Podcasts about Rand

This is the 159th episode of I AM HARDSTYLE Radio by Brennan Heart. Tracklist: 0:00:00 | I AM HARDSTYLE Radio intro 0:00:34 | Showtek - The Colour Of The Harder Styles (2026 Rework) 0:04:16 | 4444 OF A KIND - Waiting 4 0:07:46 | Galactixx - When You're Gone 0:10:22 | TNT - 2001 0:13:33 | Miia Solar - Take Control 0:15:50 | Hardwell & Dyro - Not Alone (Bass Modulators Remix) 0:19:52 | Adrenalize - Superstar 0:23:10 | Ran-D - A Thousand Years 0:26:45 | Hard Driver - BODY MOVE 0:29:17 | Brennan Heart - Get Wasted (Defqon.1 Anthem 2007) (Blademasterz Remix) 0:30:26 | Headhunterz - Scrap Attack (Defqon.1 Anthem 2009) 0:31:07 | Headhunterz & Wildstylez vs Noisecontrollers - World Of Madness (Defqon.1 2012 Anthem) 0:32:24 | Audiofreq & Code Black & Toneshifterz - Dragonblood (Defqon. Australia Anthem 2016) 0:33:52 | Frontliner - Weekend Warriors (Defqon.1 2013 Anthem) 0:34:47 | Frequencerz - Victory Forever (Defqon.1 2017 Anthem) 0:36:17 | Ran-D ft. Skits Vicious - No Guts, No Glory (Defqon.1 2015 Anthem) 0:38:02 | Vertile - Dancing In The Moonlight 0:41:02 | Zatox - New Style 0:43:33 | Coone feat. Diss Reaction - Jiiieehaaaa (Warrior Workout 2026 OST) 0:45:44 | Da Tweekaz x The Straikerz - Dancefloor Therapy 0:49:14 | Primeshock & Cryex - Higher Rush 0:52:20 | D-Block & S-te-fan & Dual Damage - Tomorrow Can Wait 0:55:27 | Testarossa - END GAME 0:59:42 | Audiofreq - Watching The Sunrise 1:02:12 | Adaro & Unresolved - Original Gangsters (Raw And Mean) 1:06:27 | Titan - Synchronized 1:09:05 | Aversion & BIG K - DANCE PARTY!!! 1:11:25 | AniMe - Make It Break

Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum nasceu na Rússia soviética e testemunhou as repercussões do coletivismo quando o Estado confiscou os negócios de sua família. Sob o pseudônimo de Ayn Rand, imigrou para os Estados Unidos, onde iniciou sua trajetória em Hollywood e consolidou-se como uma das figuras mais influentes do pensamento liberal e capitalista contemporâneo. Criadora do Objetivismo, uma linha filosófica estruturada na razão absoluta, no individualismo e no livre mercado, Rand desafiou dogmas políticos e religiosos por meio de obras proeminentes como "A Revolta de Atlas". Este material expõe a trajetória de Ayn Rand, detalhando desde suas origens na União Soviética até o impacto de suas ideias na cultura atual, além de expor nuances de sua vida pessoal e de seu legado intelectual.

Ref.: Prof. Dr. Thomas Schimmel, Professor für angewandte Physik, Karlsruhe Urknall, Kosmos, Gott – was kann die Wissenschaft sagen, und was nicht? Prof. Thomas Schimmel beleuchtet in seinem Vortrag die großen Fragen am Rand der Physik: den Anfang des Universums, die Grenzen naturwissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis und stellt die Frage nach Gott.

Jez and Rand get into it for the latest XBOX TWO PODCAST. We talk Xbox Showcase after math, the drama around Asha Sharma's "reset," the implications of Xbox exclusive games, and more. What's going to happen?! TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00: Intro, GTA 6 rumors, preorders, Fall is STACKED.00:20:00: Bungie layoffs, Hellblade 2 reactions, Xbox Showcase. Xbox Studio closures, fiscal strategy.01:10:00: Exclusivity re-evaluated? PR problems, game budgets, Gears E-Day, Xbox brand confidence.01:55:00: Patreon Q&A, industry crash, sell-off rumors.02:20:00: Game Pass value, Bethesda franchises, "Xbox Tax."02:45:00: Industry contraction, oversupply, nostalgia?! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Timestamps0:00 Intro 1:06 Welcome Aux 2:31 LCK recap from First Stand 9:16 HLE in spring 20:28 HLE player by player 41:48 The ideal ADC style 49:47 T1 56:12 Peyz on T1 1:06:50 Aux MSI predictions 1:13:37 Welcome Emily -- TES 1:34:14 WE what did they do 1:44:00 Knight and BLG 1:57:50 Emily MSI predictions

Matete Thulare from Investec unpacks why a hawkish Fed FOMC left the rand weaker and whether the local currency can still break below R16/$ again. Dr Thomas Brennan, founder and CEO of Franc, discusses the Wealth Index Report 2026 and why women consistently tend to be better investors. Plus, Simon weighs in on SpaceX's fast-tracked inclusion in global indices – and what that means for the ETFs tracking them.

Day 1,574.Today, as President Zelensky declares that “if Ukraine burns, so will Moscow”, we report on a wave of strikes inside Russia that have produced some of the most dramatic images of the war so far, with more than 1,000 drones sowing destruction across multiple regions. Then, after a prominent MAGA influencer admits she fell for Russian propaganda, we ask whether Putin's continued attacks on religious and cultural sites in Ukraine may finally be seen for what they are by the Christian Right in the United States. And after the Russian president appears to answer criticism that he is isolated and afraid of meeting ordinary people, we take a closer look at footage of an apparently spontaneous walkabout that raised eyebrows when a security guard was overheard referring to “background actors”. Throughout the episode, we'll be joined by our friendly RAND analyst to help make sense of the latest military and technological developments shaping Russia's war against Ukraine.Contributors:Francis Dearnley (Host on Ukraine: The Latest). @FrancisDearnley on X.Dominic Nicholls (Host on Ukraine: The Latest). @DomNicholls on X.With thanks to RAND engineer Michael Bohnert.Producer: Rachel PorterSenior Producer: Lilian FawcettVideo Producer: Sophie O'SullivanSocial Producer: Tom SteedStudio Director: Meghan SearleExecutive Editor: Francis DearnleyCreated by David KnowlesNOW IN FULL VIDEO WITH MAPS & BATTLEFIELD FOOTAGE:Every episode is now available on our YouTube channel shortly after the release of the audio version. You will find it here: https://www.youtube.com/@UkraineTheLatest CONTENT REFERENCED:Moscow burns after Ukraine attacks Russia with 1,000 drones (The Telegraph)https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/06/18/ukraine-hits-moscow-oil-refinerylargest-attack-two-years/ Putin's adoring crowd accidentally outed as ‘extras' by bodyguard (The Telegraph)https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/06/18/putins-adoring-crowd-accidentally-outed-as-extras-bodyguard/ Almost 70% of Ukrainians expect Zelensky to be replaced after war, poll shows (Kyiv Independent)https://kyivindependent.com/almost-70-of-ukrainians-expect-zelensky-to-be-replaced-after-the-war-poll-shows/?mc_cid=d2d0ed0168&mc_eid=08d0680a95 Belarus' Lukashenko says both sides must compromise to end Russia-Ukraine war (Reuters):https://www.reuters.com/world/belarus-lukashenko-says-both-sides-must-compromise-end-russia-ukraine-war-2026-06-16/ EMAIL US:Contact the team on ukrainepod@telegraph.co.uk. We continue to read every message, and seek to respond to as many as possible.HIGHLIGHTS:Ukraine blitzes Moscow with 1,000 dronesConsidered the ‘biggest attack of war' Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Introduction: Host Michael Rand starts with another monster game from Lynx rookie Olivia Miles and a big night in the PWHL. 6:00: Star Tribune Twins beat writer Bobby Nightengale joins Rand to break down all the latest on the Twins. Is Royce Lewis starting to figure things out? What's the latest on key injuries? 28:00: Two listener questions on the Wolves.

