Podcasts about RAND Corporation

Despite a new study from the RAND Corporation showing her numbers were wildly off and calls for service have only gone upSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this SEE YOU NOW Insight, Don Berwick, MD, pioneer of the modern patient safety movement, explores the powerful relationship between quality and safety in healthcare. Drawing from his landmark work on waste and inefficiency with the RAND Corporation and lessons from Paul O'Neill's safety transformation at Alcoa, Berwick reveals how excellence begins when the workforce feels safe, supported, and valued. When systems function as intended, both patients and clinicians thrive. Reminding us that quality care and safety are not separate goals, but one shared purpose.  To listen to this Insight clip's full episode visit SEE YOU NOW Podcast Episode 123: Safer Together | The Architecture of a Movement at APPLE, SPOTIFY, or YOUTUBE or at your favorite streaming platform. For more information on the podcast bundles, visit ANA's Innovation Website at https://www.nursingworld.org/practice-policy/innovation/education.  Have questions or feedback for the SEE YOU NOW team?  Future episode ideas? Contact us at hello@seeyounowpodcast.com.  

The world has watched as a cease-fire has tentatively taken effect in Gaza. All the surviving Israeli hostages are home and many Palestinian prisoners and detainees have been released. Israeli forces have pulled back within Gaza, and much-needed humanitarian aid is rushing in. Phase One of Donald Trump's 20-point plan seems to be working. But what happens next is more uncertain. At the time of this recording, conditions on the ground were still in flux, as the difficulty of Phase Two came into focus. The thornier details of who will govern Gaza and provide security there remain to be determined. Nor is it clear whether Hamas will actually disarm, as Trump's plan calls the group to do. Most of Gaza is in ruins and many Palestinians fear that the cease-fire will only be a pause before a resumption of the conflict.   Shira Efron, Khaled Elgindy, and Daniel Shapiro have closely analyzed the war and its regional and global implications for Foreign Affairs over the last two years. All three are intimately familiar with the challenges of making peace in the Middle East: Efron, the distinguished chair for Israel Policy at the RAND Corporation, has advised Israeli security officials. Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University, counseled Palestinian negotiators from 2004 to 2009. And Shapiro, a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council, served as U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration and as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East during the Biden administration. Executive Editor Justin Vogt spoke with Efron, Elgindy, and Shapiro on the afternoon of Tuesday, October 14, to make sense of Trump's deal and the Gaza cease-fire—its promise, its fragility, and its potential pitfalls. You can find sources, transcripts, and more episodes of The Foreign Affairs Interview at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview.

Day 1,321.Today, we break down Ukraine's escalating drone war targeting Russian industry and examine how Ukrainian intelligence claims China supplied satellite imagery of US-funded factories. We also cover the latest riots in Georgia and election results in Czechia, analysing what they reveal about European political stability. Later, following a weekend of explosions across Russia and occupied Crimea, a RAND Corporation analyst joins us to assess Putin's weakening oil industry, the potential breaking point for Russia's energy sector, and how a proposed European “drone wall” could reshape the continent's defences.Contributors:Dominic Nicholls (Associate Editor of Defence). @DomNicholls on X.Francis Dearnley (Executive Editor for Audio). @FrancisDearnley on X.With thanks to RAND Analyst Michael Bohnert.CONTENT REFERENCED:‘The Battle for Odesa: Ukraine's Culture War' (Francis & Dom Video Documentary):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28HqbQLYGMM Europe is facing its ‘Pearl Harbor moment' (Landbergis in The Telegraph):https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/05/europe-faces-pearl-harbor-moment/ Georgia's presidential palace ‘attacked' after pro-Russia party's win (The Telegraph):https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/05/georgia-protests-presidential-palace-georgian-dream-tbilisi/ Santander hires former head of British Army (The Telegraph):https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/06/santander-hires-former-head-of-british-army/ BOOK NOW: 'UKRAINE: THE LATEST' LIVE, IN-PERSON:Join us for an in-person discussion and Q&A at the distinguished Honourable Artillery Company in London on 22nd October at 7pm.Our panel includes General Sir Richard Barrons, former head of UK Joint Forces Command and latterly one of the authors of Britain's Strategic Defence Review, and Orysia Lutsevych, head of the Ukraine Forum at the Chatham House think tank. Tickets are open to everybody and can be purchased at:https://www.squadup.com/events/ukraineliveThey are going fast, so don't delay!SIGN UP TO THE ‘UKRAINE: THE LATEST' WEEKLY NEWSLETTER:http://telegraph.co.uk/ukrainenewsletter Each week, Dom Nicholls and Francis Dearnley answer your questions, provide recommended reading, and give exclusive analysis and behind-the-scenes insights – plus maps of the frontlines and diagrams of weapons to complement our daily reporting. It's free for everyone, including non-subscribers.Subscribe: telegraph.co.uk/ukrainethelatestEmail: ukrainepod@telegraph.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jeremy Wilson is a Professor in the School of Criminal Justice and the Founding Director of the Police Staffing Observatory at Michigan State University. Before that, he was a Behavioral Scientist at the RAND Corporation. His chat with host Jerry Ratcliffe covers police recruitment, what is wrong with so many operational allocation models, and how the world of police staffing is changing.

