Welcome to another episode of the Action and Ambition podcast. Today's guest is Jennifer Fried. Jennifer Fried is the co-founder and CEO of ExplORer Surgical, an interactive surgical playbook that reduces disruptions and waste. ExplORer Surgical also provides OR administrators with real-time performance and scheduling data to improve treatment quality and efficiency. Surgeries teams can use the program to organize work, manage instruments and supplies, and more. Thus, optimal cooperation, efficiency, and performance are obtained. It allows doctors to focus on what they do best: performing successful procedures that help patients live their best lives. A tailored checklist helps the Explorer manage workflow in the OR and procedural suites, reducing errors and confusion among team members. It helps medical device producers introduce new products faster and cheaper while simultaneously improving medical education. Sounds intriguing, right? Tune in to learn more about this medical breakthrough!
Recorded by Robert Miles: http://robertskmiles.com More information about the newsletter here: https://rohinshah.com/alignment-newsletter/ YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfGGFXwKpr-TJ5HfxEFaFCg HIGHLIGHTS The "most important century" series (Holden Karnofsky) (summarized by Rohin): In some sense, it is really weird for us to claim that there is a non-trivial chance that in the near future, we might build transformative AI and either (1) go extinct or (2) exceed a growth rate of (say) 100% per year. It feels like an extraordinary claim, and thus should require extraordinary evidence. One way of cashing this out: if the claim were true, this century would be the most important century, with the most opportunity for individuals to have an impact. Given the sheer number of centuries there are, this is an extraordinary claim; it should really have extraordinary evidence. This series argues that while the claim does seem extraordinary, all views seem extraordinary -- there isn't some default baseline view that is “ordinary” to which we should be assigning most of our probability. Specifically, consider three possibilities for the long-run future: 1. Radical: We will have a productivity explosion by 2100, which will enable us to become technologically mature. Think of a civilization that sends spacecraft throughout the galaxy, builds permanent settlements on other planets, harvests large fractions of the energy output from stars, etc. 2. Conservative: We get to a technologically mature civilization, but it takes hundreds or thousands of years. Let's say even 100,000 years to be ultra conservative. 3. Skeptical: We never become technologically mature, for some reason. Perhaps we run into fundamental technological limits, or we choose not to expand into the galaxy, or we're in a simulation, etc. It's pretty clear why the radical view is extraordinary. What about the other two? The conservative view implies that we are currently in the most important 100,000-year period. Given that life is billions of years old, and would presumably continue for billions of years to come once we reach a stable galaxy-wide civilization, that would make this the most important 100,000 year period out of tens of thousands of such periods. Thus the conservative view is also extraordinary, for the same reason that the radical view is extraordinary (albeit it is perhaps only half as extraordinary as the radical view). The skeptical view by itself does not seem obviously extraordinary. However, while you could assign 70% probability to the skeptical view, it seems unreasonable to assign 99% probability to such a view -- that suggests some very strong or confident claims about what prevents us from colonizing the galaxy, that we probably shouldn't have given our current knowledge. So, we need to have a non-trivial chunk of probability on the other views, which still opens us up to critique of having extraordinary claims. Okay, so we've established that we should at least be willing to say something as extreme as “there's a non-trivial chance we're in the most important 100,000-year period”. Can we tighten the argument, to talk about the most important century? In fact, we can, by looking at the economic growth rate. You are probably aware that the US economy grows around 2-3% per year (after adjusting for inflation), so a business-as-usual, non-crazy, default view might be to expect this to continue. You are probably also aware that exponential growth can grow very quickly. At the lower end of 2% per year, the economy would double every ~35 years. If this continued for 8200 years, we'd need to be sustaining multiple economies as big as today's entire world economy per atom in the universe. While this is not a priori impossible, it seems quite unlikely to happen. This suggests that we're in one of fewer than 82 centuries that will have growth rates at 2% or larger, making it far less “extraordinary” to claim that we're in the most important one, especially if you believe that growth rates are well correlated with change and ability to have impact. The actual radical view that the author places non-trivial probability on is one we've seen before in this newsletter: it is one in which there is automation of science and technology through advanced AI or whole brain emulations or other possibilities. This allows technology to substitute for human labor in the economy, which produces a positive feedback loop as the output of the economy is ploughed back into the economy creating superexponential growth and a “productivity explosion”, where the growth rate increases far beyond 2%. The series has summarizes and connects together many (AN #105), past (AN #154), Open (AN #121), Phil (AN #118) analyses (AN #145), which I won't be summarizing here (since we've summarized these analyses previously). While this is a more specific and “extraordinary” claim than even the claim that we live in the most important century, it seems like it should not be seen as so extraordinary given the arguments above. This series also argues for a few other points important to longtermism, which I'll copy here: 1. The long-run future is radically unfamiliar. Enough advances in technology could lead to a long-lasting, galaxy-wide civilization that could be a radical utopia, dystopia, or anything in between. 2. The long-run future could come much faster than we think, due to a possible AI-driven productivity explosion. (I briefly mentioned this above, but the full series devotes much more space and many more arguments to this point.) 3. We, the people living in this century, have the chance to have a huge impact on huge numbers of people to come - if we can make sense of the situation enough to find helpful actions. But right now, we aren't ready for this. Read more: 80,000 Hours podcast on the topic Rohin's opinion: I especially liked this series for the argument that 2% economic growth very likely cannot last much longer, providing quite a strong argument for the importance of this century, without relying at all on controversial facts about AI. At least personally I was previously uneasy about how “grand” or “extraordinary” AGI claims tend to be, and whether I should be far more skeptical of them as a result. I feel significantly more comfortable with these claims after seeing this argument. Note though that it does not defuse all such uneasiness -- you can still look at how early we appear to be (given the billions of years of civilization that could remain in the future), and conclude that the simulation hypothesis is true, or that there is a Great Filter in our future that will drive us extinct with near-certainty. In such situations there would be no extraordinary impact to be had today by working on AI risk. TECHNICAL AI ALIGNMENT PROBLEMS Why AI alignment could be hard with modern deep learning (Ajeya Cotra) (summarized by Rohin): This post provides an ELI5-style introduction to AI alignment as a major challenge for deep learning. It primarily frames alignment as a challenge in creating Saints (aligned AI systems), without getting Schemers (AI systems that are deceptively aligned (AN #58)) or Sycophants (AI systems that satisfy only the letter of the request, rather than its spirit, as in Another (outer) alignment failure story (AN #146)). Any short summary I write would ruin the ELI5 style, so I won't attempt it; I do recommend it strongly if you want an introduction to AI alignment. LEARNING HUMAN INTENT B-Pref: Benchmarking Preference-Based Reinforcement Learning (Kimin Lee et al) (summarized by Zach): Deep RL has become a powerful method to solve a variety of sequential decision tasks using a known reward function for training. However, in practice, rewards are hard to specify making it hard to scale Deep RL for many applications. Preference-based RL provides an alternative by allowing a teacher to indicate preferences between a pair of behaviors. Because the teacher can interactively give feedback to an agent preference-based RL has the potential to help address this limitation of Deep RL. Despite the advantages of preference-based RL it has proven difficult to design useful benchmarks for the problem. This paper introduces a benchmark (B-Pref) that is useful for preference-based RL in various locomotion and robotic manipulation tasks. One difficulty with designing a useful benchmark is that teachers may have a variety of irrationalities. For example, teachers might be myopic or make mistakes. The B-Pref benchmark addresses this by emphasizing measuring performance under a variety of teacher irrationalities. They do this by