Thomas Hettche wurde 1964 im mittelhessischen Treis am Rand des Vogelsbergs geboren. Er gehört zu den Autoren, die Literatur nie als abgeschlossenen Raum verstanden haben, sondern als offenen Prozess - zwischen Geschichte und Gegenwart, Fantasie und Medien. (Wdh. vom 19.03.2026)

Introduction: Host Michael Rand starts with a mini-surge by the Twins lately, a lament about their bullpen and the absurdity of getting your first MLB run batted in off a 38 mph pitch. 10:00: Star Tribune Gophers writer Randy Johnson joins Rand to break down the latest on football recruiting, an NCAA rule that will help college hockey and the naming rights deal for the former Williams Arena. 28:00: A Wolves draft idea and keeping an eye on Dylan Larkin.

On this Live Greatly podcast episode, Kristel Bauer sits down with Benjamin Todd, co-founder of 80,000 Hours and author of 80,000 HOURS: How to Have a Fulfilling Career That Does Good. Kristel and Benjamin discuss why "follow your passion" may not be the best career advice, what actually contributes to meaningful and fulfilling work, and practical strategies to align your strengths, values, and goals with your career. Benjamin also shares insights on pursuing positive impact, and building a career that supports both success and well-being. Tune in now! Key Takeaways From This Episode: Why "follow your passion" can be misleading career advice The key ingredients of meaningful and fulfilling work How to align your strengths and values with your career The impact of volunteering Tips to pursue success, purpose, and well-being simultaneously How to be a multiplier ABOUT BENJAMIN TODD Ben is the founder of 80,000 Hours, a non-profit that has reached millions of people and helped 3000+ people find careers tackling the world's most pressing problems. He's the author of 80,000 Hours: How to Have a Fulfilling Career That Does Good (Penguin May 2026) and writes about how to prepare for advanced AI on Substack. Dissatisfied with the career advice he received at university, Benjamin began researching the guidance he wished he'd had. Over the next ten years, he grew 80,000 Hours from a student society in Oxford into a non-profit that today reaches 4 million people annually, has over 50 staff, and has raised $30m of funding. It has been covered in the Financial Times, Guardian, TIME, Wall Street Journal and BBC, and was one of the first non-profits to go through Y Combinator, the world's top startup accelerator. 80,000 Hours provides free online research, one-on-one advice, a job board and podcast to help people find more fulfilling and impactful careers. Over 10 million people have read their advice online and over 3,000 have switched to more impactful careers. This includes people who helped to pioneer research into AI safety at organisations like Anthropic, DeepMind, RAND and METR, have taken key roles aiming to prevent a catastrophic pandemic, and have pledged billions of dollars to high-impact charities. As CEO for the organisation's first ten years, Ben led strategy, fundraising, and senior management, building an organisation with average annual staff retention of 95%, while also writing the Career Guide, Key Ideas series and over 100 articles. His TEDx talk has been viewed over 6 million times. Before 80,000 Hours, he was the first undergraduate to intern as an analyst at Orbis Investment Advisory, a $20bn fund. He was the first non-founding member of Giving What We Can, pledging to give 10% of his income to effective charities for life. He has a 1st from Oxford in a Masters of Physics and Philosophy, has published in climate physics, and speaks Chinese, badly. Connect with Benjamin:  Order his book: https://80000hours.org/book/    Website: https://benjamintodd.org/    Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjamin-j-todd/    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/benbentodd/  About the Host of the Live Greatly podcast, Kristel Bauer: Kristel Bauer is a corporate wellness and performance expert, keynote speaker and TEDx speaker supporting organizations and individuals on their journeys for more happiness and success. She is the award-winning author of Work-Life Tango: Finding Happiness, Harmony, and Peak Performance Wherever You Work (John Murray Business November 19, 2024). With Kristel's healthcare background, she provides data driven actionable strategies to leverage happiness and high-power habits to drive growth mindsets, peak performance, profitability, well-being and a culture of excellence. Kristel's keynotes provide insights to "Live Greatly" while promoting leadership development and team building. Kristel is the creator and host of her global top self-improvement podcast, Live Greatly. She is a contributing writer for Entrepreneur, and she is an influencer in the business and wellness space having been recognized as a Top 10 Social Media Influencer of 2021 in Forbes. As an Integrative Medicine Fellow & Physician Assistant having practiced clinically in Integrative Psychiatry, Kristel has a unique perspective into attaining a mindset for more happiness and success. Kristel has presented to groups from the American Gas Association, Bank of America, bp, Commercial Metals Company, General Mills, Northwestern University, Santander Bank and many more. Kristel's work has been featured in Forbes and she has had multiple TV appearances including NBC News Daily, ABC News Live, FOX Weather, ABC 7 Chicago, WGN Daytime Chicago and more. Kristel lives in the Chicago, IL area and she can be booked for speaking engagements worldwide. To Book Kristel as a speaker for your next event, click here. Website: www.livegreatly.co  Follow Kristel Bauer on: Instagram: @livegreatly_co  LinkedIn: Kristel Bauer Twitter: @livegreatly_co Facebook: @livegreatly.co Youtube: Live Greatly, Kristel Bauer To Watch Kristel Bauer's TEDx talk of Redefining Work/Life Balance in a COVID-19 World click here. Click HERE to check out Kristel's corporate wellness and leadership blog Click HERE to check out Kristel's Travel and Wellness Blog Disclaimer: The contents of this podcast are intended for informational and educational purposes only. Always seek the guidance of your physician for any recommendations specific to you or for any questions regarding your specific health, your sleep patterns changes to diet and exercise, or any medical conditions.  Always consult your physician before starting any supplements or new lifestyle programs. All information, views and statements shared on the Live Greatly podcast are purely the opinions of the authors, and are not medical advice or treatment recommendations.  They have not been evaluated by the food and drug administration.  Opinions of guests are their own and Kristel Bauer & this podcast does not endorse or accept responsibility for statements made by guests.  Neither Kristel Bauer nor this podcast takes responsibility for possible health consequences of a person or persons following the information in this educational content.  Always consult your physician for recommendations specific to you.