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,Artificial intelligence may prove to be one of the most transformative technologies in history, but like any tool, its immense power for good comes with a unique array of risks, both large and small.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I chat with Miles Brundage about extracting the most out of AI's potential while mitigating harms. We discuss the evolving expectations for AI development and how to reconcile with the technology's most daunting challenges.Brundage is an AI policy researcher. He is a non-resident fellow at the Institute for Progress, and formerly held a number of senior roles at OpenAI. He is also the author of his own Substack.In This Episode* Setting expectations (1:18)* Maximizing the benefits (7:21)* Recognizing the risks (13:23)* Pacing true progress (19:04)* Considering national security (21:39)* Grounds for optimism and pessimism (27:15)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Setting expectations (1:18)It seems to me like there are multiple vibe shifts happening at different cadences and in different directions.Pethokoukis: Earlier this year I was moderating a discussion between an economist here at AEI and a CEO of a leading AI company, and when I asked each of them how AI might impact our lives, our economists said, ‘Well, I could imagine, for instance, a doctor's productivity increasing because AI could accurately and deeply translate and transcribe an appointment with a patient in a way that's far better than what's currently available.” So that was his scenario. And then I asked the same question of the AI company CEO, who said, by contrast, “Well, I think within a decade, all human death will be optional thanks to AI-driven medical advances.” On that rather broad spectrum — more efficient doctor appointments and immortality — how do you see the potential of this technology?Brundage: It's a good question. I don't think those are necessarily mutually exclusive. I think, in general, AI can both augment productivity and substitute for human labor, and the ratio of those things is kind of hard to predict and might be very policy dependent and social-norm dependent. What I will say is that, in general, it seems to me like the pace of progress is very fast and so both augmentation and substitutions seem to be picking up steam.It's kind of interesting watching the debate between AI researchers and economists, and I have a colleague who has said that the AI researchers sometimes underestimate the practical challenges in deployment at scale. Conversely, the economists sometimes underestimate just how quickly the technology is advancing. I think there's maybe some happy middle to be found, or perhaps one of the more extreme perspectives is true. But personally, I am not an economist, I can't really speak to all of the details of substitution, and augmentation, and all the policy variables here, but what I will say is that at least the technical potential for very significant amounts of augmentation of human labor, as well as substitution for human labor, seem pretty likely on even well less than 10 years — but certainly within 10 years things will change a lot.It seems to me that the vibe has shifted a bit. When I talk to people from the Bay Area and I give them the Washington or Wall Street economist view, to them I sound unbelievably gloomy and cautious. But it seems the vibe has shifted, at least recently, to where a lot of people think that major advancements like superintelligence are further out than they previously thought — like we should be viewing AI as an important technology, but more like what we've seen before with the Internet and the PC.It's hard for me to comment. It seems to me like there are multiple vibe shifts happening at different cadences and in different directions. It seems like several years ago there was more of a consensus that what people today would call AGI was decades away or more, and it does seem like that kind of timeframe has shifted closer to the present. There there's still debate between the “next few years” crowd versus the “more like 10 years” crowd. But that is a much narrower range than we saw several years ago when there was a wider range of expert opinions. People who used to be seen as on one end of the spectrum, for example, Gary Marcus and François Chollet who were seen as kind of the skeptics of AI progress, even they now are saying, “Oh, it's like maybe 10 years or so, maybe five years for very high levels of capability.” So I think there's been some compression in that respect. That's one thing that's going on.There's also a way in which people are starting to think less abstractly and more concretely about the applications of AI and seeing it less as this kind of mysterious thing that might happen suddenly and thinking of it more as incremental, more as something that requires some work to apply in various parts of the economy that there's some friction associated with.Both of these aren't inconsistent, they're just kind of different vibe shifts that are happening. So getting back to the question of is this just a normal technology, I would say that, at the very least, it does seem faster in some respects than some other technological changes that we've seen. So I think ChatGPT's adoption going from zero to double-digit percentages of use across many professions in the US and in a matter of high number of months, low number of years, is quite stark.Would you be surprised if, five years from now, we viewed AI as something much more important than just another incremental technological advance, something far more transformative than technologies that have come before?No, I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. If I understand your question correctly, my baseline expectation is that it will be seen as one of the most important technologies ever. I'm not sure that there's a standard consensus on how to rate the internet versus electricity, et cetera, but it does seem to me like it's of the same caliber of electricity in the sense of essentially converting one kind of energy into various kinds of useful economic work. Similarly, AI is converting various types of electricity into cognitive work, and I think that's a huge deal.Maximizing the benefits (7:21)There's also a lot of value being left on the table in terms of finding new ways to exploit the upsides and accelerate particularly beneficial applications.However you want to define society or the aspect of society that you focus on — government businesses, individuals — are we collectively doing what we need to do to fully exploit the upsides of this technology over the next half-decade to decade, as well as minimizing potential downsides?I think we are not, and this is something that I sometimes find frustrating about the way that the debate plays out is that there's sometimes this zero-sum mentality of doomers versus boomers — a term that Karen Hao uses — and this idea that there's this inherent tension between mitigating the risks and maximizing the benefits, and there are some tensions, but I don't think that we are on the Pareto frontier, so to speak, of those issues.Right now, I think there's a lot of value being left on the table in terms of fairly low-cost risk mitigations. There's also a lot of value being left on the table in terms of finding new ways to exploit the upsides and accelerate particularly beneficial applications. I'll give just one example, because I write a lot about the risk, but I also am very interested in maximizing the upside. So I'll just give one example: Protecting critical infrastructure and improving the cybersecurity of various parts of critical infrastructure in the US. Hospitals, for example, get attacked with ransomware all the time, and this causes real harm to patients because machines get bricked, essentially, and they have one or two people on the IT team, and they're kind of overwhelmed by these, not even always that sophisticated, but perhaps more-sophisticated hackers. That's a huge problem. It matters for national security in addition to patients' lives, and it matters for national security in the sense that this is something that China and Russia and others could hold at risk in the context of a war. They could threaten this critical infrastructure as part of a bargaining strategy.And I don't think that there's that much interest in helping hospitals have a better automated cybersecurity engineer helper among the Big Tech companies — because there aren't that many hospital administrators. . . I'm not sure if it would meet the technical definition of market failure, but it's at least a national security failure in that it's a kind of fragmented market. There's a water plant here, a hospital administrator there.I recently put out a report with the Institute for Progress arguing that philanthropists and government could put some additional gasoline in the tank of cybersecurity by incentivizing innovation that specifically helps these under-resourced defenders more so than the usual customers of cybersecurity companies like Fortune 500 companies.I'm confident that companies and entrepreneurs will figure out how to extract value from AI and create new products and new services, barring any regulatory slowdowns. But since you mentioned low-hanging fruit, what are some examples of that?I would say that transparency is one of the areas where a lot of AI policy experts seem to be in pretty strong agreement. Obviously there is still some debate and disagreement about the details of what should be required, but just to give you some illustration, it is typical for the leading AI companies, sometimes called frontier AI companies, to put out some kind of documentation about the safety steps that they've taken. It's typical for them to say, here's our safety strategy and here's some evidence that we're following this strategy. This includes things like assessing whether their systems can be used for cyber-attacks, and assessing whether they could be used to create biological weapons, or assessing the extent to which they make up facts and make mistakes, but state them very confidently in a way that could pose risks to users of the technology.That tends to be totally voluntary, and there started to be some momentum as a result of various voluntary commitments that were made in recent years, but as the technology gets more high-stakes, and there's more cutthroat competition, and there's maybe more lawsuits where companies might be tempted to retreat a bit in terms of the information that they share, I think that things could kind of backslide, and at the very least not advance as far as I would like from the perspective of making sure that there's sharing of lessons learned from one company to another, as well as making sure that investors and users of the technology can make informed decisions about, okay, do I purchase the services of OpenAI, or Google, or Anthropic, and making these informed decisions, making informed capital investment seems to require transparency to some degree.This is something that is actively being debated in a few contexts. For example, in California there's a bill that has that and a few other things called SB-53. But in general, we're at a bit of a fork in the road in terms of both how certain regulations will be implemented such as in the EU. Is it going to become actually an adaptive, nimble approach to risk mitigation or is it going to become a compliance checklist that just kind of makes big four accounting firms richer? So there are questions then there are just “does the law pass or not?” kind of questions here.Recognizing the risks (13:23). . . I'm sure there'll be some things that we look back on and say it's not ideal, but in my opinion, it's better to do something that is as informed as we can do, because it does seem like there are these kind of market failures and incentive problems that are going to arise if we do nothing . . .In my probably overly simplistic way of looking at it, I think of two buckets and you have issues like, are these things biased? Are they giving misinformation? Are they interacting with young people in a way that's bad for their mental health? And I feel like we have a lot of rules and we have a huge legal system for liability that can probably handle those.Then, in the other bucket, are what may, for the moment, be science-fictional kinds of existential risks, whether it's machines taking over or just being able to give humans the ability to do very bad things in a way we couldn't before. Within that second bucket, I think, it sort of needs to be flexible. Right now, I'm pretty happy with voluntary standards, and market discipline, and maybe the government creating some benchmarks, but I can imagine the technology advancing to where the voluntary aspect seems less viable and there might need to be actual mandates about transparency, or testing, or red teaming, or whatever you want to call it.I think that's a reasonable distinction, in the sense that there are risks at different scales, there are some that are kind of these large-scale catastrophic risks and might have lower likelihood but higher magnitude of impact. And then there are things that are, I would say, literally happening millions of times a day like ChatGPT making up citations to articles that don't exist, or Claud saying that it fixed your code but actually it didn't fix the code and the user's too lazy to notice, and so forth.So there are these different kinds of risks. I personally don't make a super strong distinction between them in terms of different time horizons, precisely because I think things are going so quickly. I think science fiction is becoming science fact very much sooner than many people expected. But in any case, I think that similar logic around, let's make sure that there's transparency even if we don't know exactly what the right risk thresholds are, and we want to allow a fair degree of flexibility and what measures companies take.It seems good that they share what they're doing and, in my opinion, ideally go another step further and allow third parties to audit their practices and make sure that if they say, “Well, we did a rigorous test for hallucination or something like that,” that that's actually true. And so that's what I would like to see for both what you might call the mundane and the more science fiction risks. But again, I think it's kind of hard to say how things will play out, and different people have different perspectives on these things. I happen to be on the more aggressive end of the spectrumI am worried about the spread of the apocalyptic, high-risk AI narrative that we heard so much about when ChatGPT first rolled out. That seems to have quieted, but I worry about it ramping up again and stifling innovation in an attempt to reduce risk.These are very fair concerns, and I will say that there are lots of bills and laws out there that have, in fact, slowed down innovation and certain contexts. The EU, I think, has gone too far in some areas around social media platforms. I do think at least some of the state bills that have been floated would lead to a lot of red tape and burdens to small businesses. I personally think this is avoidable.There are going to be mistakes. I don't want to be misleading about how high quality policymakers' understanding of some of these issues are. There will be mistakes, even in cases where, for example, in California there was a kind of blue ribbon commission of AI experts producing a report over several months, and then that directly informing legislation, and a lot of industry back and forth and negotiation over the details. I would say that's probably the high water mark, SB-53, of fairly stakeholder/expert-informed legislation. Even there, I'm sure there'll be some things that we look back on and say it's not ideal, but in my opinion, it's better to do something that is as informed as we can do, because it does seem like there are these kind of market failures and incentive problems that are going to arise if we do nothing, such as companies retrenching and holding back information that makes it hard for the field as a whole to tackle these issues.I'll just make one more point, which is adapting to the compliance capability of different companies: How rich are they? How expensive are the models they're training, I think is a key factor in the legislation that I tend to be more sympathetic to. So just to make a contrast, there's a bill in Colorado that was kind of one size fits all, regulate all the kind of algorithms, and that, I think, is very burdensome to small businesses. I think something like SB-53 where it says, okay, if you can afford to train an AI system for a $100 million, you can probably afford to put out a dozen pages about your safety and security practices.Pacing true progress (19:04). . . some people . . . kind of wanted to say, “Well, things are slowing down.” But in my opinion, if you look at more objective measures of progress . . . there's quite rapid progress happening still.Hopefully Grok did not create this tweet of yours, but if it did, well, there we go. You won't have to answer it, but I just want to understand what you meant by it: “A lot of AI safety people really, really want to find evidence that we have a lot of time for AGI.” What does that mean?What I was trying to get at is that — and I guess this is not necessarily just AI safety people, but I sometimes kind of try to poke at people in my social network who I'm often on the same side of, but also try to be a friendly critic to, and that includes people who are working on AI safety. I think there's a common tendency to kind of grasp at what I would consider straws when reading papers and interpreting product launches in a way that kind of suggests, well, we've hit a wall, AI is slowing down, this was a flop, who cares?I'm doing my kind of maybe uncharitable psychoanalysis. What I was getting at is that I think one reason why some people might be tempted to do that is that it makes things seem easier and less scary: “Well, we don't have to worry about really powerful AI enabled cyber-attacks for another five years, or biological weapons for another two years, or whatever.” Maybe, maybe not.I think the specific example that sparked that was GPT-5 where there were a lot of people who, in my opinion, were reading the tea leaves in a particular way and missing important parts of the context. For example, at GPT-5 wasn't a much larger or more expensive-to-train model than GPT-4, which may be surprising by the name. And I think OpenAI did kind of screw up the naming and gave people the wrong impression, but from my perspective, there was nothing particularly surprising, but to some people it was kind of a flop that they kind of wanted to say, “Well, things are slowing down.” But in my opinion, if you look at more objective measures of progress like scores on math, and coding, and the reduction in the rate of hallucinations, and solving chemistry and biology problems, and designing new chips, and so forth, there's quite rapid progress happening still.Considering national security (21:39)I want to avoid a scenario like the Cuban Missile Crisis or ways in which that could have been much worse than the actual Cuban Missile Crisis happening as a result of AI and AGI.I'm not sure if you're familiar with some of the work being done by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who's been doing a lot of work on national security and AI, and his work, it doesn't use the word AGI, but it talks about AI certainly smart enough to be able to have certain capabilities which our national security establishment should be aware of, should be planning, and those capabilities, I think to most people, would seem sort of science fictional: being able to launch incredibly sophisticated cyber-attacks, or be able to improve itself, or be able to create some other sort of capabilities. And from that, I'm like, whether or not you think that's possible, to me, the odds of that being possible are not zero, and if they're not zero, some bit of the bandwidth of the Pentagon should be thinking about that. I mean, is that sensible?Yeah, it's totally sensible. I'm not going to argue with you there. In fact, I've done some collaboration with the Rand Corporation, which has a pretty heavy investment in what they call the geopolitics of AGI and kind of studying what are the scenarios, including AI and AGI being used to produce “wonder weapons” and super-weapons of some kind.Basically, I think this is super important and in fact, I have a paper coming out that was in collaboration with some folks there pretty soon. I won't spoil all the details, but if you search “Miles Brundage US China,” you'll see some things that I've discussed there. And basically my perspective is we need to strike a balance between competing vigorously on the commercial side with countries like China and Russia on AI — more so China, Russia is less of a threat on the commercial side, at least — and also making sure that we're fielding national security applications of AI in a responsible way, but also recognizing that there are these ways in which things could spiral out of control in a scenario with totally unbridled competition. I want to avoid a scenario like the Cuban Missile Crisis or ways in which that could have been much worse than the actual Cuban Missile Crisis happening as a result of AI and AGI.If you think that, again, the odds are not zero that a technology which is fast-evolving, that we have no previous experience with because it's fast-evolving, could create the kinds of doomsday scenarios that there's new books out about, people are talking about. And so if you think, okay, not a zero percent chance that could happen, but it is kind of a zero percent chance that we're going to stop AI, smash the GPUs, as someone who cares about policy, are you just hoping for the best, or are the kinds of things we've already talked about — transparency, testing, maybe that testing becoming mandatory at some point — is that enough?It's hard to say what's enough, and I agree that . . . I don't know if I give it zero, maybe if there's some major pandemic caused by AI and then Xi Jinping and Trump get together and say, okay, this is getting out of control, maybe things could change. But yeah, it does seem like continued investment and a large-scale deployment of AI is the most likely scenario.Generally, the way that I see this playing out is that there are kind of three pillars of a solution. There's kind of some degree of safety and security standards. Maybe we won't agree on everything, but we should at least be able to agree that you don't want to lose control of your AI system, you don't want it to get stolen, you don't want a $10 billion AI system to be stolen by a $10 million-scale hacking effort. So I think there are sensible standards you can come up with around safety and security. I think you can have evidence produced or required that companies are following these things. That includes transparency.It also includes, I would say, third-party auditing where there's kind of third parties checking the claims and making sure that these standards are being followed, and then you need some incentives to actually participate in this regime and follow it. And I think the incentives part is tricky, particularly at an international scale. What incentive does China have to play ball other than obviously they don't want to have their AI kill them or overthrow their government or whatever? So where exactly are the interests aligned or not? Is there some kind of system of export control policies or sanctions or something that would drive compliance or is there some other approach? I think that's the tricky part, but to me, those are kind of the rough outlines of a solution. Maybe that's enough, but I think right now it's not even really clear what the rough rules of the road are, who's playing by the rules, and we're relying a lot on goodwill and voluntary reporting. I think we could do better, but is that enough? That's harder to say.Grounds for optimism and pessimism (27:15). . . it seems to me like there is at least some room for learning from experience . . . So in that sense, I'm more optimistic. . . I would say, in another respect, I'm maybe more pessimistic in that I am seeing value being left on the table.Did your experience at OpenAI make you more or make you more optimistic or worried that, when we look back 10 years from now, that AI will have, overall on net, made the world a better place?I am sorry to not give you a simpler answer here, and maybe think I should sit on this one and come up with a kind of clearer, more optimistic or more pessimistic answer, but I'll give you kind of two updates in different directions, and I think they're not totally inconsistent.I would say that I have gotten more optimistic about the solvability of the problem in the following sense. I think that things were very fuzzy five, 10 years ago, and when I joined OpenAI almost seven years now ago now, there was a lot of concern that it could kind of come about suddenly — that one day you don't have AI, the next day you have AGI, and then on the third day you have artificial superintelligence and so forth.But we don't live to see the fourth day.Exactly, and so it seems more gradual to me now, and I think that is a good thing. It also means that — and this is where I differ from some of the more extreme voices in terms of shutting it all down — it seems to me like there is at least some room for learning from experience, iterating, kind of taking the lessons from GPT-5 and translating them into GPT-6, rather than it being something that we have to get 100 percent right on the first shot and there being no room for error. So in that sense, I'm more optimistic.I would say, in another respect, I'm maybe more pessimistic in that I am seeing value being left on the table. It seems to me like, as I said, we're not on the Pareto frontier. It seems like there are pretty straightforward things that could be done for a very small fraction of, say, the US federal budget, or very small fraction of billionaires' personal philanthropy or whatever. That in my opinion, would dramatically reduce the likelihood of an AI-enabled pandemic or various other issues, and would dramatically increase the benefits of AI.It's been a bit sad to continuously see those opportunities being neglected. I hope that as AI becomes more of a salient issue to more people and people start to appreciate, okay, this is a real thing, the benefits are real, the risks are real, that there will be more of a kind of efficient policy market and people take those opportunities, but right now it seems pretty inefficient to me. That's where my pessimism comes from. It's not that it's unsolvable, it's just, okay, from a political economy and kind of public-choice perspective, are the policymakers going to make the right decisions?On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