providing various performance metrics to introduce irrationality into otherwise deterministic reward criteria. While previous approaches to preference-based RL work well when the teacher responses are consistent, experiments show they are not robust to feedback noise or teacher mistakes. Experiments also show that how queries are selected has a major impact on performance. With these results, the authors identify these two problems as areas for future work. Zach's opinion: While the authors do a good job advocating for the problem of preference-based RL I'm less convinced their particular benchmark is a large step forward. In particular, it seems the main contribution is not a suite of tasks, but rather a collection of different ways to add irrationality to the teacher oracle. The main takeaway of this paper is that current algorithms don't seem to perform well when the teacher can make mistakes, but this is quite similar to having a misspecified reward function. Beyond that criticism, the experiments support the areas suggested for future work. ROBUSTNESS Redwood Research's current project (Buck Shlegeris) (summarized by Rohin): This post introduces Redwood Research's current alignment project: to ensure that a language model finetuned on fanfiction never describes someone getting injured, while maintaining the quality of the generations of that model. Their approach is to train a classifier that determines whether a given generation has a description of someone getting injured, and then to use that classifier as a reward function to train the policy to generate non-injurious completions. Their hope is to learn a general method for enforcing such constraints on models, such that they could then quickly train the model to, say, never mention anything about food. FORECASTING Distinguishing AI takeover scenarios (Sam Clarke et al) (summarized by Rohin): This post summarizes several AI takeover scenarios that have been proposed, and categorizes them according to three main variables. Speed refers to the question of whether there is a sudden jump in AI capabilities. Uni/multipolarity asks whether a single AI system takes over, or many. Alignment asks what goals the AI systems pursue, and if they are misaligned, further asks whether they are outer or inner misaligned. They also analyze other properties of the scenarios, such as how agentic, general and/or homogenous the AI systems are, and whether AI systems coordinate with each other or not. A followup post investigates social, economic, and technological characteristics of these scenarios. It also generates new scenarios by varying some of these factors. Since these posts are themselves summaries and comparisons of previously proposed scenarios that we've covered in this newsletter, I won't summarize them here, but I do recommend them for an overview of AI takeover scenarios. MISCELLANEOUS (ALIGNMENT) Beyond fire alarms: freeing the groupstruck (Katja Grace) (summarized by Rohin): It has been claimed that there's no fire alarm for AGI, that is, there will be no specific moment or event at which AGI risk becomes sufficiently obvious and agreed upon, so that freaking out about AGI becomes socially acceptable rather than embarrassing. People often implicitly argue for waiting for an (unspecified) future event that tells us AGI is near, after which everyone will know that it's okay to work on AGI alignment. This seems particularly bad if no such future event (i.e. fire alarm) exists. This post argues that this is not in fact the implicit strategy that people typically use to evaluate and respond to risks. In particular, it is too discrete. Instead, people perform “the normal dance of accumulating evidence and escalating discussion and brave people calling the problem early and eating the potential embarrassment”. As a result, the existence of a “fire alarm” is not particularly important. Note that the author does agree that there is some important bias at play here. The original fire alarm post is implicitly considering a fear shame hypothesis: people tend to be less cautious in public, because they expect to be negatively judged for looking scared. The author ends up concluding that there is something broader going on and proposes a few possibilities, many of which still suggest that people will tend to be less cautious around risks when they are observed. Some points made in the very detailed, 15,000-word article: 1. Literal fire alarms don't work by creating common knowledge, or by providing evidence of a fire. People frequently ignore fire alarms. In one experiment, participants continued to fill out questionnaires while a fire alarm rang, often assuming that someone will lead them outside if it is important. 2. They probably instead work by a variety of mechanisms, some of which are related to the fear shame hypothesis. Sometimes they provide objective evidence that is easier to use as a justification for caution than a personal guess. Sometimes they act as an excuse for cautious or fearful people to leave, without the implication that those people are afraid. Sometimes they act as a source of authority for a course of action (leaving the building). 3. Most of these mechanisms are amenable to partial or incremental effects, and in particular can happen with AGI risk. There are many people who have already boldly claimed that AGI risk is a problem. There exists person-independent evidence; for example, surveys of AI researchers suggest a 5% chance of extinction. 4. For other risks, there does not seem to have been a single discrete moment at which it became acceptable to worry about them (i.e. no “fire alarm”). This includes risks where there has been a lot of caution, such as climate change, the ozone hole, recombinant DNA, COVID, and nuclear weapons. 5. We could think about building fire alarms; many of the mechanisms above are social ones rather than empirical facts about the world. This could be one out of many strategies that we employ against the general bias towards incaution (the post suggests 16). Rohin's opinion: I enjoyed this article quite a lot; it is really thorough. I do see a lot of my own work as pushing on some of these more incremental methods for increasing caution, though I think of it more as a combination of generating more or better evidence, and communicating arguments in a manner more suited to a particular audience. Perhaps I will think of new strategies that aim to reduce fear shame instead. NEWS Seeking social science students / collaborators interested in AI existential risks (Vael Gates) (summarized by Rohin): This post presents a list of research questions around existential risk from AI that can be tackled by social scientists. The author is looking for collaborators to expand the list and tackle some of the questions on it, and is aiming to provide some mentorship for people getting involved.
Give us a call - 888-723-4630 Send us an email - firstname.lastname@example.org visit us at ebay.com/podcast Welcome to eBay for Business! This week, Audrey Tracy returns with Part 2 of our 3 part series to explain how to put your Social Media Plan into action with content, scheduling and engagement tactics. eBay Seller Don Vigeant aka Garbsafari on eBay converses with Griff about his approach to social. Brian and Griff answer two sellers' questions about offering buyers a choice of colors in lots of items in a single listing and turning on and off the Out of Stock option. To have your questions answered on our eBay for Business podcast, call us at 888 723-4630 or email us at email@example.com. To give us feedback, please take our podcast listener survey at (https://connect.ebay.com/srv/survey/a/sellerops.podcast) 00:01 - Intro 07:10 - Creating a Social Media Marketing Campaign with Audrey Tracy 30:41 - eBay Seller Don Vigeant aka Garbsafari 40:00 - Q&A and Outro New Links for Ep 159: 8 Facebook Competition Rules You Should Never Ignore - https://www.shortstack.com/blog/facebook-competition-rules/ Buffer.com and hootsuite.com (for scheduling and distribution social content to multiple platforms) https://buffer.com/ https://www.hootsuite.com/ Creating a Listing with Multi Variations - https://ebay.to/2Ycg2yq Volume Pricing How To - https://pages.ebay.com/specialoffers/volumepricing/ eBay Out Of Stock Option Help Page - https://www.ebay.com/help/selling/listings/listing-tips/bulk-listings?id=4160#outofstock eBay selling Preference page - https://ebay.com/uas/selling-pref Savvy Social Podcast - https://savvysocialpodcast.libsyn.com Social Pros Podcast - https://socialpros.libsyn.com Trad'r Don's Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/garbsafari/ Trad'r Don's Facebook for Garb Safari - https://www.facebook.com/GarbSafari/ eBay Sellers Stores mentioned: Don Vigeant aka Trad'r Don on eBay (Garbsafari) - https://www.ebay.com/str/garbsafari Recurring Links / Phone Numbers / Hashtags Mentioned: 888-723-4630 - Call in Line eBay Seller News Announcements - ebay.com/announcements eBay Community - ebay.com/community eBay Weekly Community Chat - ebay.com/communitychat eBay Help - ebay.com/help/home eBay Meetups - ebay.com/meetups Managed Payments on eBay - ebay.com/payments eBay for Business Podcast - ebay.com/podcast eBay Seller Center - ebay.com/sellercenter eBay Seller Hub - ebay.com/sh eBay System Status - ebay.com/sts explore.ebay.com facebook.com/eBayForBusiness eBay for Business Podcast Listener Survey - https://connect.ebay.com/srv/survey/a/sellerops.podcast #ebaypodcast
The New South Wales National Party will elect a new leader on Wednesday after Deputy Premier John Barilaro's surprise resignation.