Gawyn makes an interesting decision, Rand enters Shayol Ghul, and more battles everywhere! Enjoy!

THE LEFT JUST TOLD A MILLIONAIRE WELDER NOT TO CELEBRATE -- AND THE SUPREME COURT PUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON TRIAL FOR DRINKING This Friday SpaceX pulled off the biggest IPO in Wall Street history, made Elon Musk the first trillionaire on record, and turned roughly 4,400 blue collar workers into millionaires in a single morning. We dig into the welder who got handed stock he didn't understand a decade ago and woke up a millionaire, the parade of politicians who looked at that and demanded their cut, and why the Ayn Rand split between producers and looters explains the whole circus. We trace the word "robber baron" back to the medieval lords who chained the Rhine and taxed everyone who passed, and back to Vanderbilt, the man who cut fares for the working class and got branded a villain for it. Then we head to the Supreme Court, where the Justice Department is arguing that men like James Madison were habitual drunkards who'd lose their guns under their own Second Amendment. We close on the open ocean with a man who looked at every failed libertarian utopia and decided to build the plumbing first.

Sen. McConnell is hospitalized and it's not clear why, Sen. Paul discusses a tentative deal to end the U.S.-Iran war, Congressman Guthrie says China may be behind some anti-data center campaigns in the U.S., what degree programs will and won't be offered at KSU going forward, and leaders break ground on a new law and medical campus in Northern Kentucky.

„Jde o dlouhodobou únavu a frustraci z randění a seznamování, která je doprovázena apatií, cynismem, pocitem neefektivity – že ať dělám, co dělám, nedaří se mi,“ vysvětluje psycholožka z Národního ústavu duševního zdraví a zakladatelka terapeutického institutu Jak na duši Leona Šímová, k čemu odkazuje pojem dating burnout. Trápení v lásce může pak přerůst i v depresi nebo závažné klinické stavy.Všechny díly podcastu Nádech můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

„Jde o dlouhodobou únavu a frustraci z randění a seznamování, která je doprovázena apatií, cynismem, pocitem neefektivity – že ať dělám, co dělám, nedaří se mi,“ vysvětluje psycholožka z Národního ústavu duševního zdraví a zakladatelka terapeutického institutu Jak na duši Leona Šímová, k čemu odkazuje pojem dating burnout. Trápení v lásce může pak přerůst i v depresi nebo závažné klinické stavy.

von Anna Wallner. Innenpolitikchef Oliver Pink erklärt im Podcast, wie schnell der Begriff „Remigration“ vom rechten Rand in die FPÖ-Politik gewandert ist, aber jeder etwas anderes darunter versteht. Und: wie geht es der FPÖ zum 70er?

Auch Du kannst leuchten wie die Sterne. Das flüstert die Sternenfrau einer alten Frau zu, in einer klaren Nacht am Rand des Waldes. Dies ist die Montagsversion, nur die Geschichte ohne Meditation. Perfekt zum Nachhören, wenn Du gestern beim Einschlafen das Ende verpasst hast.

With Father's Day just around the corner, we're reaching back into our library to bring you one of the most moving conversations we've had at this table — and one that has stayed with us long after the microphones turned off.At 72 years old, Marine combat veteran Rand R. Timmerman did something most people half his age will never attempt. He hiked the entire 2,100-mile Appalachian Trail. But this wasn't just an adventure — it was a mission of love.Rand's brother Ron, a 71-year-old Army veteran, was drowning in grief after losing his wife. Rand himself was in recovery from alcoholism. What began as a physical challenge became a spiritual passage — one that transformed both brothers in ways neither of them anticipated.In this deeply moving conversation, Rand shares the humor, danger, heartbreak, and healing that unfolded mile after mile. From critters and storms to moments of grace and unexpected human kindness, this is a story about resilience, brotherhood, and the extraordinary power of nature — and love — to restore the soul.As we head into Father's Day weekend, we couldn't think of a more fitting story to share. It's about showing up. About choosing someone else's healing alongside your own. About what it means to be a brother, a veteran, and a human being walking forward — one step at a time. Pull up a chair. This one is worth every mile.Originally aired April 8, 2026

Von musikalischen Wurzeln bis zum EM-Gold auf dem Eis: Marc Sway und Sarah van Berkel haben auf sehr unterschiedlichen Bühnen gelebt, gekämpft und geglänzt. Beide kennen das Rampenlicht und den Druck der Öffentlichkeit. Bei Dani Fohrler geben sie Einblick in ihre Lebensgeschichten. Marc Sway (46), Sänger und Songwriter Marc Sway ist der Sohn eines Schweizers und einer Brasilianerin. Aufgewachsen ist er zweisprachig und mit mehreren kulturellen Wurzeln, die bis heute sein Leben und seine Musik prägen. Heimat ist für ihn kein eindeutiger Ort, sondern etwas Bewegliches: Schweiz, Brasilien, Familie, Bühne, Küche und Musik gehören alle dazu. Schon früh wurde aus Stefan Bachofen der Künstler Marc Sway. Ein Plattenvertrag in Deutschland öffnete ihm die Tür zur professionellen Popkarriere. Doch statt alles auf eine internationale Laufbahn zu setzen, entschied er sich bewusst für den Aufbau in der Schweiz – und für ein Leben, in dem Familie und Vaterschaft nicht am Rand stehen. Seine Frau Severine ist seit Jugendzeiten an seiner Seite, seine beiden Töchter sind inzwischen behutsam Teil seines künstlerischen Kosmos geworden. Auf der Bühne wirkt Marc Sway warm, farbig und lebensfreudig. Gleichzeitig beschreibt er sich als empfindsam, sensibel und rückzugsbedürftig. In seiner Musik sucht er Verbindung: Menschen zusammenbringen, gemeinsam singen, tanzen, essen und feiern – das ist sein Leben. _________________________________ Sarah van Berkel (41), ehemalige Eiskunstläuferin und Europameisterin Sarah van Berkel, vielen noch als Sarah Meier bekannt, stand schon als Vierjährige auf dem Eis. Früh trat sie in eine Welt ein, in der Körper, Ausdruck, Leistung und Bewertung eng miteinander verbunden sind. Ihre Karriere führte sie bis an die europäische Spitze: 2011 gewann sie EM-Gold – ausgerechnet in ihrem letzten Wettkampf. Es war ein perfekter sportlicher Abschied vor heimischem Publikum. Hinter der Eleganz auf dem Eis standen Disziplin, Schmerzen und schwierige Entscheidungen. Immer wieder erlebte sie Verletzungskrisen. Trotz der Rollenbilder im Eiskunstlauf war Sarah van Berkel nie einfach die «Eisprinzessin». Sie widersetzte sich früh den Erwartungen, wie eine Eiskunstläuferin zu sein habe. Nach dem Rücktritt wechselte sie die Perspektive und liess sich zur Journalistin ausbilden. Heute arbeitet sie in der Sportkommunikation und im Umfeld von Art on Ice. Sarah van Berkel lebt mit ihrem Mann Jan und zwei Söhnen im Aargau. Die grosse Bühne steht heute nicht mehr im Zentrum – wichtiger geworden sind Familie, Alltag und ihre Selbstständigkeit im Beruf. ____________________________________ Das ist «Persönlich»: Jede Woche reden Menschen über ihr Leben, sprechen über ihre Wünsche, Interesse, Ansichten und Meinungen. «Persönlich» ist kein heisser Stuhl und auch keine Informationssendung, sondern ein Gespräch zur Person und über ihr Leben. Die Gäste werden eingeladen, da sie aufgrund ihrer Lebenserfahrungen etwas zu sagen haben, das über den Tag hinaus Gültigkeit hat. ________________________________________