On this week's episode of Security Dilemma, John Gay conducts a full reading of George Washington's Farewell Address, which raised concerns that listeners may find resonate today about foreign influence of U.S. foreign policy, alliance entrapment, and more. The reading is followed by a discussion with co-host A.J. Manuzzi about whether Washington's insights remain valuable in the 21st century. You can follow along and read the full speech for yourself here.LISTENER QUESTIONS: We are opening up Security Dilemma to listener-submitted questions. Submit questions you'd like us to ask future guests ⁠here⁠. Please specify the episode pertaining to the question in your response. Upcoming episodes include: AMA with A.J. and John, U.S. alliances and retrenchment with the RAND Corporation's Miranda Priebe, and the Pentagon budget with the Quincy Institute's Ben Freeman and William Hartung.

Breaking Into Cybersecurity: Insights from Bill Welser of Lotic.aiIn this episode of Breaking Into Cybersecurity, we welcome Bill Welser, CEO/CTO & Co-founder at Lotic.ai. Bill shares his unique journey from starting as an Air Force officer working on advanced laser technology and cybersecurity systems to leading significant research at the Rand Corporation and eventually diving into the startup space. He discusses the importance of understanding system integration, the need for context in both building and managing tech systems, and the essential skill sets for future cybersecurity professionals. Bill also highlights the rapidly evolving landscape of AI, its implications for organizations, and the critical role of human oversight in technology deployment.00:00 Introduction to Bill Vest's Cybersecurity Journey00:34 Bill's Diverse Career Path02:21 Transitioning from Military to Cybersecurity04:15 The Importance of System Integration08:08 Research and Practical Application in Cybersecurity12:18 Emerging Technologies and Skills15:27 AI Implementation Challenges25:34 Ethical and Legal Considerations in AI35:21 Final Thoughts and AdviceSponsored by CPF Coaching LLC - http://cpf-coaching.comThe Breaking into Cybersecurity: It's a conversation about what they did before, why did they pivot into cyber, what the process was they went through Breaking Into Cybersecurity, how they keep up, and advice/tips/tricks along the way.The Breaking into Cybersecurity Leadership Series is an additional series focused on cybersecurity leadership and hearing directly from different leaders in cybersecurity (high and low) on what it takes to be a successful leader. We focus on the skills and competencies associated with cybersecurity leadership and tips/tricks/advice from cybersecurity leaders.Develop Your Cybersecurity Career Path: How to Break into Cybersecurity at Any Level https://www.amazon.com/dp/1955976007/Hack the Cybersecurity Interview: A complete interview preparation guide for jumpstarting your cybersecurity career https://www.amazon.com/Hack-Cybersecurity-Interview-Interviews-Entry-level/dp/1835461298/

In this conversation, Jeff Schoep speaks about his recently published memoire, American Nazi - the story of his transformative journey from leading the National Socialist Movement to founding Beyond Barriers, an organization dedicated to helping individuals exit extremist groups. He discusses the challenges of writing his memoir, the psychological factors that contribute to radicalization, and the importance of human connections in overcoming hate. Schoep emphasizes the need for dialogue and understanding in combating extremism and shares insights from his current work in educating youth about the dangers of hate and the value of compassion.For over 2 decades, Schoep led America's largest neo-Nazi organization, the National Socialist Movement (NSM), overseeing its growth to a nationwide movement. Beginning in 2016, through interactions with a black musician, Daryl Davis, and a Muslim film maker, Deeyah Khan, Jeff began to question not only his work, but his entire life. Experiencing relational dialogue and interpersonal relationships with those he once vilified changed Jeff's life forever. In 2019, he left the the NSM and publicly denounced the ideology. Jeff Schoep transitioned from mastering propaganda that promoted hatred and fear dedication to speaking about our shared humanity. He provides unique insights into the inner workings of far-right extremism from first hand knowledge and personal experience. Jeff has spoken nationally and internationally, from synagogues to universities, from broadcasts to speaking at the Nobel Peace Center in Oslo, Norway with Deeyah Khan. In 2020, Jeff founded Beyond Barriers, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to a world devoid of extremism, radicalized organizations, hate, violence, coercive and violent ideologies. In addition to working alongside both community and government agencies, such as the Office of Juvenile Justice Department (OJJDP), Jeff and his organization, Beyond Barriers, have worked with the Simon Wiesenthal Center, RAND Corporation, International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism (ICSVE), mental health professionals, academic research and development teams, as well as religious and educational institutions across the United States and abroad. 