CBP electronic information and certification systems such as “ELVIS” and “eCERT” enable importers to seamlessly transmit in-quota, low duty rate entries. Now, Mexico is coming on board for textile and apparel tariff preference levels under the USMCA. Are more opportunities ahead?
In today's episode we speak to Frank Rotman, a Founding Partner of QED Investors which is a global leading venture capital firm based in Alexandria, Virginia founded by Nigel Morris and Frank Rotman in 2007. QED Investors is focused on investing in early stage, disruptive financial services companies in the US, the UK, Latin America and South East Asia. QED Investors is dedicated to building great businesses and uses a unique hands on approach that leverages its partners decades of entrepreneurial and operational experience helping their companies achieve breakthrough growth. Those investments include Avant, AvidXchange, ClearScore, Current, Creditas, Credit Karma, GreenSky, Kavak, Konfio, Loft, Mission Lane, NuBank, QuintoAndar, Remitly and Sofi. We kickstart the show by asking Frank how do you become a VC/PE guy and what has led him to this point: University of Virginia - graduated in a few degrees, systems engineering, artificial intelligence and applied math and statistics Joined Signet Bank later became Capital One One of the first fintech In 2005 built a student lending company Landed up creating QED Investors Innovate in the banking ecosystem Helping cracking the code Then we ask Frank, what does the thirst to make a difference look like in his world: What motivates you Steep part of the learning curve at all times Look at the problem as your life's work We then ask Frank, what are some of the must haves to a big business or big idea: Where you can personally get involved What is the problem unaddressed - we have a solution for that Pairing problem statements with solution statements We have Frank explain, what is the journey of getting product market fit and where do you guys come in? As early as taking an idea and go out finding a CEO Helping founders overcome profound problems Systemic de-risking of the business Great companies are built on good companies We move on to the personality stuff, asking Frank what has been his journey when working with founders and making them leaders? Great people cant be great at everything Feedback is the other person trying to turn you into them Know people before you give advise Five key roles that a CEO plays - visionary, team manager/leader, sounding board, Chief Procurement Officer and brand champion Well designed organisational structure If you're not allowing your team to make decisions you can't hold them accountable for the results A brand is a promise that when kept creates preference Next we have Frank tell us, does he feel like it's possible to fill all those roles or do you gravitate towards one? Founders can grow If they can surround themselves with amazing lieutenants that can pick up the slack A CEO who became better as the business and talent grew We ask Frank, regarding Series A funding, setting expectations with companies around investment? The asset class is evolving and professionalising Money from public markets moving into private markets More banks becoming inquisitive We move on to asking Frank where he feels fintech is going? Lending is a dark art Lending to people who are unemployed Lending is complicated and one of the pillars of banking We ask Frank to highlight some trends of what his seeing in his portfolio: Underbuilt by single family housing In 2008 the entire country was on sale, nobody knew what a house was with until things stabilized Demographic issues --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/gloabl-tech-leaders/message
Pastor Zac Diamanti wraps up our Purpose Over Preference series! Matthew6:33 | Ephesians 5:15-17 | Haggai1:5-9 | Philippians3:7-8 | Luke12:20-21 | John3:16 | Psalm139:13-17 | Romans8:37-39 | Galatians5:13-15 | Matthew25:35 | Luke12:15 | John17:3 To learn more about us and who we are check out our website http://reachchurchnetwork.org Music used with permission #CSPL161029
If we're honest, there are many times when community just isn't convenient, enjoyable or even desirable. However, our call to be an apprentice is to follow the model of Jesus and set aside our own preferences in order to love those in our community. By committing to journey with one another in a way that prioritizes the lives of others above our own, we model Jesus to one another and to a watching world.
Pastor Derek Sissel takes us through the third part in our Purpose Over Preference series as we're reminded to ask ourselves, "Are you living on purpose, or in preference?" Matthew6:33 | Matthew6:25-32 | Matthew5:13-16 | Ephesians5:1-2 | John13:34 | John20:21 For more, check out our website http://reachchurchnetwork.org Music used with permission #CSPL161029
In this one, our host Shannon covers Preference Assessment for the jargon of the day before discussing the question of the day with the live viewers! After that, Shannon talks about the topic of the week while taking viewer questions! Then, Shannon is joined by Special Education Attorney Bonnie Yates!
In this one, our host Shannon covers Preference Assessment for the jargon of the day before discussing the question of the day with the live viewers! After that, Shannon talks about the topic of the week while taking viewer questions! Then, Shannon is joined by Special Education Attorney Bonnie Yates!
People Group Details: Sign up to receive podcast: https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/12347 Listen to "A Third of Us" podcast with Greg Kelley, produced by the Alliance for the Unreached: https://alliancefortheunreached.org/podcast/ Watch "Stories of Courageous Christians" w/ Mark Kordic https://storiesofcourageouschristians.com/stories-of-courageous-christians
Prof. Marion Hetherington is Professor of Biopsychology at University of Leeds, where her research is focused on the psychology of appetite across the lifespan. She has previously been at Johns Hopkins, the NIH, the University of Dundee, University of Liverpool and Glasgow Caledonian University, before taking up her role in Leeds in 2008, where she works within the Human Appetite Research Unit. You can find the show notes to this episode at sigmanutrition.com/episode404/ and you can support the podcast at patreon.com/sigmanutrition
The war in Afghanistan is over. In this episode, we document how and why the Biden administration finally admitted defeat in our 20 year attempt to create a new government in Afghanistan and we take a hard look at the lessons we need to learn. Afghanistan is a country in a far away land, but there are disturbing similarities between the Afghanistan government that just collapsed and our own. We'd be wise not to ignore them. Executive Producer: Rachel Passer Executive Producer: Anonymous Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD218: Minerals are the New Oil CD210: The Afghanistan War CD124: The Costs of For-Profit War How We Got Here Craig Whitlock. The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War. Simon and Schuster, 2021. Patrick Tucker. August 18, 2021. “Trump's Pledge to Exit Afghanistan Was a Ruse, His Final SecDef Says.” Defense One. Eugene Kiely and Robert Farley. August 17, 2021. “Timeline of U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan.” FactCheck.org. Eric Schmitt and Jennifer Steinhauer. July 30, 2021. “Afghan Visa Applicants Arrive in U.S. After Years of Waiting.” The New York Times. Craig Whitlock, Leslie Shapiro and Armand Emamdjomeh. December 9, 2019. “The Afghanistan Papers: A secret history of the war.” The Washington Post. Mark Landler and James Risen. July 25, 2017. “Trump Finds Reason for the U.S. to Remain in Afghanistan: Minerals.” The New York Times. John F. Harris. October 15, 2001. “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer On Bin Laden ” Washington Post. The Evacuation: Those Left Behind William Mauldin. September 2, 2021. “Afghanistan Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Staff Left Behind.” Wall Street Journal. Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Annie Karni. August 29, 2021. “Series of U.S. Actions Left Afghan Allies Frantic, Stranded and Eager to Get Out.” The York Times. Sami Sadat. August 25, 2021. “I Commanded Afghan Troops This Year. We Were Betrayed.” The New York Times. Marjorie Censer. August 18, 2021. “US contractors rush to get former employees out of Afghanistan.” Defense News. Siobhan Hughes. August 18, 2021. “Afghanistan Veterans in Congress Trying to Prevent ‘a Death Warrant' for Helping America.” Wall Street Journal. Alex Sanz and Tammy Webber. August 18, 2021. “US friends try to rescue brother in arms in Afghanistan.” AP News. Seth Moulton. June 04, 2021. "Moulton, Bipartisan Honoring Our Promises Working Group to White House: Evacuate our Afghan Partners.” Contractors in Afghanistan Matt Taibbi. August 18, 2021. “We Failed Afghanistan, Not the Other Way Around.” TK News by Matt Taibbi on Substack. Jack Detsch. August 16, 2021. “Departure of Private Contractors Was a Turning Point in Afghan Military's Collapse.” Foreign Policy. Matt Stoller. July 15, 2021. “‘A Real S*** Show': Soldiers Angrily Speak Out about Being Blocked from Repairing Equipment by Contractors.” BIG by Matt Stoller. Lynzy Billing. May 12, 2021. “The U.S. Is Leaving Afghanistan? Tell That to the Contractors.” New York Magazine. Oren Liebermann. March 29, 2021. “Pentagon could open itself to costly litigation from contractors if US pulls out of Afghanistan this year.” CNN. Lucas Kunce and Elle Ekman. September 15, 2019. “Comment Submitted by Major Lucas Kunce and Captain Elle Ekman.” [Regulations.gov(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulations.gov). Aaron Mehta. Oct 25, 2016. “30 Years: William Perry — Reshaping the Industry.” Defense News. Jared Serbu. August 22, 2016. “DoD now awarding more than half its contract spending without competitive bids.” Federal News Network. 