Hey gang, unfortunately Rand's power is out thanks to the tornado hitting Chicago and the surrounding area, so we're rocking a solo show ahead of the regular XB2 410 likely for Monday. I got the XB2 Patreon Q&As here too!

Introduction: Host Michael Rand starts with contract extensions for two key Gophers athletic figures. Plus a rough one for the Twins and early World Cup thoughts. 7:00: Star Tribune Vikings writer Emily Leiker joins Rand to break down the end of minicamp. Where do quarterbacks Kyler Murray and J.J. McCarthy stand, and what are the other key storylines? 30:00: A victory guarantee?

Ok, whoah. I hope you've all had a good day because this episode contains some of the darkest times for our boy, Rand! But we also get into some great callbacks, so there is always that!Perrin dips his toes back in the wolf dream while Faile has a small secret ceremony for the women who had to kill the brotherless who had helped them in Malden.Then it's time for sad things. Semirhage makes her final play on Rand and Min is caught in the crossfire. Things go real sideways.When the dust has settled, Rand is even more broken and he banishes Cadsuane from his sight with threat of death.Meanwhile, Gawyn arrives at Gareth Bryne's camp and gets a fresh cup of wake-the-hell-up from his former teacher.In the rebel camp Sheriam gets new orders from a masked Forsaken, and in the Tower Egwene tells Seaine to keep up the efforts of getting the Tower back together while she is locked away in a dungeon awaiting trial.And in our last chapter Aviendha finally picks up what the Wise Ones are putting down, and Shemerin tells the rebels why she is beahving like a non-Aes Sedai and how she got out of the city...But enough of that from me, tell us what YOU think about the events in these chapters by using any of the links below!X - @BloodAndAshPodBluesky - @bloodandashes.bsky.socialEmail - moritz@bloodandashespodcast.comYouTube - Blood and AshesFacebook - BloodAndAshesPodcastWeb - www.bloodandashespodcast.com (Now with voicemail capabilities!)Discord - Blood and Ashes (If the link doesn't work, drop me a message and I'll email you a fresh one)Merch - Blood and Ashes Merch! (If you send in some good ideas, we'll use them too!)Enjoy!Mo, Willie and Jody

Introduction: Host Michael Rand starts with the Knicks' stunning Game 4 win over the Spurs. Imagine what it was like to be there. Imagine a Minnesota team and moment delivering like that one. Plus a promising Royce Lewis game in a Twins win. 13:00: Star Tribune columnist Chip Scoggins joins Rand to talk about numerous issues in college sports and the state of the Gophers athletics department. 36:00: A Buzz Lagos appreciation.

Wie schafft es ein Unternehmen, aus einer existenziellen Krise wieder zu einer der stärksten Marken der Welt zu werden? In dieser Folge des LEITWOLF® Podcasts spricht Stefan über einen der beeindruckendsten Turnarounds der Wirtschaftsgeschichte: den LEGO-Case. Eine Marke, die viele seit der Kindheit kennen, stand Anfang der 2000er kurz vor dem Zusammenbruch. Zu viele Produkte, zu hohe Komplexität, steigende Kosten und ein verlorener Fokus auf das, was Kund:innen wirklich wollten, brachten LEGO an den Rand der Krise. Stefan zeigt, welche Führungslektionen in diesem Comeback stecken: Warum mehr Initiativen nicht automatisch mehr Erfolg bedeuten, weshalb Kosten senken und Wachstum steigern gleichzeitig möglich sein können und warum gute Führung nicht darin besteht, alle Antworten selbst zu haben. Entscheidend war bei LEGO die Rückkehr zum Markenkern, radikale Vereinfachung und eine Führung, die wieder genau hinhörte: bei Kund:innen, Mitarbeitenden und Handelspartnern. Eine Folge über Krise, Fokus und Klarheit – und darüber, warum große Comebacks selten mit mehr Komplexität beginnen, sondern mit konsequenter Führung. ––– Nimm gerne an dieser anonymen Umfrage teil, damit wir diesen Podcast für Dich optimieren können: https://forms.gle/WTqCeutVXV2PsjBH9 Gefällt Dir dieser LEITWOLF® Leadership Podcast? Dann abonniere den Podcast und beurteile ihn bitte mit einer Sternebewertung und Rezension bei iTunes und/oder Spotify. Das hilft uns, diesen LEITWOLF® Podcast weiter zu verbessern und sichtbarer zu machen. ––– Buche Dir JETZT Deinen Zugang zur LEITWOLF® Academy: https://stefan-homeister-leadership.com/link/leitwolf-academy Möchtest Du konkrete Tipps oder Unterstützung, wie gutes Führen in Deinem Unternehmen definiert und umgesetzt werden kann, dann schreibe Stefan eine Mail an: homeister@stefan-homeister-leadership.com ODER Vereinbare hier direkt ein kostenloses Beratungsgespräch mit Stefan: https://stefan-homeister-leadership.com/link/calendly // LINKEDIN: https://stefan-homeister-leadership.com/link/linkedin // WEBSITE: https://stefan-homeister-leadership.com ® 2017 STEFAN HOMEISTER LEITWOLF® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ____ LEITWOLF Podcast, Leadership, Führung, Management, Stefan Homeister, Podcast, Business Leadership, Erfolgreich führen, Unternehmensführung, Führungskompetenz, Leadership Development, Teammanagement, Leadership Skills, Selbstführung, Leadership Coaching, Leadership Training, Karriereentwicklung, Führungspersönlichkeit, Erfolgsstrategien, Unternehmenskultur, Motivation und Leadership, Leadership-Tipps, Leadership Insights, Change Management, Visionäre Führung, Leadership Interviews, Erfolgreiche Manager, Unternehmer-Tipps, Leadership-Best Practices, Leadership-Perspektiven, Business-Coaching