Ozempic and similar medications have remained at the center of the weight loss conversation this week, with new studies and high-profile voices like Oprah Winfrey bringing both excitement and nuanced caution. Major clinical research just published in a leading medical journal demonstrates that higher, triple doses of semaglutide, sold under names like Ozempic and Wegovy, are driving even more significant weight loss in people with obesity. According to researchers led by Dr Sean Wharton at a leading Canadian weight management clinic, adults without diabetes who took the highest 7 point 2 milligram dose weekly saw an average weight loss approaching nineteen percent of their body weight, notably higher than what's been seen with typical doses. Nearly half of those patients lost twenty percent or more of their body weight in these trials, suggesting very real potential for those struggling with severe obesity. The same trials found that people with type two diabetes saw weight drops of thirteen percent using the highest dose. Importantly, the higher dose still appeared safe and generally well tolerated, with common side effects including nausea and diarrhea that mostly resolved over time. The study did not find a higher risk of dangerous drops in blood sugar or other serious complications. These results are meaningful because they expand the promise of these drugs for patients not reaching their goals on standard doses. However, experts stress that further research is essential to fully understand the long term effects of such a powerful regimen and whether the benefits continue to outweigh any risks as time goes on.Beyond the numbers, more people are sharing their personal stories about these new drugs, and Oprah Winfrey continues to be among the most influential. In new interviews and her recent podcast episode, Oprah has confirmed that she uses a prescription GLP dash 1 agonist, the same class of medication as Ozempic, as part of her ongoing wellness journey. She has not named the specific brand, but her openness has made it clear that for her, this is not just a quick fix or shortcut. Instead, Oprah describes the decision as a mental shift—acknowledging obesity as a chronic disease that is best managed with a partnership between lifestyle changes and medical treatment. She has been explicit that the medication alone is not magic. Oprah credits her progress to a holistic routine that includes daily exercise, often hiking three to five miles, planful eating with her last meal in the late afternoon, and close attention to water intake and overall health habits. She has left behind the self blame that characterized her earlier struggles and now uses her platform to challenge the idea that using medication means failure. Instead, she frames it as using every available tool responsibly—paired with self compassion and ongoing commitment.As these drugs become more widely used, big questions remain. A new RAND Corporation report finds that nearly one in eight Americans have tried Ozempic or a similar medication. Use is particularly high among women aged fifty to sixty four. Yet significant numbers report troublesome side effects—most commonly nausea and diarrhea—though these are usually manageable. There are persistent concerns about access and continuity, too. Research just presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes finds that about half of patients stop using these drugs within a year, mostly due to high cost, with prices remaining out of reach for many, especially younger people and those with lower incomes. Muscle loss, especially among older adults and women, is another emerging potential downside discussed in the latest studies, reminding users to stay mindful of their overall health—not just what the scale shows. And despite the massive popularity, there are still new legal warnings and lawsuits over rare but serious complications, such as gastroparesis, which can slow digestion to a dangerous degree. The US Food and Drug Administration has continued to update warning labels as new risks are identified.For listeners considering this medication, the message from both doctors and people like Oprah is clear. Ozempic and its cousins can be life changing, but only as part of a larger strategy, with realistic understanding of the risks and the need for sustained healthy habits. Science is still catching up to the real life experience of millions as both hope and caution shape the next chapter of the weight loss revolution.Thanks for listening, please subscribe, and remember—this episode was brought to you by Quiet Please podcast networks. For more content like this, please go to Quiet Please dot Ai. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

On this week's episode of Security Dilemma, A.J. Manuzzi and John Gay spoke with Decker Eveleth, an associate research analyst at the federally funded nonprofit research and analysis organization CNA. Decker specializes in open-source analysis of foreign nuclear postures, as well as ballistic and cruise missile forces in the Middle East and Asia. In this episode we discussed the state of Iran's nuclear and missile programs in the aftermath of the Twelve-Day War.LISTENER QUESTIONS: We are opening up Security Dilemma to listener-submitted questions. Submit questions you'd like us to ask future guests here. Please specify the episode pertaining to the question in your response. Upcoming episodes include: AMA with A.J. and John, a reading and discussion of George Washington's Farewell Address, U.S. alliances and retrenchment with the RAND Corporation's Miranda Priebe, and the Pentagon budget with the Quincy Institute's Ben Freeman and William Hartung. LISTENER SURVEY: Please answer our two-question survey of Security Dilemma listeners. Respondents who provide their email address will be entered into a drawing. The first prize is a signed copy of John Mearsheimer's The Tragedy of Great Power Politics; there are also digital copies of our recent reading group book, Paul R. Pillar's Why America Misunderstands the World. Respond to the survey ⁠⁠here⁠⁠.

Reading of excerpts from Dr Raghavan's essay 'The Eye of Self Existence'. The full text can be found here: https://theosophytrust.org/944-eye-of-self-existenceProfessor Raghavan N. Iyer (1930 -1995) was an internationally known philosopher, political theorist, and spiritual practitioner who devoted his life to the intellectual and spiritual uplift of human society. The only Rhodes Scholar from India in 1950 to Oxford, he secured First Class Honors in Philosophy, Politics and Economics and later earned a D. Phil. Degree in moral and political philosophy. For eight years, he was Fellow and Lecturer in Politics at St. Anthony's College, Oxford, then Visiting Professor at the Universities of Oslo, Ghana and Chicago, and lectured at the College of Europe in Belgium, the Erasmus Seminar in Holland, and at Harvard, Bowdoin, Berkeley, U.C.L.A., Rand Corporation and the California Institute of Technology. He was professor of political philosophy at the University of California, Santa Barbara for 21 years.His message is that a renewed humankind is now emerging, and his writings address the causes of the global situation, the nature of this evolution, and the manner in which individuals can participate fully in this collective transformation.Dr Iyer was a practitioner and member of the Theosophical Foundation and wrote that:"Initiation into Theosophical metaphysics is more than an intellectual or moral enterprise; it is a continuous spiritual exercise in the development of intuitive and cognitive capacities that are the highest available to humans, a process that includes from the first a blending of the head and the heart through the interaction of viveka and vairagya, discrimination and detachment. Even our initial apprehension of a statement of Theosophical metaphysics involves an ethical as well as mental effort, just as even the smallest application of a Theosophical injunction to our moral life requires some degree of mental control and the deeper awareness, universal and impersonal in nature, that comes from our higher cognitive capacities. Moral growth, for a Theosophist, presupposes “the silent worship of abstract or noumenal Nature, the only divine manifestation”, that is “the one ennobling religion of Humanity.”

Community colleges lose a staggering number of students before they even show up in official retention data. For this episode, I interviewed Dr. Rita Karam of RAND Corporation. She and her colleagues at RAND examined this often-overlooked group across 15 colleges in California, Texas, and Kentucky. The findings? More than 60% of students are lost between application and census date, with the majority leaving due to a mix of personal barriers and institutional processes.This episode unpacks the research and offers practical steps colleges can take to reduce these losses and re-engage students.Key FindingsEnrollment leakage is real and large: About 10–15% drop after enrolling but before census. Another ~50% are lost between application and enrollment over 60% combined loss.Institutional processes matter: Complex onboarding, unclear handoffs, and overwhelming communication push students out just as much as financial or personal challenges.Financial aid is a critical barrier: Students often don't realize aid requires a declared major or other criteria. Many are dropped when aid decisions aren't resolved in time.Students want relational, not transactional, support: They seek caring, transformative relationships with advisors, not one-off transactions.Timing is crucial: Roughly 30% of students enroll within two weeks of term start, overwhelming advisors and limiting the quality of advising.Few colleges systematically track these students: Data systems are fragmented, making it hard to identify where and why students disappear.Key Chapter Makers00:00: Introduction02:45: Why Students Leave Before Census06:20: Institutional vs. Personal Barriers11:10: The Role of Financial Aid in Early Attrition15:30: Communication Breakdowns During Onboarding20:40: Timing Matters: The First Two Weeks26:15: Tracking Students Who Disappear31:00: Effective Re-Engagement Strategies36:20: Rethinking Advising: From Transactional to Transformational41:50: Practical Steps Colleges Can Take Now47:00: Closing Thoughts & Key TakeawaysFor the full transcript and detailed show notes, including ACTION STEPS, visit the episode page.Continuous Learning Institute:A resource hub for higher education professionals to support college student success. Subscribe for updates.Student Success Podcast Homepage:Access show notes, resources, & transcripts

Relationships have the power to change lives in ways both visible and hidden. Deep, supportive bonds can quiet inflammation in the body, protect against disease, and anchor people through decades of triumphs and trials. Communities that come together—whether in small groups at a church or around a shared health goal—often achieve far more than individuals working alone, sometimes transforming their health on a massive scale. Lifelong friends celebrate each other's victories without jealousy, weather hardship side by side, and dare to speak difficult truths even at the risk of the relationship. Yet, many remain in unfulfilling connections out of fear of loneliness, forgetting that genuine, vulnerable connection is not just emotionally nourishing—it is essential to human health and resilience. In this episode, I talk with Simon Sinek, Esther Perel, and Angelika Alana about how relationships are vital not just for emotional health, but for physical wellbeing and can be a great source of growth and healing. Simon is a spark that ignites passion and ideas. He envisions a world where people wake up inspired, feel safe, and end their day fulfilled. As an unshakeable optimist and trained ethnographer, Simon is fascinated by people and organizations that make a lasting impact. He has discovered remarkable patterns in how they think, act, and communicate, revealing how people perform at their best. Simon is widely known for his TED Talk on "WHY" and his viral video on millennials in the workplace. Through bestselling books like Start with WHY and his podcast A Bit of Optimism, he continues to inspire. Founder of The Optimism Company and Optimism Press, Simon shares innovative views on leadership, attracting international attention. He also works with the U.S. government, the RAND Corporation, and in 2021, founded The Curve to reform modern policing, advancing justice with dignity, equity, and fairness. Psychotherapist and New York Times bestselling author Esther Perel is recognized as one of today's most insightful and original voices on modern relationships. Fluent in nine languages, she helms a therapy practice in New York City and serves as an organizational consultant for Fortune 500 companies around the world. Her celebrated TED Talks have garnered more than 30 million views and her bestselling books, Mating in Captivity and The State of Affairs, are global phenomena translated into nearly 30 languages. Esther is also an executive producer and host of the popular podcasts Where Should We Begin? and How's Work? Her latest project is Where Should We Begin - A Game of Stories with Esther Perel. Angelika Alana is the founder and CEO of the Somatic Healing Institute. She has been featured in Vanity Fair, Well+Good, and Modern Luxury. She certifies coaches and facilitators in her transformational body-based healing method. She has traveled and studied extensively in Indonesia, Brazil, Australia, and the UK, and is a massive foodie with her husband Patrick Drake, co-founder of Hello Fresh. This episode is brought to you by BIOptimizers. Head to bioptimizers.com/hyman and use code HYMAN to save 15%. Full-length episodes can be found here: Simon Sinek on the Power of Relationships for Longevity How To Have Successful Relationships How To Move From Toxic Relationships And Sex To Healing Relationships And Sex