41 U.S. Code § 3307 - Preference for commercial products and commercial services. Money: Lost and Gained David Moore. August 23, 2021. “Lawmakers Benefit From Booming Defense Stocks.” Sludge. Lee Fang. August 20, 2021. “Congressman Seeking to Relaunch Afghan War Made Millions in Defense Contracting.” The Intercept. Anna Massoglia and Julia Forrest. August 20, 2021. “Defense contractors spent big in Afghanistan before the U.S. left and the Taliban took control.” OpenSecrets.org. Stephen Losey. April 16, 2021. “The Bill for the Afghanistan War Is $2.26 Trillion, and Still Rising.” Military.com. Eli Clifton. February 16, 2021. “Weapons Biz Bankrolls Experts Pushing to Keep U.S. Troops in Afghanistan.” Daily Beast. Open Secrets. 2021. Defense: Lobbying, 2021. Open Secrets. 2021. Defense: Money to Congress. Laws S.1790 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 Sponsor: Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) Status: Became Public Law No: 116-92 on December 20, 2019 H.R. 3237: Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 Sponsor: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Status: Signed into law, 2021 May 20 House Vote Breakdown Congressional Budget Office Score Law Outline TITLE IV: BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF THE AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM Sec. 401: Amends the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 to expand eligibility to include Afghans who worked not only for the US Government for more than 1 year but also our allies as an off-base interpreter or if they performed "activities for United States military stationed at International Security Assistance Force (or any successor name for such Force). Increases the number of Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) to Afghan partners by 8,000, for a total of 34,500 allocated since December 19, 2014. Sec. 402: Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of state to jointly waive for 1 year (maximum 2 years with an extension) the requirement that Afghan partners eligible for SIVs get a medical exam before they can receive their visa. The Secretary of Homeland Security has to create a process to make sure Afghan SIV holders get a medical exam within 30 days of entry into the United States. Sec. 403: Allows the surviving spouse or child or employee of the United States Government abroad to be eligible for immigration into the United States if the employee worked for our government for at least 15 years or was killed in the line of duty. It also expands entry permissions for Afghan SIV applicants in addition to those who have already been approved. This is retroactive to June 30, 2021. Policies for Visa Processing: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Policy Manual, Chapter 9: Certain Afghan Nationals U.S Department of State -- Bureau of Consular Affairs. “Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans - Who Were Employed by/on Behalf of the U.S. Government.” Audio Sources Gen. Mark Milley: "There was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days." August 18, 2021 General Mark Milley: The time frame of rapid collapse that was widely estimated and ranged from weeks to months, and even years following our departure, there was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days. Central Command submitted a variety of plans that were briefed and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the President. These plans were coordinated, synchronized and rehearsed to deal with these various scenarios. One of those contingencies is what we are executing right now. As I said before, there's plenty of time to do AARs(After Action Reviews) and key lessons learned and to delve into these questions with great detail. But right now is not that time. Right now, we have to focus on this mission, because we have soldiers at risk. And we also have American citizens and Afghans who supported us for 20 years also at risk. This is personal and we're going to get them out. President Biden on Afghanistan Withdrawal Transcript July 8, 2021 Sound Clips 01:30 President Biden: When I announced our drawdown in April, I said we would be out by September, and we're on track to meet that target. Our military mission in Afghanistan will conclude on August 31. The drawdown is proceeding in a secure and orderly way, prioritizing the safety of our troops as they depart 3:40 President Biden: Together with our NATO allies and partners, we have trained and equipped nearly 300,000 current serving members of the military, the Afghan national security force, and many beyond that are no longer serving. Add to that hundreds of thousands more Afghan national defense and security forces trained over the last two decades. 04:04 President Biden: We provided our Afghan partners with all the tools, let me emphasize, all the tools -- training, equipment -- of any modern military. We provided advanced weaponry, and we're going to continue to provide funding and equipment and we'll ensure they have the capacity to maintain their Air Force. 5:54 President Biden: We're also going to continue to make sure that we take on Afghan nationals who worked side by side with US forces, including interpreters and translators. Since we're no longer going to have military there after this, we're not going to need them and they'll have no jobs. We're [sic] also going to be vital to our efforts. they've been very vital, and so their families are not exposed to danger as well. We've already dramatically accelerated the procedure time for Special Immigrant Visas to bring them to the United States. Since I was inaugurated on January 20, we've already approved 2,500 Special Immigrant Visas to come to the United States. Up to now, fewer than half have exercised the right to do that. Half have gotten on aircraft and come commercial flights and come and other half believe they want to stay, at least thus far. We're working closely with Congress to change the authorization legislation so that we can streamline the process of approving those visas. And those who have stood up for the operation to physically relocate 1000s of Afghans and their families before the US military mission concludes so that, if they choose, they can wait safely outside of Afghanistan, while their US visas are being processed. 8:13 President Biden: For those who have argued that we should stay just six more months, or just one more year, I asked them to consider the lessons of recent history. In 2011, the NATO allies and partners agreed that we would end our combat mission in 2014. In 2014, some argued one more year. So we kept fighting. We kept taking casualties. In 2015, the same, and on and on. Nearly 20 years of experience has shown us that the current security situation only confirms that just one more year of fighting in Afghanistan is not a solution, but a recipe for being there indefinitely. It's up to the Afghans to make the decision about the future of their country. Others are more direct. Their argument is that we should stay with the Afghans and Afghanistan indefinitely. In doing so they point to the fact that we we have not taken losses in this last year. So they claim that the cost of just maintaining the status quo is minimal. 9:19 President Biden: But that ignores the reality, and the facts that already presented on the ground in Afghanistan when I took office. The Taliban is at its strongest militarily since 2001. The number of US forces in Afghanistan had been reduced to a bare minimum. And the United States and the last administration made an agreement that they have to with the Taliban remove all our forces by May 1 of this year. That's what I inherited. That agreement was the reason the Taliban had ceased major attacks against US forces. 9:55 President Biden: If in April, I had instead announced that the United States was going to go back on that agreement, made by the last administration, the United States and allied forces will remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, the Taliban would have again begun to target our forces. The status quo was not an option. Staying would have meant US troops taking casualties, American men and women back in the middle of a civil war, and we would run the risk of having to send more troops back in Afghanistan to defend our remaining troops. Once that agreement with the Taliban had been made, staying with a bare minimum force was no longer possible. 10:34 President Biden: So let me ask those who want us to stay: how many more? How many 1000s more Americans' daughters and sons are you willing to risk? How long would you have them stay? Already we have members of our military whose parents fought in Afghanistan 20 years ago. Would you send their children and their grandchildren as well? Would you send your own son or daughter? After 20 years, a trillion dollars spent training and equipping hundreds of 1000s of Afghan National Security and Defence Forces. 2,448 Americans killed, 20,722 more wounded, and untold 1000s coming home with unseen trauma to their mental health. I will not send another generation of Americans to war in Afghanistan with no reasonable expectation of achieving a different outcome. 11:51 President Biden: Today the terrorist threat has metastasized beyond Afghanistan. So, we are repositioning our resources and adapting our counterterrorism posture to meet the threats where they are now: significantly higher in South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. 12:07 President Biden: But make no mistake, our military and intelligence leaders are confident they have the capabilities to protect the homeland and our interests from any resurgent terrorist challenge emerging or emanating from Afghanistan. We're developing a counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed at any direct threat to the United States in the region and act quickly and decisively if needed. 12:38 President Biden: We also need to focus on shoring up America's core strengths to meet the strategic competition competition with China and other nations that is really going to determine our future. 