Live June 8, 2026 | Yaron Brook Show(Season 12, Episode 100)Israel/Iran/Lebanon/Trump; Russia; Interview; H1B; N. Korea; Achievements | Yaron Brook ShowIsrael vs. Iran: Is Trump Saving Hezbollah, Betraying Israel, and Rewriting Reality?Plus: Russia's grinding war, the H-1B battle, North Korea's weapons boom, and the technological breakthroughs changing the future.Israel strikes. Iran retaliates. Hezbollah refuses to disappear. And Donald Trump inserts himself into the center of the Middle East's most dangerous conflict.In this episode of The Yaron Brook Show, Yaron returns to break down a dramatic weekend in the Middle East, the escalating Israel-Iran-Hezbollah confrontation, Trump's pressure campaign on Israel, and what the conflict reveals about America's role in the region.But that's only the beginning.Yaron also examines the state of Russia's war in Ukraine, Trump's latest claims about January 6 and the 2020 election, the growing fight over H-1B visas and legal immigration, North Korea's surprising economic gains from arms sales, and several astonishing technological breakthroughs—from autonomous trucking and Parkinson's treatments to supersonic flight.Then, in a wide-ranging Q&A, Yaron tackles everything from Neil deGrasse Tyson and Kant to Elon Musk, altruism, capitalism, immigration, gun rights, Netanyahu, Hezbollah, and the future of Objectivism.Whether you agree or disagree, this episode pulls no punches.Watch now and join the conversation.

Welcome to another episode of the Outdoor Adventure Series! Today, Howard welcomes Rand R. Timmerman, Esq., author of A Spiritual Passage, a captivating memoir chronicling the journey of two brothers in their seventies as they hike the Appalachian Trail. Together, they explore not only the physical and logistical challenges of tackling 2,200 miles through 14 states, but also the deeper, spiritual lessons discovered along the way.In this episode, Rand opens up about his past struggles with alcoholism, his service in the Marine Corps during Vietnam, and how these experiences shaped his outlook and resilience. He shares intimate reflections on his relationship with his brother, their different paths in life, and how they ultimately came together for this extraordinary adventure. Listeners will hear about the duo's unorthodox hiking strategies, encounters with quirky and inspiring hikers, moments of physical and emotional hardship, and the powerful aha moments that made this trek a truly transformative experience.Whether you're a hiking enthusiast or drawn to stories of redemption and connection, this conversation offers insight, humor, and inspiration for anyone seeking to find meaning on or off the trail.DISCUSSION00:00 Growing up in rural New York04:43 Personal growth and self-discovery08:43 Reflecting on Childhood and Family Paths10:16 College struggles and joining the Marines15:13 Marines deployment in Puerto Rico18:49 Discovering his alcoholism struggle22:26 Family gatherings and sibling dynamics24:51 Preparing for the Hiking Journey28:30 Experiencing challenges on the trail29:24 Hiking with his brother33:37 A friendly walking competition36:04 Influential figures on the trail40:24 Coaching while hiking trails45:14 Climbing Mount Washington47:23 Ron's aha moment on Father's Day49:29 Making a tough decision55:16 Rand Timmerman and his book55:58 Rand Timmerman's journey photosLEARN MOREWebsite: https://www.randtimmerman.com/NEXT STEPSVisit us at https://outdooradventureseries.com to like, comment, and share our episodes.KEYWORDSRand Timmerman, A Spiritual Passage, Sobriety, Appalachian Trail, Brotherhood, Outdoor Adventure Series, Podcast Interview, Podmatch#RandTimmerman #ASpiritualPassage #Sobriety #AppalachianTrail #Brotherhood #OutdoorAdventureSeries #PodcastInterview #PodmatchMy Favorite Podcast Tools:  Production by DescriptHosting BuzzsproutShow Notes by CastmagicWebsite powered by PodpageBe a Podcast Guest by PodMatchBanner Customization by Nano Banana & Canva

Star Tribune columnist Patrick Reusse joins host Michael Rand for a look back at the weekend in sports. They had some fun with Rand's day-night Twins/Saints doubleheader on Saturday while also discussing the Knicks, Olivia Miles, the World Cup and more.

This week on Gig Gab, Dave Hamilton sits down with guest co-host Rand Lempert of the Broken Rings, a two-piece recording project built on 15 years of musical kinship between Rand and guitarist Gio da Silva. You’ll hear how these two have crafted an intentional, travel-fueled recording process across cities, cutting live instruments and vocals together, passing files between New Orleans, Tampa, and now Denver, and why that friction and urgency is exactly the point. Rand makes a compelling case for keeping things analog as long as possible: real amps, minimal pedals, old-school mic placements like a modified Glyn Johns setup, and the conviction that nothing replaces the feeling of having a human being in the room when the tape (or hard drive) is rolling. The conversation ranges wide, from Rand’s vivid 9/11 tour story, stranded in St. John’s Newfoundland on one of the last planes to land before U.S. airspace shut down, to a deep dive into the art of the perfect pop song, with nominations for Tempted by Squeeze, Big Star’s Thirteen, Bryan Adams’ Cuts Like a Knife, and Fastball’s Out of My Head. Whether you’re a working drummer obsessing over beat placement, a songwriter who only writes when the muse actually shows up, or a road veteran who knows that idle days on tour are far worse than grueling ones, this episode has your number. Get out there, stay curious, and Always Be Performing. 00:00:00 Gig Gab 537 – Monday, June 8th, 2026 June 8th: Name Your Poison Day Guest co-host: Rand Lempert 00:01:38 The Broken Rings are a 2-man band Drums, guitar, vocals all handled by Rand Lempert and Gio da Silva, his bandmate They consider themselves musical kin: They agree on 95% of all music Met in Houston, played in bands, then moved to different corners of the USA 00:04:48 Songwriting duo starts with a long distance relationship Lutefish Stream 00:07:03 Recording remotely doesn't have the muse of travel So many different avenues to approach recording Finding a way to record with technology in a less sterile way 00:15:08 Preserving analog recording to digital “tape” 00:17:07 The process of recording drums Don't mess up the end of the track! 00:21:14 Country music 00:23:25 Drummer kinship: Tris Imboden saves the day! Learning by visual 00:31:41 SPONSOR: Claude.ai – Ready to tackle bigger problems? Sign up for Claude today, which includes access to Claude Cowork, too, when you visit https://Claude.ai/giggab 00:33:37 Surviving the road 00:34:45 Road story: hanging out in St. John's Newfoundland for 5 days Sonny James and the Centers in Europe in 2001 “There's nothing wrong with this airplane, but this plane is being diverted because of terrorist attacks in the United States.” Canadian authorities: “What do we do with these people? Bring them to a hockey arena!” Memorial University of Newfoundland 00:44:35 Opening up for Bo Diddley in 2004 In Beaumont, Texas Touring is a lot of driving, and you're doing the driving It's a lot of lugging equipment, and you're doing the lugging You get a hotel room…for the entire band! 00:48:55 When touring, days off are worse than the grueling days on 00:51:02 It's important to travel Touring is the way to do that for a lot of us musicians 00:51:25 Making touring maps as a kid is a good sign Rand needed to do this as a career 00:52:50 First concerts, sound nerding, and getting lost in the music for the first time Rand got lost at four years old! Nerd out about sound and recording First concerts! Weather Report for Dave Air Supply for Rand 00:58:05 The Best pop songs Gravitating towards the hook! Cuts Like a Knife – Bryan Adams Tempted – Squeeze Thirteen – Big Star Out of My Head – Fastball One Headlight – Wallflowers No Matter What – Badfinger 01:12:22 Gig Gab 537 Outtro Follow Rand Lempert The Broken Rings Sick in the city – The Broken Rings Contact Gig Gab! @GigGabPodcast on Instagram feedback@giggabpodcast.com Sign Up for the Gig Gab Mailing List The post Road Stories, Recording Secrets, and the Perfect Pop Song – Gig Gab 537 with Rand Lempert from The Broken Rings appeared first on Gig Gab.