Join Kyle Chan and Arindam Goswami in this episode of All Things Policy, where we dive deep into the heart of global manufacturing. As the world grapples with shifting supply chains, trade tensions, and the race for technological dominance, understanding China's manufacturing powerhouse has never been more critical. From the persistent challenge of overcapacity to the strategic pivots triggered by the US-China trade war, we try to unpack the complexities behind China's rise - and what lessons India and the rest of the world can draw from this unfolding story. Whether you're a policymaker, industry insider, or curious listener, get ready for a fascinating conversation that goes beyond headlines to reveal the forces shaping the future of manufacturing.Our guest today, Kyle Chan, is a postdoctoral researcher in the Sociology Department at Princeton University and an adjunct researcher at the RAND Corporation, a US think tank. His research focuses on industrial policy, clean technology, and infrastructure in China and India, and his work has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, including Current Sociology, Asian Survey, and the Chinese Journal of Sociology. He has also testified as an expert before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. He writes a fantastic, popular newsletter called High Capacity focused on current issues in industrial policy, technology, and economic competition, particularly in China. He has insightful views on how China has come to dominate key industries such as electric vehicles, solar energy, high-speed rail, and consumer electronics through a sophisticated and multifaceted industrial policy. His insights have been featured in various major international media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, India's Economic Times, and others.All Things Policy is a daily podcast on public policy brought to you by the Takshashila Institution, Bengaluru.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Find out more on our research and other work here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://takshashila.org.in/research-areas⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our public policy courses here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://school.takshashila.org.in⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

On today's Strategy Series program, sponsored by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Richard Danzig, the 71st Secretary of the US Navy and Rand Corporation trustee; joins Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian to discuss his new report for the think tank — “Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity, and National Security: The Fierce Urgency of Now;” how to think about AI; the nature of the competition between America and China; importance of speed in developing AI and operationalizing it; applications for which AI is best suited; role of AI in improving cybersecurity across the defense enterprise; the importance of AI talent in government and how the technology can compensate for not enough skilled people; the role of humans in overseeing AI; concerns that AI is oversold and that a bubble is building on capital markets that might burst; and notion of ethical use of AI among great powers.

The US President has imposed new levies on several countries, set to take effect in the coming days. But will the new measures reduce the US trade deficit? And what's the long-term impact on the global economy? In this episode: Harry Broadman, Economist at RAND Corporation and a former U.S. Assistant Trade Representative and Chief of Staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Seijiro Takeshita, Professor of Management at the University of Shizuoka in Japan. Steve Hanke, Professor at the Johns Hopkins University and Distinguished Senior Scholar at the Mises Institute Host: Adrian Finighan Connect with us:@AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

中美談判中發生了什麼「羅生門」事件？在瑞典進行談判時，中方代表宣稱暫緩關稅的決定將延長90天，但美方代表財長卻出來說，最終決定權在老闆手上，他無法作主。甚麼是中國談判技巧？根據美國智庫「蘭特機構」（Rand Corporation）在七十年代的一份報告，中式談判技巧有幾個特點：中方代表很多時候不會做任何決定，只會開會、拿資料；但在時間緊迫時，會對對方施壓；當有求於人時，對方是朋友；但當有利益矛盾時，則絕不退讓。美國針對關稅與其他國家達成了哪些協議？美國與歐盟、日本等其他國家達成了協議，將關稅定在15%，這似乎是特朗普政府心中一個「全球通用」的底線。雖然這會增加貿易成本，但比原先提出的25%要好。美國與中國的貿易談判面臨哪些主要障礙？中美談判面臨的挑戰包括：* 美國對中國的關稅高達30%至50%。* 美國要求中國大量購買美國貨，並開放中國市場。* 中國對美國有稀土出口禁令。* 美國要求中國減少向俄羅斯購買石油，這是一個地緣政治問題。* 中國持有的美國國債不斷減少，已降至第三大持有國。中美貿易談判的實質關鍵是什麼？中美貿易談判不僅是貿易談判，其實也是一場金融談判。貿易談判很難從國家層面去談具體的產品數量。美國政府最迫切的是解決長債的息率問題，因此希望中國能購買更多美債。如果習近平和特朗普確認將在年底前實現互訪，這將是一個信號，表示雙方在談判中已經有了某種解決方案，這將是整個中美貿易談判的突破點 。 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit leesimon.substack.com/subscribe

Do you need a SLEEP DIVORCE?This week the STT Crew talks with 2 time TEDx Speaker, author, Adjunct Professor, sleep scientist, and clinical psychologist, Wend Troxel, PhD.Wendy M. Troxel, PhD is an internationally recognized sleep expert. She is a Senior Behavioral and Social Scientist at the RAND Corporation and holds adjunct faculty positions at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Utah. A licensed clinical psychologist and certified behavioral sleep medicine specialist, she is passionate about helping people get the sleep they need to perform at their best and live life to its fullest. She's been featured on CNN, BBC, NPR, in The New York Times, and was called by Arianna Huffington "one of the 5 most influential people in sleep."The Crew talks with Dr Troxel about the dynamics of couples and sleep. She discusses “sleep divorce” and other topics regarding sleep and couples in the bedroom. Listen in and learn more about couples and sleep.You can learn more about Dr Troxel here:https://www.wendytroxel.com/You can find her book here: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/wendy-m-troxel-phd/sharing-the-covers/9780306875007/?lens=hachette-goCatch the show on most podcast platforms or on YouTubehttps://youtu.be/Q5oJ0D7p4B0A huge thanks to our sponsors:Medbridge Healthcare: For Job Opportunities with MedBridge Healthcare visit: https://medbridgehealthcare.com/careers/Fisher & Paykel HealthcareF&P Solo™ is the world's first AutoFit™ mask. It simplifies setup like no other, using AutoLock™ technology - stretch to fit, touch to adjust. Learn more at www.fphcare.com/solohttps://www.fphcare.com/us/homecare/sleep-apnea/React Healthhttps://www.reacthealth.com/More resources for clinicians can be found at Sleep Review Magazine.https://sleepreviewmag.com/Don't forget to Like, Share, Comment, and Subscribe!Learn more about the show at https://www.sleeptechtalk.com/thetechroomCredits:Audio/ Video: Diego R Mannikarote; Music: Pierce G MannikaroteHosts: J. Emerson Kerr, Robert Miller, Gerald George MannikaroteCopyright: ⓒ 2025 SleepTech Talk ProductionsEpisode 103The views and opinions expressed by guests on SleepTech Talk are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast hosts or SleepTech Talk as a whole. This podcast is intended for educational and informational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice. Listeners are encouraged to consult with a qualified healthcare professional for any medical concerns or questions.Sleep apnea, obstructive sleep apnea, oral sleep appliance, inspire, surgery, sleep surgery, CPAP, women's health, couples, couples therapy

For today's episode, Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson is sharing more of the conversations he had with leading policy experts and practitioners on the margins of this year's Aspen Security Forum, which took place last week. First, he is joined by Ali Nazary, the head of foreign relations for the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, to discuss the Front's position nearly four years after the collapse of Kabul—and what Russia's recent recognition of the Taliban may mean for Afghanistan's future.Scott then sat down with Sam Charap, the Distinguished Chair in Russia and Eurasia Policy at the RAND Corporation, to discuss Trump's recent pivot on support for Ukraine and where the conflict may be headed next.This is part two of two. So if you missed them earlier this week, look back in this podcast feed for more conversations from Aspen.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The tech bros of Silicon Valley are dominating the AI race, using the most advanced computer chips and US expertise. But there's an artificial intelligence boom underway in China giving them a run for their money.US President Donald Trump doesn't like it; he's vowing he won't allow America's adversaries to control the algorithms. Today, Kyle Chan from the global policy think tank the Rand Corporation on what's at stake in the battle for global AI dominance. Featured: Kyle Chan, post-doctoral researcher at Princeton University and an adjunct researcher at the Rand Corporation

Forrest Morgan is a senior lecturer at the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology at Carnegie Mellon University. With a distinguished 27-year career in the U.S. Air Force, Forrest went on to spend 16 years at the RAND Corporation, where he conducted high-level research in strategy and doctrine for national defense clients. He is ... Forrest Morgan – Living the Martial Way – Ep229

William (Bill) Welser IV is the CEO, Chief Technology Officer, and Cofounder of Lotic.ai. This innovative startup is creating a privacy-first well-being ecosystem using spoken word narratives to unlock the power of personal stories, empowering individuals and organizations to make well-informed decisions. As a passionate, curious, and creative technologist, Welser is dedicated to generating visions for the future that are big, bold, and fearless. Before founding Lotic, Welser served in various leadership roles at the RAND Corporation during a 10-year tenure, where he led the Engineering and Applied Sciences Research Department, composed of 300+ Ph.D.-level engineers and applied scientists. At RAND, Welser also conceptualized, built, and led multidisciplinary research teams focused on emergent topics and complex global problems, including bias in AI, data lifecycle privacy, commercial use of drones, democratization movements (space, technology, data, and manufacturing), and more. Before RAND, Welser served as an officer in the United States Air Force, where he helped design, test, and field advanced systems for space and air. After earning a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Virginia, he completed a master's in finance and an MBA from Boston College.