14:58 Reporter: Is the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable? President Biden: No. It is not. Because you have the Afghan troops, 300,000. Well equipped, as well equipped as any army in the world, and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable. 15:45 President Biden: Do I trust the Taliban? No, but I trust the capacity of the Afghan military who is better trained, better equipped, and more competent in terms of conducting war. 18:07 Reporter: Your own intelligence community has assessed that the Afghan government will likely collapse President Biden: That is not true 18:53 President Biden: And I want to make clear what I made clear to Ghani, that we are not going to walk away and not sustain their ability to maintain that force. We are. We're going to also work to make sure we help them in terms of everything from food necessities and other things in the region. But there is not a conclusion that in fact, they cannot defeat the Taliban. I believe the only way there's going to be -- this is now Joe Biden, not the intelligence community -- the only way there's only going to be peace and secure in Afghanistan, is that they work out a modus vivendi with the Taliban, and they make a judgement as to how they can make peace. And the likelihood there's going to be one unified government in Afghanistan, controlling the whole country is highly unlikely. 21:30 Reporter: Mr. President, how serious was the corruption among the Afghanistan government to this mission failing there? President Biden: First of all, the mission hasn't failed yet. 22:00 President Biden: There were going to be negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan national security forces, and the Afghan government that didn't come to fruition. So the question now is where do they go from here? The jury is still out, but the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely. 23:20 Reporter: Mr. President, "speed is safety," as you just said in your remarks. Are you satisfied with the timeline of relocating Afghan nationals? Is it happening quickly enough to your satisfaction if it may not happen until next month at the end? President Biden: It has already happened, there have already been people, about 1000 people have gotten on aircraft and come to the United States already on commercial aircraft. So as I said, there's over 2500 people, that as from January to now, have have gotten those visas and only half decided that they wanted to leave. The point is that I think the whole process has to be speeded up -- period -- in terms of being able to get these visas. Reporter: Why can't the US evacuate these Afghan translators to the United States to await their visa processing as some immigrants of the southern border have been allowed to? President Biden: Because the law doesn't allow that to happen. And that's why we're asking the Congress to consider changing the law. President Biden Remarks on Afghanistan Strategy Transcript April 14, 2021 Sound Clips 00:38 President Biden: I'm speaking to you today from the Roosevelt -- the Treaty room in the White House -- the same spot where in October of 2001, President George W. Bush informed our nation that the United States military had begun strikes on terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. It was just weeks, just weeks after the terrorist attack on our nation that killed 2,977 innocent souls, that turned Lower Manhattan into a disaster area, destroyed parts of the Pentagon and made hallowed ground in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and sparked an American promise that we would never forget. We went to Afghanistan in 2001, to root out al Qaeda to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States planned from Afghanistan. Our objective was clear, the cause was just, our NATO allies and partners rallied beside us. And I supported that military action along with the overwhelming majority of the members of Congress. More than seven years later, in 2008 weeks before we swore the oath of office -- President Obama and I were about to swear -- President Obama asked me to travel to Afghanistan and report back on the state of the war in Afghanistan. I flew to Afghanistan to the Kunar Valley, a rugged, mountainous region on the border of Pakistan. What I saw on that trip reinforced my conviction that only the Afghans have the right and responsibility to lead their country. And that more and endless American military force could not create or sustain a durable Afghan Government. I believed that our presence in Afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place: to ensure Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again. We did that, we accomplished that objective. I said, along with others, we would follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell if need be. That's exactly what we did. And we got him. It took us close to 10 years to put President Obama's commitment into form. And that's exactly what happened Osama bin Laden was gone. That was 10 years ago. Think about that. We delivered justice to Bin Laden a decade ago. And we've stayed in Afghanistan for a decade since. Since then, our reasons for remaining in Afghanistan have become increasingly unclear, even as the terrorist threat that we went to fight evolved. Over the past 20 years, the threat has become more dispersed, metastasizing around the globe. Al Shabaab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, on Al Nusra in Syria, ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. With the terror threat now in many places, keeping 1000s of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and our leaders. We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdraw and expecting a different result. I'm now the fourth United States President to preside over American troop presence in Afghanistan: two Republicans, two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth. After consulting closely with our allies and partners, with our military leaders and intelligence personnel, with our diplomats and our development experts, with the Congress and the Vice President, as well as with Mr. Ghani and many others around the world. I concluded that it's time to end America's longest war. It's time for American troops to come home. 5:01 President Biden: When I came to office, I inherited a diplomatic agreement, duly negotiated between the government of the United States and the Taliban, that all US forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1 2021, just three months after my inauguration. That's what we inherited. That commitment is perhaps not what I would have negotiated myself, but it was an agreement made by the United States government. And that means something. So in keeping with that agreement, and with our national interest, the United States will begin our final withdrawal beginning on May 1 of this year. 8:11 President Biden: You all know that less than 1% of Americans serve in our Armed Forces. The remaining 99%, we owe them. We owe them. They've never backed down from a single mission that we've asked of them. I've witnessed their bravery firsthand during my visits to Afghanistan. They've never wavered in their resolve. They paid a tremendous price on our behalf and they have the thanks of a grateful nation. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) High-Risk List Center for Strategic and International Studies Transcript March 10, 2021 Speaker: John Sopko - Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Sound Clips 7:40 John Sopko: But right now, that state is under threat. In the wake of the February 2020 withdrawal agreement, all is not well. Compromise appears in short supply on either side. Taliban attacks have actually increased since the agreement was signed. Assassination of prominent officials, activists, journalists, aid workers and others have also increased, including an unsuccessful attack on one of the female members of the peace negotiating team. And the Taliban offensive on Kandahar city last October, as peace negotiations were ongoing, may well have succeeded, were it not for U.S. air support. Peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban have achieved little for Afghanistan so far, and only time will tell as to whether the new Biden administration initiative will bear fruit. And the Afghan people's fears for its own government survival are exacerbated by the knowledge of how dependent their country is on foreign military and financial support. 12:56 John Sopko: Another equally serious threat to Afghanistan's stability has also largely been ignored as we focus on the boots on the ground in Afghanistan. And that is the provision of last year's U.S.-Taliban agreement that stipulates that in addition to the departure of U.S. and coalition troops, or non-diplomatic civilian personnel: private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting service personnel also must leave the country by May 1. Should this come to passSIGAR and many others believe this may be more devastating to the effectiveness of the Afghan security forces than the withdrawal of our remaining troops. Why is that? Because the Afghan government relies heavily on these foreign contractors and trainers to function. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 there are over 18,000 Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan, including 6000 Americans, and 7,000 3rd country nationals, 40% of whom are responsible for logistics, maintenance, or training tasks. Now, it is well known that the Afghan security forces need these contractors to maintain their equipment, manage supply chains, and train their military and police to operate the advanced equipment that we have purchased for them. For example, as of December, the Afghan National Army was completing just under 20% of its own maintenance work orders, well below the goal of 80% that was set and the 51% that they did in 2018. So that's actually going down. The Afghan National Police were just as bad if not worse, undertaking only 12% of their own maintenance work against a target of 35% and less than the 16% that we reported in our 2019 high risk list. Additionally, and more troubling. The Department of Defense does train, advise and assist command air, or commonly called TAC air recently reported that since late 2019, they have reduced their personnel in Afghanistan by 94%, and that the military drawdown now requires near total use of contract support to maintain the Afghan Air fleet. They assess that quote “further drawdown in the associated closure basis will effectively end all in country aviation training contracts in Afghanistan.” Again, why is this significant? Why do we view this as a high risk? Namely because contractors currently provide 100% of the maintenance for the Afghan Air Force, UAE 60 helicopters and CE 130 cargo aircraft and a significant portion of Afghans Light Combat Support aircraft. TAC air this January gave a bleak assessment, namely, that no Afghan airframe can be sustained as combat effective for more than a few months in the absence of contractor support. 