This week on The DeCesare Group Podcast, join Jim DeCesare for his conversation with Kelley Paul, wife of U.S. Senator Rand Paul.As we approach the 250th anniversary of America's independence, Kelly has written two children's books that tell the story of America's founding and revolutionary history.Good Night Little American and Good Night Young American came out on June 2nd and tell the story of America's founding and revolutionary history in an engaging child-friendly adventure. https://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/9781510788145/good-night-little-american/From the shores of Plymouth Rock to the signing of the Constitution, children will explore the pivotal moments and heroes that define the American spirt.Kelley, who wrote True and Constant Friends in 2015, and co-authored The Case against Socialism with Rand in 2023, talks about the difference in writing a children's book and how she was able to simplify America's founding story.Catch The DeCesare Group Podcast on your favorite podcasting platform and every Sunday morning at 7 on 95.1-WGGC. If you enjoy The DeCesare Group Podcast, leave us a review, and to learn more about The DeCesare Group visit our website, https://www.thedecesaregroup.com/ and check us out on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/@TheDeCesareGroup.

AI can generate an answer in seconds. The harder question is whether it is the right answer to the right question, and what you actually do with it.In this episode, Kate Megaw, Anu Smalley, and Ryan Smith dig into what “human in the loop” really means, and why so many AI transformations are failing. Forbes puts enterprise generative AI failure near 95%, and RAND says more than 80% of AI projects miss. The pattern echoes the early Agile years: chasing a shiny tool without knowing what problem it solves.AI sees the data. Humans see the story behind it. The human brings context, ethics, and judgment, and stays the ethical guardian who catches the hallucination and the answer that is right for the wrong reasons.In this episode, we discuss:The human algorithm - turning AI outputs into real outcomes through context, ethics, and judgmentWhy AI sees the data but only humans see the story behind itAnu's five workflow principles for human-led AI, including protecting the retro and naming a human decision owner for every recommendationWhy so many AI transformations fail, and how it mirrors the early Agile yearsAI-enabled vs. AI-native organizations, and why native winsUsing AI as a tool versus trusting it to run the businessChoosing the right tool for the job instead of defaulting to one model for everythingThe ethical guardian role - catching not just what AI gets wrong, but what it gets right for the wrong reasonsKnowing when to trust AI, when to challenge it, and when to override it Just because AI can do something does not mean it should. That is where humans come in. We are not using AI to replace thinking. We are creating more space for higher quality thinking for the human in the loop.Referenced in this episode: the documentary How I Became an Apocalyptimist (Daniel Rohrer), the Conan O'Brien podcast on how tools change but the task doesn't, the New York Times feature on Box adding AI roles, and the AI-native shift discussed at the Miro Canvas conference.

Gewaltiges hat Elia erlebt, Großes in Gottes Namen ausgeführt. Mir scheint, er ging bis an den Rand seiner Kraft. Doch Gott hat ihn gestärkt, auch beim grausamen Gericht über die Baalspriester. – Nun sehen wir Elia noch von einer besonderen Seite: ELIA – ein Mann und sein Gebet.

Housing costs have exploded across the United States and everyone seems to have a scapegoat in mind. Some blame BlackRock. Others blame immigrants. Still others blame boomers who “refuse to downsize.” But none of these explanations get us close to the real answer. If you want to know what caused the housing affordability crisis, you have to look at the one actor powerful enough to restrict supply everywhere at once: the government.In this episode of the Libertarian Christian Podcast, David Rand takes us through the deeper structural causes of the crisis and explains why the United States went from a property‑rights‑based land system to a managerial, centrally planned regime that chokes off new housing. The result is predictable: scarcity, skyrocketing prices, and a generation locked out of home ownership.Rand is the president and CEO of the Land Liberty Movement, a new national nonprofit working to rebuild the American Dream by restoring property rights, and the freedom to build. He also produces content for Build the Dream, a Substack that explores housing policy. You can also find him on X @David_Rand_ Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com Use code LCI50 for 50% off your first order at Podsworth.com to clean up your voice recordings and also support LCI!Full Podsworth Ad Read BEFORE & AFTER processing:https://youtu.be/vbsOEODpQGs  ★ Support this podcast ★

Introduction: Is it possible that we are running out of superlatives for Lynx rookie Olivia Miles? That's how it feels after another huge game in a Minnesota victory. Plus host Michael Rand laments a missed opportunity for the Twins. 6:00: Ben Goessling joins Rand for a breakdown of a newsy week for the Vikings. What ultimately led the Vikings to hire Nolan Teasley as their GM? And how will that ultimately shape their roster going forward? 34:00: NBA and NHL finals in focus.

The Dragon Reborn saved the world... but he also made some spectacularly bad decisions. This week, Andrew and Josh take a look at Rand al'Thor's biggest mistakes throughout The Wheel of Time. From trusting the wrong people to choices that nearly shattered his alliances—and maybe even the Pattern itself—we're ranking and debating the decisions that cost Rand the most. Which choice was his worst? Was he wrong, or did the Dragon Reborn simply do what had to be done? Join us as we break down the Dragon's greatest errors and decide which mistake nearly changed the fate of the world. #WheelOfTime #RandAlThor #DragonReborn #BlackTowerPodcast #WoTPodcast

Introduction: Host Michael Rand starts with the Knicks' Game 1 win over the Spurs in the NBA Finals. Plus the sudden demise of Twins pitcher Simeon Woods Richardson. 9:00: Star Tribune columnist La Velle E. Neal III joins Rand for their weekly debate segment. In focus: What happens if Kyler Murray has a very good year for the Vikings? When will Royce Lewis return to the Twins, and what will that look like? And how are the Lynx so good again? 27:00: The Frost are trying to keep their team together.