In this episode, we are joined by Kyle Chan, postdoctoral researcher at Princeton's Sociology Department and adjunct researcher at the RAND Corporation, to explore China's approach to AI industrial policy. We discuss the fundamentals of industrial policy and how it operates in China's digital technology sector (4:15), the evolution of China's AI industrial policy toolkit and its impact on companies (19:29), China's current AI priorities, protectionism strategies, and adoption patterns (47:05), and the future trajectory of China's AI industrial policy amid US-China competition (1:12:22). Kyle co-authored RAND's June 26 report "Full Stack: China's Evolving Industrial Policy for AI," which is available here.

Jeff DeBoer is the founding President and CEO of The Real Estate Roundtable. He has been at the forefront of national policy affecting the real estate industry for the past 40 years. The Real Estate Roundtable represents the leadership of the nation's top 150 privately owned and publicly-held real estate ownership, development, lending and management firms, as well as the elected leaders of the 18 major national real estate industry trade associations. Roundtable member portfolios contain over 12 billion square feet of office, retail and industrial properties valued at nearly $4 trillion; over 5 million apartment units; and in excess of 6 million hotel rooms. The 18 national trade associations participating with the Roundtable represent more than 3 million people directly employed in the real estate industry. Mr. DeBoer also chairs the National Real Estate Organizations, a 17 member real estate trade association coalition focused on industry communication, advocacy and diversity efforts as well as the Real Estate Industry Information Sharing and Analysis Center (RE-ISAC), an organization dedicated to enhancing communication between the industry and federal policymakers on terrorism threats, building security, and major incident reporting. He is a founding member of the steering committee of the Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism (CIAT) and for several years he co-chaired the Advisory Board of the RAND Corporation's Center for Terrorism Risk Management Policy. Mr. DeBoer previously served on the Advisory Board of Washington DC's Smithsonian National Zoological Park and Conservation Biology Institute. Mr. DeBoer has discussed real estate and economic policy issues numerous times in Congressional testimony as well as on FOX News, Bloomberg Television, MSNBC and CNBC; and his editorials have been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. In 2010, Globest.com named Mr. DeBoer a “top 10 Industry Newsmaker of the Decade”; in 2013 Commercial Property Executive named him one of the “30 most influential people in real estate”; in 2016 Real Estate Forum honored him as the “Voice of the Industry” and one of the nation's top CRE bosses; in 2017 Washington Life Magazine included Mr. DeBoer in its “Power 100” list of Washington DC's most influential unelected, non-governmental people; and since 2017, The Hill has placed Mr. DeBoer on its annual list of the top lobbyists in Washington DC, a list it called: “the players at the top of their game, known for their ability to successfully navigate the byzantine and competitive world of federal policymaking.” In 2024, in recognition of his positive influence on national public policy, Commercial Property Executive presented Mr. DeBoer with its Lifetime Achievement award. Mr. DeBoer earned degrees from Washington and Lee University School of Law (JD) and Yankton College (BA).

It's a pretty sure bet that the future of airpower is increasingly uninhabited. Dr. Caitlin Lee of the RAND Corporation has six propositions to consider when trying to understand where we are with UAVs, and we'll go through them in detail. And a lot going on in this week's airpower headlines. Powered by GE!

$500 drones destroyed $100M Russian bombers. Last month (it seems so long ago) Ukrainian forces achieved what seemed impossible: Commercial drones costing less than a smartphone successfully struck Russian strategic bombers worth $100 million each, deep inside enemy territory. This isn't tactical innovation—it's the emergence of warfare where David doesn't just defeat Goliath, but renders him obsolete. On this WhoWhatWhy podcast, I talk with David Shlapak, senior defense researcher at RAND Corporation, to examine how these miniature flying weapons are rewriting the rules of military power. And while we're already seeing the future of warfare unfold in the skies over Eastern Europe, an even more disruptive shift lies just ahead: the integration of artificial intelligence into autonomous weapons systems. That convergence could redefine not only how wars are fought, but who — or what — does the fighting.

Ahead of last year's US Presidential elections, Donald Trump was asked if he would defend China against Taiwan, he responded that Taiwan should pay the US for protection from China. Taiwan is a self-governing island, claimed by Beijing and whilst Taiwan is not formally recognised by the US, they do remain the island's most important security partner. Taiwan manufactures over ninety percent of the world's most advanced semiconductor chips, which makes some American industries heavily dependent on trade links with the island. But official US policy towards Taiwan is one of ‘strategic ambiguity'. So when the US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth recently warned of China posing an ‘imminent' threat to Taiwan, whilst at the same time urging Asian countries to boost defence spending and work with the US to deter war, it raised the issue of how far America would be prepared to go to defend Taiwan. China in response accused the US of being the ‘biggest troublemaker' for regional peace. The US has only just agreed a truce on trade tariffs with China and President Trump's immediate attention has shifted onto issues in the Middle East, so if Pete Hegseth's warning is valid, how far up the list is Taiwan in terms of Trump's foreign policy priorities. This week on the Inquiry we're asking ‘Does Trump care about Taiwan?' Contributors: Dr Chun-yi Lee, Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Director of Taiwan Research Hub, University of Nottingham, UK Christopher S. Chivvis, Senior Fellow and Director, American Statecraft Program, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington DC, USA Patricia Kim, Scholar on China, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, USA Raymond Kuo, Inaugural Director, Taiwan Policy Initiative, The Rand Corporation, California, USA Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Maeve Schaffer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards Production Co-ordinator: Tammy Snow Image Credit: Taiwanese flags wave at the park decorated by Chang Lao-wang, ahead of Taiwan National Day in Taoyuan, Taiwan, October 5, 2022. REUTERS/Ann Wang

Lawfare Legal Fellow Mykhailo Soldatenko sits down with Eric Ciaramella, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Samuel Charap, Senior Political Scientist at Rand Corporation, to discuss the key issues in the Ukraine-Russia talks. They chat about the national interests of the interested parties, whether a negotiated settlement is possible, and what form a potential agreement may take. They also discuss credible security arrangements for Ukraine to prevent future aggression and various Russian demands, including those related to NATO and neutrality. You may want to look at the following pieces relevant to the discussion. Andriy Zagorodnyuk, Ukraine's New Theory of Victory Should be Strategic NeutralizationSamuel Charap and Sergey Radchenko, The Talks That Could Have Ended the War in UkraineMykhailo Soldatenko, In the Shadow of the Minsk Agreements: Lessons for a Potential Ukraine-Russia ArmisticeTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The U.S. healthcare system is strained by rising costs, uneven quality, and fragmented care navigation. Employers are bearing the brunt, spending more without always securing better care for their teams. According to the RAND Corporation, one effective strategy is to “change their network and benefit designs to encourage patients to use lower‑priced, higher‑value providers (where provider quality and convenience are comparable).” This strategy enables companies to save thousands of dollars per patient annually while enhancing the quality of care. As generative AI transforms industries, the question is no longer whether to adopt it, but how to do so ethically and effectively in healthcare.Can AI help people find the right doctor—not just any doctor—while saving employers money and simplifying decision-making?This episode of I Don't Care, hosted by Dr. Kevin Stevenson, features Dr. Daniel Stein, internal medicine physician and CEO of Embold Health. Together, they unpack how Embold's AI-powered platform is redefining care navigation through clinical logic, natural language processing, and massive datasets, guiding patients to high-performing providers matched to their needs and preferences.Key Highlights from the Conversation:AI That Guides, Not Replaces: Embold uses generative AI to replicate a physician's triage logic and connect patients with the most appropriate, clinically validated provider, without needing a medical degree to navigate the platform.Cost Savings Through Quality: Employers using Embold's navigation tools have seen care costs drop 3–5% annually by steering employees to top providers, without relying on pricing alone.Guardrails and Transparency: Backed by Microsoft's responsible AI standards, Embold's platform is bias-tested and built on a foundation of over 230 million medical records, ensuring recommendations prioritize outcomes and trust.Dr. Daniel Stein is a physician and healthcare executive with deep experience across clinical care, health policy, and corporate leadership. He is the founder and CEO of Embold Health, where he leads efforts to improve care quality through data-driven physician performance analytics. Previously, he served as Chief Medical Officer at Walmart Care Clinics and held policy roles with the U.S. Senate and CMS, bringing a unique blend of clinical insight and system-level strategy to healthcare reform.

This week, I'm joined by Kyle Chan, author of the recent NYTimes Op-Ed titled "In the Future, China Will Be Dominant. The U.S. Will Be Irrelevant." Exploring the intense competitive pressures of Chinese “involution capitalism” and America's fixation on shareholder returns, we discuss America's waning relevance in global technology and manufacturing, and how critical choices made now could shape the economic and geopolitical landscape for decades.Chan is a postdoctoral researcher at Princeton University, adjunct researcher at the RAND Corporation, and the author of High Capacity.