17:51 John Sopko: Continued funding for U.S. reconstruction programs aimed at promoting economic development, rule of law, respect for human rights, good governance and security for the Afghan people may be more significant, because it may be the primary lever left for the US and other donors to influence that country. It appears that even the Taliban understand Afghanistan's dire need for foreign assistance. Because, as one of the few commitments that the US had to make last year was, “to seek economic cooperation for reconstruction, with the new post settlement, Afghan Islamic government.” Now how much the donor community wishes to stay involved will of course depend on what that government looks like and how it behaves. Numerous officials, including then Secretary of State Pompeo and Ambassador Halley, have stated that the US will be able to advance its human rights goals, including the rights of women and girls with the Taliban by leveraging or conditioning this much needed financial assistance. But unfortunately, as SIGAR has long reported, even when conditionality involved only dealing with the Afghan government, donors do not have a stellar record of successfully utilizing that conditionality to influence Afghan behavior. 27:19 John Sopko: Today our report suggests the donor community should realize the Afghan government is focused on a single goal, its survival. Afghanistan is more dependent on international support than ever before. It may not be an overstatement that if foreign assistance is withdrawn and peace negotiations fail, Taliban forces could be at the gates of Kabul in short order. Hearing: A PATHWAY FOR PEACE IN AFGHANISTAN: EXAMINING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AFGHANISTAN STUDY GROUP House Committee on Oversight and Reform: Subcommittee on National Security February 19, 2021 Testimony was heard from the following Afghanistan Study Group officials: Kelly A. Ayotte, Co-Chair; News Corp Board of Directors since April 2017 BAE Systems Board of Directors since June 2017 Blackstone Board of Directors Boston Properties Board of Directors Caterpillar Board of Directors Board of Advisors at Cirtronics General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. (Retired), Co-Chair Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Obama and Trump presidencies. Lockheed Martin Board of Directors since February 2020 Nancy Lindborg, Co-Chair President and CEO of the David Lucile Packard Foundation Former President and CEO of the US Institute for Peace Former Assistant Administrator for the bureau for democracy conflict and humanitarian assistance at USAID During the mid-Obama years. Sound Clips 3:13 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): I'd also like to take a moment to thank the nonpartisan US Institute of Peace for the support and expertise they provided to the study group during the course of its work. 3:23 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): In the fiscal year 2020 omnibus bill Congress led by Senator Graham Senator Patrick Leahy and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee of state foreign ops and related programs. They tasked the independent and bipartisan Afghanistan study group to quote, consider the implications of a peace settlement or the failure to reach a settlement on US policy, resources and commitments in Afghanistan. After nearly nine months of review and consultation with current and former US and Afghan government officials, allies and partners and other key stakeholders, the Afghanistan study group issued its final report earlier this month. 15:12 Kelly Ayotte: We recommend that US troops remain beyond may 1. We believe a precipitous withdrawal of US and international troops in May, would be catastrophic for Afghanistan, leading to civil war, and allow the reconstitution of terror groups which threaten the United States within an 18 to 36 month period. 15:41 Kelly Ayotte: Let me be clear, although we recommend that our troops remain beyond may 1, we propose a new approach toward Afghanistan, which aligns our policies, practices and messaging across the United States government to support the Afghan peace process, rather than prosecute a war. Our troops would remain not to fight a forever war, but to guarantee the conditions for a successful peace process and to protect our national security interests to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a haven again, for terrorists who threaten the United States of America. 37:15 General Joseph F. Dunford: Do we need to increase forces if the Taliban don't accept an extension past the first of May, and if they then would re initiate attacks against US forces? and Chairman, we heard exactly what you heard. In the fall. What we were told by commanders on the ground in the department of fence was that 4500 US forces, in addition to the NATO forces that are there was the minimum level to address both the mission as well as protection of our forces in the context of the conditions that existed in the fall in as you've highlighted, those conditions have only gotten worse since the fall so in in our judgment 2500 would not be adequate. Should the Taliban re initiate attacks against the United States Hearing: Examining the Trump Administration's Afghanistan Strategy House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on National Security January 28, 2020 Witness: John Sopko - Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) Sound Clips 48:54 John Sopko: We've almost created a system that forces people in the government to give happy talk success stories because they're over there on very short rotations. They want to show success. The whole system is almost geared to give you, and it goes up the chain of command, all the way to the President sometimes. He gets bad information from people out in the field because somebody on a nine month rotation, he has to show success, and that goes up. 54:24 John Sopko: Maybe incentivize honesty. And one of the proposals I gave at that time,be cause I was asked by the staff to come up with proposals, is put the same requirement on the government that we impose on publicly traded corporations. Publicly traded corporations have to tell the truth. Otherwise the SEC will indict the people involved. They have to report when there's a significant event. So put that onus, call it The Truth in Government Act if you want, that you in the administration are duty bound by statute to alert Congress to significant events that could directly negatively impact a program or process. So incentivize honesty. 1:10:25 John Sopko: Over 70% of the Afghan budget comes from the United States and the donors. If that money ended, I have said before and I will stand by it, then the Afghan government will probably collapse. Wartime Contracting Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs September 21, 2011 Witnesses: Charles Tiefer: Commissioner on the Commission on Wartime Contracting Clark Kent Ervin: Commissioner on the Commission on Wartime Contracting Sound Clips 1:11:30 Charles Tiefer: Our private security in Afghanistan appears to be a major source of payoffs to the Taliban. Our report has the first official statement that it's the second-largest source of money for the Taliban. Sen. Carl Levin: After drugs. Charles Tiefer: After drugs, that's right. 1:25:18 Clark Kent Ervin: It's critical that the government have a choice, and that means that there needs to be at least a small and expandable, organic capacity on the part of these three agencies to perform missions themselves, so the next time there's a contingency, the government has a choice between going with contractors and going in-house and the determination can be made whether it's more effective to do it either way, whether it's cheaper to do it either way. As we said at the inception, right now the government doesn't have an option. Contractors are the default option because they're the only option. President George W. Bush announces U.S. Military Strikes on Afghanistan October 7, 2001 President George W. Bush: Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime. More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: close terrorist training camps, hand over leaders of the Al-Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals including American citizens unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met and now the Taliban will pay a price by destroying camps and disrupting communications. We will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. ** International Campaign Against Terrorism Senate Foreign Relations Committee October 25, 2001 Witness: Colin Powell: Secretary of State Sound Clip 27:00 Colin Powell: Our work in Afghanistan though, is not just of a military nature. We recognize that when the Al Qaeda organization has been destroyed in Afghanistan, and as we continue to try to destroy it in all the nations in which it exists around the world, and when the Taliban regime has gone to its final reward, we need to put in place a new government in Afghanistan, one that represents all the people of Afghanistan and one that is not dominated by any single powerful neighbor, but instead is dominated by the will of the people of Afghanistan. Executive Producer Recommendations Elect Stephanie Gallardo 2022 Krystal Kyle and Friends. August 21, 2021. “Episode 35 Audio with Matthew Hoh.” Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)
Understanding how consumers will react to advertising and how it drives their preferences is critical to marketers. Achieving better accuracy predictions and expanding the tools at our disposal is critical for continued success. Traditionally surveys... The post Improving Preference Prediction Using EEG & Machine Learning appeared first on Up Next.