June 3, 2026: Most people use a data center dozens of times a day and have no idea what it is. Today I'm changing that. I break down exactly what data centers are, what "compute" actually means, why every new AI model needs exponentially more of it, and how short we currently are as a country — using real numbers from Goldman Sachs, FERC, RAND, and others. Then I take on the five biggest myths driving the backlash: that new data centers waste water, that they're an energy disaster, that they kill jobs, that taxpayers are funding Big Tech, and that they destroy communities. I debunk every single one with sourced data — because the misinformation around data centers is doing real damage to America's AI future. These buildings currently account for 80% of US economic growth according to S&P Global, they're funding the nuclear renaissance, and they're the front line in a race with China that we cannot afford to lose. This is the episode I'd send to anyone who thinks data centers are the enemy.

Host Michael Rand starts by asking how many NBA titles Victor Wembanyama will end up winning. 8:00: Bobby Nightengale joins Rand for a bunch of big Twins topics. 32:00: Byron Buxton returns to center field.

In this UFO news update, I break down a packed few days in the disclosure world.Dylan Borland and Matthew Brown have announced a new whistleblower fund, raising fresh questions about how people coming forward are being supported, and where previous funds have actually gone.Congressman Eric Burlison is continuing to push the private contractor angle, targeting organisations like MITRE, RAND and MIT Lincoln Labs, as the search for UAP records moves beyond the Pentagon and into the grey area between government and private industry.We also look at Lauren Boebert's latest comments on classified briefings, biological beings, portals and the supernatural, plus the New York Times covering the growing conversation around UFOs, religion, demons and how disclosure may be interpreted by different communities.And finally, I cover notes from Lue Elizondo's Persona Non Grata event in Texas, including Burlison's comments on amnesty, deep underground military bases, Jake Barber, Michael Herrera and the upcoming June 9 Capitol Hill event with David Grusch and members of Congress.June could be a huge month for the UFO topic. Is this disclosure gaining momentum, or getting even stranger?

Introduction: Host Michael Rand revisits the Jonathan Greenard trade in light of Monday's NFL blockbuster deal for Myles Garrett. Plus the Lynx keep rolling and the Twins snap out of their funk. 10:00: Star Tribune Gophers football writer Randy Johnson joins for an update after a big weekend of recruiting. Plus thoughts on 10 years of Mark Coyle and potential changes to the College Football Playoff. 27:00: Rand remembers Larry Fitzgerald Sr. and Rick Adelman, Minnesota sports figures who died Monday.

Amanda Rand, President and CEO of Spinnaker Trust, joins Dr. Lisa Belisle on Radio Maine to discuss leadership, resilience, workplace culture, and building a meaningful life in Maine. After leaving Maine to attend Duke University and Harvard Law School, Rand returned home to raise her family and help lead one of Maine's premier wealth management firms. In this conversation, she reflects on how personal loss, motherhood, community involvement, and professional mentorship shaped her leadership style and her commitment to creating supportive environments for both employees and clients. Thoughtful and candid, this episode explores how empathy, long-term thinking, and strong community connections can shape not only organizations, but the people within them. Join our conversation with Amanda Rand today on Radio Maine—and be sure to subscribe to the channel.

Introduction: Host Michael Rand starts by looking at Thursday's labor proposal from MLB owners, which asks for a salary cap and salary floor. It makes a ton of sense, and the owners need to stick to their resolve to get a cap during negotiations. 8:00: Cassidy Hettesheimer of the Star Tribune joins Rand to break down just how the Lynx have maintained their excellence early this season. Plus a look at PWHL salaries. 29:00: Rand was wrong about the Spurs. He gives himself another chance to be right (or wrong) about Vikings receivers.

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

Send us Fan MailOn this episode of The State of Energy, Rand and Tom dive into the wild energy headlines—from Skinwalker Ranch and Utah's proposed data center boom to rising gasoline and diesel prices. Tom shares his costly Memorial Day fuel adventure, including a diesel truck, a gas-hungry boat, and a near-sinking brand-new boat at Bear Lake.The conversation turns to why propane remains one of America's most stable, affordable, and domestically produced fuels, especially during global oil uncertainty. Tom also breaks down the opportunity for propane in fleet vehicles, temporary construction heat and power, and the new Juice Box mobile propane generator now available for demonstrations through RMPA, CPGA, and NMPGA.

Introduction: Host Michael Rand starts the show with a look at the Twins' starting pitching and the strong start from the Lynx. 9:00: Star Tribune columnist Chip Scoggins joins the show for a look at the Vikings QB battle and some interesting comments from J.J. McCarthy after Wednesday's offseason practice. 23:00: Rand has some extended McCarthy thoughts and a look ahead to Game 6 between the Spurs and Thunder.

Introduction: Host Michael Rand starts with the Colorado Avalanche getting swept and the Spurs being on the verge of bowing out of the NBA playoffs. What does that tell us about the Wild and Wolves? 10:00: La Velle E. Neal III joins Rand for the Daily Delivery debate. In focus: Should the Wolves pursue Kyrie Irving? Are the Twins better than we thought? And how will the Loons manage a two-month break? 33:00: The Twins are still a playoff team.