Interview with Sameer Lalwani on India-Pakistan: 21:30 This week, Kelly and Tristen digest the recent elections in Australia and President Putin's WWII victory day parade, and remember the life and legacy of legendary IR scholar Joseph Nye. Kelly then talks with to Sameer Lalwani for an update on recent tensions between India and Pakistan.  Sameer Lalwani is a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He was formerly a senior expert in the Asia Center at the United States Institute of Peace, director of the Stimson Center's South Asia Program, an adjunct professor at George Washington University, and a Stanton nuclear security fellow at the RAND Corporation.  His research has also been published in Security Studies, International Studies Quarterly, the Journal of Strategic Studies, Small Wars & Insurgencies, Survival, The Washington Quarterly, Asian Survey, Foreign Affairs, and the New York Times. The opinions expressed in this conversation are strictly those of the participants and do not represent the views of Georgetown University or any government entity. Produced by Theo Malhotra and Freddie Mallinson.  Recorded on May 12, 2025. Diplomatic Immunity, a podcast from the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, brings you frank and candid conversations with experts on the issues facing diplomats and national security decision-makers around the world. Funding support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. For more, visit our website, and follow us on Linkedin, Twitter @GUDiplomacy, and Instagram @isd.georgetown  

Lennart Heim, a researcher and information scientist at RAND Corporation, joins Azeem Azhar to unpack a provocative claim: China is catching up with US AI capabilities, but it doesn't matter. Timestamps: (00:00) Episode trailer (01:19) Lennart's core thesis (03:26)   Why compute matters so much (07:31)  The investment split between model R&D and model execution (11:18)  How test-time compute impacts costs (16:14) The geopolitics of compute (21:32) Why does the U.S have more compute capacity than China? (25:01)  The trade-off between economic needs and national-security needs (31:54)  How technology change might shift the battlegrounds (35:33)  Dealing with compute and power concentration (48:19)  Concluding quick-fire question  Lennart's links: Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/ohlennartPersonal blog: https://heim.xyz/Azeem's links:Substack: https://www.exponentialview.co/Website: https://www.azeemazhar.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/azharTwitter/X: https://x.com/azeemThis was originally recorded for "Friday with Azeem Azhar", a new show that takes place every Friday at 9am PT and 12pm ET. You can tune in through Exponential View on Substack. Produced by supermix.io and EPIIPLUS1 Ltd

00:00:00 – Welcome Back & Monster May Returns Joe returns after time away, talks about new job, freelance animation work, and financial recovery. Commentary on lingering mask usage post-COVID, psychological impacts, and shifting social norms. Announcement of Monster May segment revisiting the Flatwoods Monster case. 00:10:00 – Flatwoods Monster Sighting Details Breakdown of 1952 Flatwoods encounter: glowing red eyes, foul smell, cloaked humanoid. Witnesses included children and an adult; Project Blue Book investigated. Official explanation suggested mass hysteria and a meteor; skeptics questioned odd evidence. 00:20:00 – Flatwoods as Psychological Warfare? Theory that the incident was a U.S. psyop, testing public reaction to bizarre phenomena. RAND Corporation's 1950 paper on exploiting superstitions for psychological manipulation discussed. Historical example: British military using scarecrow devices in WWII paralleled to Flatwoods. 00:30:00 – Related UFO Encounters & Deja Vu Science Donald Shrum's robotic alien encounter compared to Flatwoods case. Bigfoot sightings teased from Expedition Bigfoot series. Discussion on “jamais vu” – the eerie opposite of déjà vu. 00:40:00 – LGBTQ Event Critique & Public Behavior Criticism of over-sexualized gay culture, including controversial “piss pool” video. Debate over normalization of radical behaviors at public events and camps. Concerns raised over youth exposure and the evolving LGBTQ+ image. 00:50:00 – Abortion, Race, and Redheads Commentary on abortion pride messaging and societal detachment. Satirical reaction to claim that redheads are actually Black people. Media supercut criticized CNN's portrayal of America as racist and broken. 01:00:00 – Trans Disillusionment & Africa Culture Shock American woman describes harsh realities after relocating to Africa. Discussion of high suicide rates among trans people linked to medical regret. Commentary on how American conveniences are often taken for granted. 01:10:00 – Cultural Habits, Identity, and Social Division Observations about cultural differences in hygiene and living standards abroad. Frustration over GoFundMe disparities tied to race and media narratives. Allegations of psyops inflaming racial and social tensions through viral campaigns. 01:20:00 – WalkAway Movement & Realizing the Lies Former liberal shares awakening after researching Trump-related media claims. Emotional conflict over losing social group by admitting ideological shift. Cultural pressure to never admit being wrong contributes to societal stagnation. 01:30:00 – AI Cover Letters & Lollipop Incident Irony of AI companies banning AI-written job applications. Hosts joke about writing a profanity-laced AI cover letter. Story of 8-year-old boy using mom's phone to order 70,000 lollipops from Amazon. 01:40:00 – McDonald's 21+ Rule & Nacho Fight Discussion of controversial McDonald's policy requiring customers to be 21+ after 5 PM in one location. Video of chaotic fight in a restaurant over nachos analyzed and joked about. Commentary on breakdown of civility in public spaces. 01:50:00 – Final Thoughts & AI Closing Song Closing reflections on themes of deception, culture wars, and social conditioning. Joe and Mike discuss the possibility of using AI to script future episodes. Episode ends with a humorous AI-generated summer hit song referencing Hitler.   End Song: "When We Grow Up" By Fuck Town Power Boys Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research ▀▄▀▄▀ CONTACT LINKS ▀▄▀▄▀ ► Phone: 614-388-9109 ► Skype: ourbigdumbmouth ► Website: http://obdmpod.com ► Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/obdmpod ► Full Videos at Odysee: https://odysee.com/@obdm:0 ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/obdmpod ► Instagram: obdmpod ► Email: ourbigdumbmouth at gmail ► RSS: http://ourbigdumbmouth.libsyn.com/rss ► iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/our-big-dumb-mouth/id261189509?mt=2  

In this wide-ranging conversation, Yitzy sits down with Dr. Shmuel Abramzon, Israel's Chief Economist at the Ministry of Finance, to unpack his unique role at the intersection of policy, macroeconomics, and innovation. They dive into the evolution of digital assets in Israel, what it really means to “regulate” crypto, and the story behind the Ministry's landmark report on digital asset regulation. Dr. Abramzon shares insights into the bureaucratic complexity of crafting policy, Israel's cautious dance with stablecoin regulation, and his thoughts on the prospects of a strategic Bitcoin reserve. From reflections on his time at RAND Corporation to a philosophical take on decentralization, this episode offers a rare look into how one of Israel's top economic voices is navigating the future of crypto and fintech.

Today on Moment of Zen, we're sharing a conversation from the 2024 Hill and Valley Forum with the founders of Scale AI, Anthropic, and AI Fund on the urgent race between the U.S. and China in AI innovation. Moderated by Senator Cory Booker and featuring Alexandr Wang, Jack Clark, and Andrew Eng, the panel covers why American AI leadership is at risk, and how smarter policy and faster deployment are critical to maintaining a competitive edge. (Note: that this conversation took place before the DeepSeek breakthrough.) Keep an eye out for the 2025 Hill and Valley Forum on Wednesday, April 30 — and subscribe to the Hill & Valley podcast in the episode description to listen to every panel. Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/39s4MCyt1pOTQ8FjOAS4mi Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-hill-valley/id1692653857 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@HillValleyForum --

Bruce Bennet, a senior researcher at the RAND Corporation, joins the podcast to discuss just how ironclad the U.S.-South Korea alliance really is, the growing plausibility of limited nuclear use by Pyongyang and the risks of miscalculation in a changing security environment. He also delves into what North Korea military is learning from the war in Ukraine, its chemical and biological weapons posture and his insights from years of wargaming Korean conflict scenarios. Dr. Bruce Bennett is a senior international and defense researcher at the RAND Corporation and a specialist in Northeast Asian security, military strategy and asymmetric threats — particularly weapons of mass destruction. He has conducted extensive research on deterrence, Korean Peninsula conflict scenarios and regime collapse planning for North Korea. About the podcast: The North Korea News Podcast is a weekly podcast hosted by Jacco Zwetsloot exclusively for NK News, covering all things DPRK — from news to extended interviews with leading experts and analysts in the field, along with insight from our very own journalists. NK News subscribers can listen to this and other exclusive episodes from their preferred podcast player by accessing the private podcast feed. For more detailed instructions, please see the step-by-step guide at nknews.org/private-feed.