Whats good real fam! Welcome back to real ass conversations! Can you believe its already September? Time just be flying, but today we have a great episode featuring my special guest @queenofthotz. My guest is a real hustler and stepped up to answer the tough questions. This episode we discuss the lil boosie and dababy scandal, and dig into whether television and media have any influence on a child's sexual preference. We then dig into the trials and tribulations of being a exotic dancer and the ins and out of being a Onlyfans/pornhub content creator. This episode definitely gets spicy! I hope everyone enjoys! Please rate 5 stars on apple podcasts, like, comment, share, and please support me and subscribe to my patreon https://www.patreon.com/RACPodcast for early releases and exclusive content, each paid subscriptions helps improve the show! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
You may know Eduardo Baraf as a game designer and owner of Pencil First Games, but may more will know him from his popular review channel Gaming With Edo. 00:00 - Intro01:10 - Designer; Publisher; Content Creator03:35 - Emphasizing smaller publishers06:42 - Perception of reviewers11:37 - Contacting publishers for reviews16:46 - Ed & Ed Trash Games17:42 - The spark to create games22:30 - Switching creative focus from video to tabletop29:04 - Inspirations & Aspirations33:34 - Skulk Hollow Design & Development37:43 - Preference for Collaborative Design47:32 - Maul Peak & Solo Links:Pencil First - https://www.pencilfirstgames.comGaming with Edo - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpvwHi-2kifAtpvZ64gBv9AOur Site - https://www.cardboardherald.comOur Video Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TheCardboardHeraldOur Twitter - https://twitter.com/CardboardHeraldOur Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/user?u=9669551
Eeeeeyyyyyy, we had a phucking ball on this episode. Zilla and Streety joined Tiff and I and starting cuttin' up immediately. From start to finish, muphuckas wildin'!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Segment: Intro - Drunk tales (12:50) Bubble bath wars (22:50) Ice Cream Gate (37:25) Kanye - Donda (1:03:05) HS Football debacle (1:16:50) Up Sword Part II (1:27:05) EatBootyGang (1:43:55) Dating younger or older women - Preference (2:04:15) Using friends of friends for favors --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lance-garnett/support
What do you prefer? Do you prefer red or blue? Night or day? Fries or onion rings? This could go on forever. We all prefer certain things and we should be allowed to do so as much as we wish. So why do we care when others see it or feel it differently? That can be answered in many ways. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/themorningmindpc/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/themorningmindpc/support
I had the privilege of co-hosting a special edition (here and here) of Steve Bannon's War Room Pandemic on Saturday. One of its most disturbing insights was Steve's concerning a U.S. Northern Command disclosure that the Biden team had been planning on relocating Afghan nationals in this country since last April. That helps explain why it is that over 100,000 of them have been extracted from Kabul airport, compared to less than 6,000 American citizens. That preference means many of our countrymen and women likely will be left behind in Afghanistan when the evacuation soon ends. It remains to be seen what terrible consequences happen over there. No less ominous, though, is the prospect that there will be among the large numbers of Afghans admitted into this country without proper vetting some who wish to do us harm here. This is Frank Gaffney.
Daniel Hare is the founder and president of Varsity Search, a legal recruiting company dedicated to building great teams by bringing together lawyers and law firms. In this episode, Daniel provides and update on the legal hiring market, as well as some tips on how to productively work with a legal recruiter.Legal Market UpdateBig Law Lateral market is active, with a focus on M&A and Private EquityHolland & Knight merged with Thompson & Knight, effective 8/1More large firms are adding/growing their Texas presenceQuinn Emanuel added an Austin office to their Texas footprint in Houston, and is looking at DallasEnergy, tech, private equity, IP are leading practice areasTexas-based firms trying to hang inBig Law start salaries have gone to $205k, scaling to $365k for year 8Full scale, putting 3rd/4th year lawyers at $240k-$275kMuch of this is specific to big law; how does it impact small/medium firmsWhile I often think about Big Law and all other law as two different economies, the reality is Big Law does have an impactTrying to recruit Big Law associates to the boutiques has become more difficult financially. A $150k salary for a third year lawyer may not have seemed like a terrible pay cut when they were making $205k or $215k. Now they are making $240k, $250k. A $100k cut is a lot for anyone.These salaries will continue to trend of Big Law focusing on corporate/transactional areas and pushing the expensive litigation matters to the boutiques.What I'm seeing in small firm recruiting / anecdotalA lot of activity / strong marketHeavier on the litigation side (some for reasons above)Salaries in the $100k-$170k depending on the firm, the level of candidate's experience, etc.Insurance defense, government/admin, and family law tend to be on the lower end by virtue of the legal fees those client bases are willing to pay.Firms servicing small/mid-size companies will tend to pay moreEmployers like candidates who haven't bounced around to a lot of different firmsIf that's you, highlight it in interviews; it's a strength!If that's not you, be prepared to address this issueEven if you aren't asked directlyDon't bad-mouth prior employers, but instead talk positively about the employer you moved toPivot to why the firm you are interviewing with presents an opportunity you value and are interested in.Preference tends to go to candidates who have been able to get more hands-on experience earlier. So if you can start taking depos and handling hearings early on, that makes you more valuable to a potential lateral employer.Make sure your resume doesn't just read like a job description the firm's HR department would write; use specifics, highlight accomplishments, add numbersRelocation is possiblePrepare to communicate your reason for the move to the new city beyond the jobIt can be an advantage in more niche areas where firms know each other in a city and prefer not to poachHow to work productively with a legal recruiterShare what you are up toHave you already applied somewhere?Firms won't work with recruiters if they already have a relationship with you, so we as recruiters will want to avoid reaching out to those firms.We also want to see the types of firms/jobs you have applied to; it helps us know what you are looking for.If you want to use a recruiter, you should limit these direct applications because it limits how/where we can helpBe open/honest about what you are looking forWe can only help you if you tell us what you are looking for.I feel bad when a candidate takes a position in a city/practice area they had never mentioned before, because perhaps I could have helped them find something better/sooner/etc.Sometimes things change; that's okay! Just keep us updated.Talk with us before you respond to an offerSometimes it can feel tempting to just take the offer or make a counter offer that isn't far from the original offer, but best to get our perspective first. Your instincts might be right; but you also might wind up leaving money on the table.Enjoy your Labor Day Weekend next week and we'll be back with a new episode the following Monday!
CUT OR UNCUT: WHAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE? | Your beloved Hot Girls leave it all out in the open in regards to what they like when it comes to your man's endowment This mash-up of an episode includes topics that were cut from other episodes, from cut preferences to cosmetic cl!t surgery. The girls also hate on the trend of men negging to get pussy through social media, as well as talk about the reactive vs actual spectrum Whilst Indi (@fueledbyindi) chills on the reactive side, Ash (@ashleighxorose) is dealt with the blessing and curse of being able to be aroused 24/7… for real. Follow us on socials:HGT Instagram: @hotgirlstheoryHGT Twitter: /hotgirlstheoryHGT Facebook: /hotgirlstheoryAsh's Instagram: @ashleighxoroseIndi's Instagram: @fueledbyindiSUPPORT THE SHOW!Donations from $5 (AUD) via this linkArtwork by Kaila, @whinemum on InstagramMusic in this episode from Epidemic Sound:Auxjack - 2mgBallpoint - Monte Carlo Ballpoint- MusesCushy - For TonightCushy - LeashDylan Sitts - PeekskillJustnormal - Po' Prayer (Lofi Version) (Instrumental Version)Nbhd Nick - So Far Gone (Instrumental Version)Norman Sann - My Soul (Instrumental Version)Theme Music:Ice Flow Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/Advertise on HGT via firstname.lastname@example.org
If creativity is the driver of innovation, then it is curiosity that is the driver of creativity! Dr. Alison Horstmeyer has a doctorate in workplace curiosity and is a top thought leader on how the level of intellectual curiosity affects workplace performance. She discusses what true workplace curiosity looks like, how psychologically safe cultures build curiosity and how the level of curiosity of the C-suite affects the entire organization's development and future growth. Dr. Alison mentions why these hindrances inhibit intellectual curiosity: -Top-down decision making -Preference for the status quo -Lack of creative exploration time -Fear of being ostracized for non-conformist and unconventional thinking Curiosity is the fourth gem of our 7 Gems of Intercultural Creativity and this conversation certainly explains why. This is an episode you'll need to be curious about! Enjoy! Dr. Alison's LinkedIn Dr. Alison's Website This episode is produced by CAFFEstrategies.com – an industry leader in intercultural creative thinking development and the home of the 16 Diamond Tools of Creative Thinkers and the 7 Gems of Intercultural Creativity!