Kan framtidens dator hota hela vår digitala säkerhet? Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radios app. Kvantdatorn har länge beskrivits som nästa stora teknologiska revolution – en maskin som kan lösa problem som dagens datorer aldrig klarar av. Den skulle kunna förändra allt från medicin och materialforskning till artificiell intelligens. Men samma teknik kan också hota den kryptering som skyddar våra bankärenden, lösenord, chattar, journaler och myndighetssystem. Vad finns det som talar för att kvantdatorn faktiskt kan bli ett hot mot vår digitala säkerhet, och hinner samhället ställa om innan det är för sent?Programledare och producent: Jennifer Sjöblom och Wendela AntepohlKällförteckningMedverkandeGöran Johansson - professor i tillämpad kvantfysik vid Chalmers, institutionen för mikroteknologi och nanovetenskapJulia Ravanis - författare och doktor i teknikhistoriaMåns Jonasson - internetexpert på InternetstiftelsenMichael Popoff - senior forskare i bland annan kvantsäkerhet på RISEEdward Parker - fysiker på RAND corporation Andra vi har pratat medPontus Johnson - professor i cybersäkerhet på KTHExperter och presstjänsten hos Polismyndigheten, SÄPO, E-hälsomyndigheten, Försvarsmakten och FOIBöckerQuantum Bullshit - Chris FerrieKvantdatorer - Mikael JohanssonUniversum i din hand - Christophe GalfardKlipp i urvalDen nya ekonomin. Kvantdatorer: det oförklarliga, förklarat.Idéer som förändrar världen: Kvantfysik i praktiken – med Göran JohanssonVetenskapsradion: så funkar kvantdatorn A-kursen i kvantfysik med Julia Ravanis Radiolab: Quantum birds Sveriges Radio: Internets mardröm Sveriges Radio: Kvantfysiken 100 år. The joy of why: What is the true promise of quantum computing? CBS News: Google's quantum computer makes breakthrough Bloomberg Television: Can Quantum Computing Power the AI Boom? Oppenheimer CNET: This crypto threat is closer than expected Källor i urvalChalmers University of Technology: Kvantdatorn: Möjlighet och risker New York Times: Google's Quantum Computer Makes a Big Technical Leap New York Times: Turning Award Goes to Inventors of Quantum Cryptography The Conversation: Five ways quantum technology could shape everyday life ​​The Conversation: New entanglement breakthrough links cores of atoms, brings quantum computers closer Tech monitor: Are harvest now, decrypt later cyberattacks actually happening?Nature: Untangling the challenges of quantum computing PC för alla: Så kommer kvantdatorer revolutionera världen RISE: Kvantteknologi - revolution eller evolution? APS: June/July 1925: Werner Heisenberg pioneers quantum mechanics Forbes: Harvest now, read now: The immediate overlooked risk beneath the PQC discussion CISA: Post-Quantum Considerations for Operational Technology FOI: Militärteknik 2050Quantum: How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits Nature: ‘It's a real shock': quantum-computing breakthroughs pose imminent risks to cybersecurity SvD: Varningen: “Q-Day” rycker närmare DI: Kvantdatorer pekas ut som säkerhetshot: ”Bråttom” DI: Statligt institut varnar för ”existentiellt hot” The New Scientist: Quantum experiment settles a century-old row between Einstein and Bohr Wired: The Quantum Apocalypse Is Coming. Be Very Afraid

Financial Assessment (Meet with an experienced professional):https://bit.ly/PureFreeAssessmentToday on Your Money, Your Wealth® podcast number 582, Joe Anderson, CFP® and Big Al Clopine, CPA address something a not-insignificant portion of this audience has been complaining about for years: their so-called 'absurdly conservative' safe withdrawal rates for early retirement. Rand and Elayne from Ohio are here to gripe about it directly with a thought experiment: a million bucks at age 36 and a three-year sabbatical in France. When, if ever, would Joe and Big Al say they should cut it short and go back to work if the markets turned ugly? Mike2me17 piles on, with his own SWR take about AUM fees in his Apple Podcasts review. But first, a real world example: Ron and Harry from Florida are elite performers with a high-risk specialty job. Can they safely pull off moving to Portugal and living on $38,000 a year in their early 40s? If you're one of the people yelling at your podcast app every time Joe or Al mentions a 2% withdrawal rate, today's your day, and we welcome you to leave more of your thoughts on the topic in Apple Podcasts, YouTube, on Reddit, in our inboxes - like everyone else has.Free Financial Resources in This Episode: https://bit.ly/ymyw-582 (full show notes & episode transcript)Withdrawal Strategy Guide - YMYW TV:https://purefinancial.com/white-papers/withdrawal-strategy-guide/?utm_source=captivate&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=whitepaper-withdrawal-strategy-guide&utm_content=ymyw-pod-ep582-description-whitepaperFinancial Blueprint (free, self-guided):https://purefinancial.com/financialblueprint/?utm_source=captivate&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=financial-blueprint&utm_content=ymyw-pod-ep582-description-blueprintRetirement Pop Quiz: 18 Questions to Get You Ready to Retire - YMYW TVhttps://purefinancial.com/ymyw/episodes/retirement-pop-quiz-18-questions-ready-to-retire/?utm_source=captivate&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=ymyw-tv&utm_content=ymyw-pod-ep582-description-tv-s10e10Financial Assessment (Meet with an experienced professional):https://bit.ly/PureFreeAssessmentREQUEST your Retirement Spitball Analysis:https://bit.ly/AskJoeAndAlDOWNLOAD more free guides:https://bit.ly/PureGuidesREAD financial blogs:https://bit.ly/PureFinBlogWATCH educational videos:https://bit.ly/PureEdVideosSUBSCRIBE to the YMYW Newsletter:https://bit.ly/YMYWNewsletterConnect With Us:Subscribe on YouTube and join the conversation in the comments:https://bit.ly/YMYW-YTSubscribe or follow YMYW in your favorite podcast app:https://lnk.to/ymywLeave your honest reviews and ratings in Apple Podcasts:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/your-money-your-wealth/id312900254Chapters: 00:00 - Intro: This Week on the YMYW Podcast01:14 - Elite Performers Semi-Retiring at 43 and Moving to Portugal. Can We Pull It Off? (Ron & Harry, FL)16:16 - YMYW Safe Withdrawal Rate Assumptions Are Absurd. At What Point Do You Go Back to Work If Markets Crash? (Rand & Elayne, ID)34:13 - YMW Safe Withdrawal Rates to Protect AUM Fee (Comment from mike2me17, Apple Podcasts)41:46 - Outro: Next Week on the YMYW Podcast

Heath Pearce and Mark McKenzie welcome Rand Getlin, executive producer and director of the five-part HBO Max docuseries "US Against the World," which follows the U.S. Men's National Team from the 2022 World Cup in Qatar through the road to the 2026 World Cup on home soil. Rand breaks down how a chance meeting with Tyler Adams in 2019 sparked a four-year filmmaking journey, how the production earned unprecedented locker room access, and why one camera operator (Luke Korver) shot nearly 90% of the footage across 300 production days and 600 hours of material. Before the interview, Mark tells one of the wildest travel stories in podcast history -- ultras storming the pitch during Toulouse's final match at relegated Nantes, the team plane never showing up from Italy, backup flights getting canceled, and a five-and-a-half-hour Tesla taxi ride with four charging stops just to make a morning flight to Philadelphia with his wife and seven-month-old son. The conversation goes deep on the vulnerability captured in the series, from Tyler Adams opening up about family struggles to Tim Weah's Copa America red card against Panama and how the filmmakers made sure those difficult moments were properly contextualized. Rand discusses Greg Berhalter's openness and work ethic, the unique structure of having both the Players Association and U.S. Soccer as partners, and why the team had full creative autonomy with zero editorial control from the federation. Mark shares what it was like navigating the emotional swings of being in and out of the starting lineup while cameras rolled, and how he channeled that energy into being a connector across the locker room -- from speaking Dutch with Sergino Dest to mentoring younger players like Malik Tillman. Get $25 free play with FanDuel Predicts. Subscribe for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday.