomenal industry, it's a cutting-edge industry, but it's not something where somebody, you know, they grow up they're four or five years old; mommy when I grow up I want to be a PCB designer. I know, I always say we all got here by accident, you know, it's like some windy road that landed us here. I started off in my career as an Electronic Technician and I started in that route and finally got pulled into the PCB design area and I actually started off with Protel 98... You are dating yourself. Way back when, so and but it was phenomenal. It was it was a career that is now, is always changing and I love it, it's just... but I would highly encourage everyone to be there and to make sure that you come there to learn because that's the whole purpose of it. It's not going to be a three-day commercial for Altium, it is - this is about you - and what you need okay. Thank you I'll give you your $20 bill later [laughter]. Check is in the mail... Well you plugged that way more than I'd hoped for, so thank you for doing that. But I know you're a fan, and I appreciate it. The feedback you had was music to my ears because what we intended to deliver, you said we delivered so, yes that makes my heart sing and and being an - by the way - I won't give away this secret but I will put a little hook in you... Either your age or your weight... No neither one of those, no. Before AltiumLive, or at AltiumLive when - I first want to say thank you - that you are one of the people in the industry that are training up the next generation through the people you're training out of the ground so I really appreciate how you personally contribute. But either before or at AltiumLive you will hear something very exciting from Altium about things we're gonna be doing. Extremely proactively, help grow up the PCB design community and in a way where they can go out and use any tool they want but we have an intention to help grow that next and we hope people will use Altium, but we're not... Right, it's not required. That's good. -so stay tuned. I am really excited about that I mean, that's an exciting... It's coming and I feel really privileged to be in the place I am because, like you, I have been around a little while and luckily Altium is a generous EDA company and they are allowing me to step in and do some of these things. I thought your big announcement was AltiumLive, this year is going to be Altium 19. Oh shocker, spoiler alert! Altium 19! You heard it here first! [laughter] At least we're consistent. We're consistent yeah. I'm glad you guys got, many years ago, you got away from that 2010-like the 2010 stage I don't know how many are still here, but you did the summer and the winter release. It was like a fashion show was like so... Our summer line! Your summer line versus your winter like well then if we killed off teams of developers we decided to stop. Or they're like, why does it keep crashing? Maybe we should only do one release a year... Just saying... no. Well thank you again, this has been a blast always great having you... Thank you for having me. -thanks for teaching us and being such a great contributor to the industry. Well, we appreciate you, appreciate what you're doing. Thank you. Thank you again. This has been Judy Warner with the OnTrack podcast and my friend John Watson from Legrand. Please tune in again next time and until then remember to always stay on track.

It was for a movie role! PLUS upcoming Wreck It Ralph promo photo includes all the Disney princesses! Darling!!! Ariana Grande says she manifested Pete Davidson into her life!

The better your law practice is managed, the less likely you are to fall short on even basic ethics duties like competence, diligence, and communication. That’s why audits of your law firm technology, marketing, and practice management are so important. In this episode, I’m joined by Jared Correia, Founder and CEO of Red Cave Law Firm Consulting, which offers subscription-based law firm business management consulting and technology services for solo and small law firms.  What We Discuss in This Episode:   Why workload overwhelm, not intentional misbehavior, is what often causes lawyers to run into ethics trouble What you can learn from examples of lawyers who, either through their own actions or not, experienced disasters that affected their abilities to conduct their legal work When it comes to technology, marketing, and management practices, what exactly should you be doing? How you, as a law firm owner, can get your staff to provide input regarding office operations  What types of technology should your firm employ in order to avoid ethics traps? When it comes to your firm’s financials, what software should you use and what systems can you institute to improve performance? The ethics of marketing tools and channels Resources Mentioned: Massachusetts LOMAP  Productivity tools like email: Microsoft office or even better, Office 365 Accounting software: Quickbooks, Xero Document cloud storage: Google Drive or One Drive Scanner: Dropbox built in scanner or Scansnap Contact Information: Jared's website: www.redcavelegal.com jared@redcavelegal.com (617)398-7181 Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday. If you enjoyed this episode, please help me get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, and Google Play, and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Be sure to connect with me and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email me at megan[at]zaviehlaw[dot]com This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

Brady discusses a copywriting tip that you can use to help drive more next steps at your church. The key to this is to respond to objections preemptively.   What's In This Session? Advanced copywriting & communication tip (0:24) Common objections (2:01) Fix #1: Confront the objection (2:50) Fix #2: Confront the rejection (4:31) Fix #3: Confront the alternative (6:17)   Show Notes & Resources Mentioned Nucleus Pro Church Tools Pro Church Tools on Facebook Pro Church Tools on YouTube Brady Shearer on Instagram Brady Shearer on Twitter Alex Mills on Instagram   Find the full transcript for this session of the Pro Church Podcast at http://prochurchtools.com/advanced-church-communications-tip-preemptively-responding-objections-ep-095/.

Prof Mateos talks to ecancertv at ICMM 2016 about the use of monoclonal gammopathy in early-stage pre-malignant disorders. Unfortunately, she says, certain patients will see their disorder evolve into active myeloma disease. She says it is important to predict better which patients are most at risk so they can be treated preemptively, possibly with lenalidomide and dexamethasone.

North Korea is a dictatorship and believed to have nuclear weapons. Now, that the country develops rockets that reach the West, wouldn't it be wise to strike first?

Sebastian and Dirk didn't stop after their debate, they went on. Listen in on their discussion in this special episode!

The Highjack is LIVE at the Mensa regional gathering. The Professor reveals what he wants to do to extend his youth, We talk a little Trump and a supporter leaves the recording because we mentioned a fact, we talk about musical acts and their riders, and the profesor doesn't like Amazon Prime Now because he's old. Don't forget to subscribe on iTunes and Google Music

Overcoming the Enemy - Our Counterattack (Part 2) 2 Chronicles 32 1. Pray 2. Proclaim 3. Prepare a. Proactively b. Preemptively c. With Partnership 4. Proceed a. With Humility b. Through Faith c. Be Obedient d. In Dependence Sermon: Pastor Scott Weaver

Initiative Petition BillsSB 812 (Prohibits courts from editing ballot language for a General Assembly-passed constitutional amendment)Five for Democracy: Email or call your State Senator to express your opposition to this bill. Find your Senator here. Deadline is Monday, April 11th.Voting BillsSB 654 (Includes a variety of restrictions on voter registration efforts)Five for Democracy: Email or call your State Senator to express your opposition to this bill. Find your Senator here. Deadline is Monday, April 11th.HJR 131 (Preemptively derails a citizens' initiative petition about ranked choice voting that is currently gathering signatures)Five for Democracy: Email or call your State Senator to express your opposition to this bill. Find your Senator here.Reproductive RightsHB 2012 (Makes the manufacture, prescription, and distribution of abortion inducting drugs a felony)Five for Democracy: Email or call your State Senator to express your opposition to this bill. Find your Senator here.