(0:00) The third hour opens up with Hardy ripping Adam Jones for being an Android user. (12:00) The callers weigh in on Jones being an Android user. (21:14) A quick Red Sox thought after their 20-8 win over the Rays. (29:37) New England Revolution Sporting Director and Head Coach Bruce Arena joins the show!
In this episode, Ben chats with Dr. Rebecca Sharp who directs the Applied Behaviour Analysis programme at Bangor University in Wales. Dr. Sharp's research interests include behaviour analytic approaches to working with people with dementia and traumatic brain injury. Continuing Education Units (CEUs): https://cbiconsultants.com/shop Show Notes: University of Auckland: https://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/our-courses/applied-behaviour-analysis.html Rebecca Sharp: https://www.bangor.ac.uk/psychology/staff/rebecca-sharp/en Enjoy Old Age - Skinner and Vaughn: https://www.amazon.ca/Enjoy-Old-Age-B-Skinner/dp/0393018059 Articles Referenced: Adkins, V. K., & Mathews, R. M. (1997). Prompted voiding to reduce incontinence in community-dwelling older adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(1), 153-156. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-153 Cohen-Mansfield, J., Dakheel-Ali, M., Marx, M. S., Thein, K., & Regier, N. G. (2015). Which unmet needs contribute to behavior problems in persons with advanced dementia?. Psychiatry Research, 228(1), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.03.043 Dixon, M. R., Nastally, B. L., & Waterman, A. (2010). The effect of gambling activities on happiness levels of nursing home residents. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 531-535. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-531 Fahmie, T. A., & Hanley, G. P. (2008). Progressing toward data intimacy: A review of within-session data analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(3), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-319 Gallagher, S. M. & Keenan, M. (2000). Extending high rates of meaningful interaction among the elderly in residential care through participation in a specifically designed activity. Behavioral Interventions, 15, 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-078X(200004/06)15:23.0.CO;2-Y Green, C. W., & Reid, D. H. (1996). Defining, validating, and increasing indices of happiness among people with profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-67 Jackman, L., & Beatty, A. (2015). Using the Newcastle Model to understand people whose behaviour challenges in dementia care. Nursing Older People, 27(2), 32-39. https://doi.org/10.7748/nop.27.2.32.e666 Lucock, Z. R., Sharp, R. A. & Jones, R. S. (2020). Preference for leisure items over edible items in individuals with dementia: A replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53, 1780-1788. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.679 Sharp, R. A., Lucock, Z. R. & Jones, R. S. P. (2021). Preliminary investigation of two functional assessment methods for people with dementia: Effectiveness and acceptability. Behavioral Interventions, 36, 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1747 Sharp, R. A., Williams, E., Rörnes, R. et al. (2019). Lounge layout to facilitate communication and engagement in people with dementia. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12, 637-642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00323-4 Williams, E. E. M., Sharp, R. A. & Lamers, C. (2020). An assessment method for identifying acceptable and effective ways to present demands to an adult with dementia. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13, 473-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00409-y
During this week’s message, Pastor Lane asks: “Who do you listen to? Who is the most influential in your life?” Those questions relate directly to 1 Corinthians 10:10-17 where Paul writes to the people in the church in that city who were struggling to be remain unified. Some of them preferred one leader, others wanted […]
Hey guys it's your boujee friend Anyah M and I'm back with another podcast episode!!! For this episode, I had to bring Jabari on for part 2 of Preference vs. Discrimination. This is definitely an episode you don't want to miss so make sure you turn in on all of our major streaming platforms.
Hey guys it's your boujee friend Anyah M and I'm back with another podcast episode and man can I say it's good to be back recording again. For this week's episode, I gave a quick life update and discussed my perspective on having a preference vs. discrimination and this is an episode you don't want to miss. Don't forget to keep updated with the podcast on IG @anyah.uncensored
Disclaimer: We are still working to get the absolute best video quality, lightning and color so please enjoy the journey with us!!! We played around with a condenser LAV mic and the 3 dynamic mics.This episode was supposed to be a light episode where we take light questions and have a discussion… which went absolutely astray as always. We started off with a discussion about being a side piece and respecting the side piece code, then Kareem brought back up his story about falling out in church then everyone started complaining about the margarita mix. Rebekah then leads the narration of the questions. This is a cant miss episode because nothing ever goes as planned.This is a freedom of expression podcast where we freely, objectively, and respectfully articulate our views. We strive to create a comfortable and home-like atmosphere. Being peaceful, thought provoking and sensible are just a few of our mantras. All conversations are raw and organic. ALL STREAMING PLATFORMS - https://linktr.ee/WelcomeToThePodi FOLLOW US ON !!! IG: @Welcometothepodi FB: Welcome To The Podi Intro & Outro: @hossi_767.Artwork: @rebekahpersaud_ Background art: k.f.illustrations1
Happy 4th of July, No Ju, No Mike, important Mason. Where? grow and learn, 80s rap movie. Ric Flair, 16 time champ. largest podcast, standardized Humans, similarities, special camper plans,. festivals, armory tent,. duster wild west style,. aquarius. ms Mccoo. birthday book, astrology, self improvement, time moving, jumping on shark, Lions being Lions, polo spraying, natural smell, body spray. ol ladies, Jennifer Aniston, about melonin, Grace Jones. Conan, Skinny vs Fat,. Preference, Harvest Likes plus size, Keep Trying, The Ju Unit Get what you Get 5/26/14 the music of this episode@ https://open.spotify.com/playlist/11zIPAjxpkDCFAPjtADmHt?si=63669e38ba4b4ca9 support the show@ www.patreon.com/MperfectEntertainment
We sit down with Tre Heiner and Devin Leonard in Wyoming camp to talk about preference points, hunt prep, and fun camp stories. Enjoy! What is a preference point? Accumulating points for future hunt plans General and limited entry tags Using apps for points/applications Take action to go on your dream hunts! Riding horses on hunts Funny client stories / crazy camp experiences! Tre's mention of hunt application service: http://www.virostkohunts.com/ Support us at: patreon.com/workingclassbowhunter Find WCB online: https://workingclassbowhunter.com/ YouTube Channel https://www.facebook.com/WorkingClassBowhunter/ https://www.instagram.com/workingclassbowhunter/ https://twitter.com/WCBOWHUNTER The WCB Podcast is presented by: Elite Archery CODE: WCB for all outdoor group products Scent Crusher - Scent Off. Game On. Rogue Ridge E-Bikes & The Grind Outdoors, Turkey decoys, and accessories. Spy Point Trail Cameras Big Tine - Attract - Develop - Grow Old Barn Taxidermy HHA Sports HHA CODE: WCB15 Huntworth Gear Gator Outdoors Code: WCB25 Victory Archery ThermaSeat Code: WCTS Leupold Optics Save 20% on The DeerCast App Code: WCB20