Watch every episode ad-free & uncensored on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjones Eric Czuleger is a National Security student at the RAND Corporation who is focused on using emerging technology to solve persistent challenges in emerging economies, conflict zones, and thriving ecosystems alike. Eric has lived and worked in over 45 countries as an aid volunteer, journalist, and tech storyteller. SPONSORS https://AmericanFinancing.net/Jones - Disclaimer NMLS 182334 nmlsconsumeraccess.org http://morning.ver.so/danny - Use code DANNY for 15% off your first order. https://huel.com/danny - Use code DANNY for 15% off your first order + a free gift. https://www.magicmind.com/dannyjones - Use this link for 50% off a subscription. https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP - Use code DJP for 20% off. GUEST LINKS https://x.com/eczuleger Eric's book: https://amzn.to/3ppXZ6b Eric's newsletter: https://t.co/RQgtbd89rJ FOLLOW DANNY JONES https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones https://twitter.com/jonesdanny OUTLINE 00:00 - Everyone should start their own country 11:30 - America's biggest geopolitical vulnerability 13:26 - 5th generation warfare 25:00 - Operation Doppelganger 33:36 - Russia's psychological warfare on Americans 39:28 - LLMs and social media psych warfare 47:30 - Why is Israel blamed for JFK assassination 53:12 - The rational actor model 58:03 - Napoleon's p**is problem 01:11:09 - Christianity is infiltrating Silicon Valley 01:26:37 - The moon landing 01:42:25 - Government transparency 01:52:29 - Kessler syndrome 01:56:29 - Spreadsheet warfare 02:07:37 - Russia manipulating the information space 02:15:28 - Risk of crowd control weapons 02:22:47 - China's police stations in America 02:35:00 - USAID 02:53:55 - Working at RAND corporation 02:58:56 - America's information defense strategy 03:04:19 - Truth decay Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ralph welcomes Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, whose group has filed eight lawsuits that have significantly slowed the Trump/Musk cabal's attempt to dismantle the government. Then, our resident Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein reports on Public Interest Law Day at Harvard Law School and how important it is for law schools in general to step up to meet this constitutional crisis. Plus, Ralph answers listener questions!Robert Weissman is a staunch public interest advocate and activist, as well as an expert on a wide variety of issues ranging from corporate accountability and government transparency, to trade and globalization, to economic and regulatory policy. As the President of Public Citizen, he has spearheaded the effort to loosen the chokehold corporations and the wealthy have over our democracy.The efforts in the courts are really vital to stem the illegal, unconstitutional actions of the administration, but also to show that there's a way to fight back. In these early days and months of the administration, there's been a sense that Trump is inevitable and unstoppable. And the actions in the courts, I think, have been really critical to illustrating that that's not true.Robert WeissmanIt's open season for the polluters. And of course, they're also promoting in a variety of ways a rush towards climate catastrophe by undoing the positive measures that have come recently from the Biden administration to deal with the climate crisis.Robert WeissmanIf you pull back all the enforcement rules, and you say we're not going to enforce the rules that are left over, corporations get the message. And they're going to bemore reckless, and it's a near certainty that we're going to have many more serious industrial disasters as a direct result of what they're doing at EPA and other agencies.Robert WeissmanBruce Fein is a Constitutional scholar and an expert on international law. Mr. Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire: Before the Fall.If we don't inform the public (with the law students as well as others in the lead), we're not going to have rule of law and Harvard Law School will become an irrelevancy. It will be a museum piece.Bruce FeinI think the country and the law students are going to pay a price. They're being very narrow and myopic with regard to their immediate preoccupation with their trade school, where they're going to work the next day, and very little given to the fact that if we don't have a country anymore, they aren't going to have a legal career.Bruce FeinIt's a more cowardly, timid type of law school whose explanations are still ready to be discovered. It's a real puzzle…because they have tenure, they have status, they have wealth, and they have the ability to defend themselves because they're skilled lawyers.Ralph NaderNews 4/2/251. Our top stories this week are on the topic of corporate crime. First, the American Prospect reports that the Trump administration is seeking to reverse a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case against Townstone, a mortgage brokerage firm that blatantly discouraged potential Black borrowers. According to the Prospect, Townstone's owners Barry Sturner and David Hochberg vigorously promoted their firm though “personal-finance call-in infomercials,” on Chicago's WGN radio station. During these infomercials, which generated 90 percent of Townstone's business, Sturner and Hochberg “characterized the South Side of Chicago as a ‘war zone,' downtown Chicago as a ‘jungle' that turned on Friday and Saturday into ‘hoodlum weekend,'” and so on. As the Prospect notes, if Sturner and Hochberg were simply airing these views that would be perfectly legal, however unsavory. Instead, this program is “an informercial, which generates 90 percent of the brokerage's leads, which the brokerage pays WGN to air, presumably punctuated at regular intervals by some phrase along the lines of ‘an equal housing lender.'” Therefore, this rhetoric was determined to have violated the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act. The remarkable thing about this case is that it was brought by the Trump administration's CFPB between 2017 and 2020. Townstone eventually settled the case for a little over $100,000. Yet, just last week, the Trump administration 2.0 returned the money to Townstone posting “a long press release about how ‘abusive' and ‘unjust' the whole case had been.” This episode highlights just how much more extreme the new Trump administration is, even compared to the old one.2. Another outrageous case of corporate criminal leniency comes to us from Rick Claypool, a corporate crime expert at Public Citizen. For background, CNBC reports that Trump has “pardoned three co-founders of the BitMEX global cryptocurrency exchange, as well as…a former high-ranking employee.” As this piece explains, the co-founders received criminal sentences of probation…and were ordered to pay civil fines totaling $30 million,” after “Prosecutors accused the men of effectively operating BitMEX as a ‘money laundering platform' …[and] ‘a sham.'” But Trump went beyond pardoning the corporate criminals involved. As Claypool noted, “the crypto corporation pled guilty and was sentenced in January to two years' probation,” leading Claypool to wonder whether Trump would pardon the corporation itself. His question was answered on March 29th when Law360 reported that yes, Trump pardoned the business entity. This is the logical endpoint of regarding corporations as people. Not only will individual crooks be let off the hook, the whole crooked enterprise will come out unscathed.3. New evidence confirms the redistribution of wealth from working people to the capitalist class. A February 2025 RAND Corporation study titled “Measuring the Income Gap from 1975 to 2023” finds that, “the bottom 90 percent of workers would have earned $3.9 trillion more with..more even growth rates [since 1975],” resulting in a “cumulative amount of $79 trillion.” This study extends prior estimates by factoring in “inflation, growth in inequality, and a longer time frame.” And even more recently, an April 2025 article in the Journal of Political Economy, titled “How the Wealth Was Won: Factor Shares as Market Fundamentals,” finds that “40% of [the increase in real per capita value of corporate equity, which grew at an annual rate of 7.2% between 1989 and 2017]…was attributable to a reallocation of rewards to shareholders in a decelerating economy, primarily at the expense of labor compensation.” This study estimates “Economic growth accounted for just 25% of the increase,” and compares this period to the preceding era, “1952–88, [which] experienced only one-third as much growth in market equity, but economic growth accounted for more than 100% of it.” Taken together, these studies starkly illustrate an American economic machine built to make the rich even richer and the poor ever poorer.4. On the other end of the criminal penalty spectrum, the Department of Justice announced on Tuesday that they will seek the death penalty for alleged UnitedHealthcare assassin Luigi Mangione, the BBC reports. The first Trump administration saw the resumption of the federal death penalty after a 16-year hiatus; the Biden administration then issued a new moratorium and commuted the sentences of most federal death row prisoners. Since returning to power, Trump has aggressively pursued federal executions once again.5. In more positive legal news, NBC reports French far-right leader Marine Le Pen was found guilty Monday of embezzling over €3 million of European Union funds. The National Rally party leader was sentenced to four years in prison (with two on house arrest and two suspended), a €100,000 fine, and a ban on holding political office for five years – making her ineligible for the 2027 French presidential election, which polls showed her leading. Her party will, for the time being, be led by her protégé 29-year-old Jordan Bardella. It is unclear if he will enjoy the same popularity Ms. Le Pen held. She announced that she plans to appeal the verdict, but will remain ineligible for public office unless and until she wins that case.6. In more international news, British police last week executed a shocking raid on a congregation of the Quakers. The Guardian reports, “More than 20 uniformed police, some equipped with Tasers, forced their way into the Westminster meeting house…[and] seized attenders' phones and laptops.” In a statement, Paul Parker, the recording clerk for Quakers in Britain, said “No one has been arrested in a Quaker meeting house in living memory… This aggressive violation of our place of worship and the forceful removal of young people holding a protest group meeting clearly shows what happens when a society criminalises protest.” The stated charge is the absurd “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.” A report on the incident in Church Times adds a statement from Oliver Robertson, head of witness and worship for Quakers in Britain, who said “This raid is not an isolated incident. It reflects a growing trend of excessive policing under new laws brought in by the previous government, which are now being enforced by the current administration.” Even former Tory minister Jacob Rees-Mogg, criticized the raid, stating “There has long been a tradition in this country…that religious spaces should not be invaded by the forces of law and order unless absolutely necessary.”7. Of course, the outrageous use of lawfare on Israel's behalf continues in the halls of Congress as well. In a letter, Congressmen Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast – famous for his role as an American volunteer for the IDF – have announced their intention to investigate activist groups critical of the Israeli government – within Israel. According to the Jerusalem Post, these NGOs are being investigated to, “ascertain whether funding they allegedly received from the Biden administration was utilized for the judicial reform protests in 2023.” These groups include the Movement for Quality Government in Israel and Blue and White Future, among others.8. The government's use of brute force to muzzle criticism of Israel continues to rock academia. At Harvard, the Crimson reports 82 of Harvard Law School's 118 active professors have signed a letter which “accused the federal government of exacting retribution on lawyers and law firms for representing clients and causes opposed by President Donald Trump…described Trump's threats as a danger to the rule of law…[and] condemned the government for intimidating individuals based on their past public statements and threatening international students with deportation over ‘lawful speech and political activism.'” The letter reads, in part, “we share a conviction that our Constitution, including its First Amendment, was designed to make dissent and debate possible without fear of government punishment. Neither a law school nor a society can properly function amidst such fear.” This letter stands in stark contrast to the recent statement by Harvard President Alan Garber, in which he pledged to “engage” with the federal government's demands in order to protect the university's $9 billion in federal funding.9. Last week, we reported on the “lynching” of Hamdan Ballal, the Palestinian co-director of the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land – and how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences dithered before ultimately releasing a milquetoast statement decrying violence against “artists for their work or their viewpoints,” with no mention of Palestine or even Ballal's name. This caused so much uproar among Academy members that nearly 900 of them signed a letter “denouncing the Academy's silence,” per Variety. The letter and full list of signatories can be found here. Shamed, the Academy leadership was forced to issue a follow-up statement expressing their “regret that we failed to directly acknowledge Mr. Ballal and the film by name.” This statement continues “We sincerely apologize to Mr. Ballal…We abhor the suppression of free speech under any circumstances.”10. Finally, speaking of shame, the Hill reports that the shame of Congressional Republicans is giving Democrats a golden opportunity. According to this piece, “House Democrats are ramping up their aggressive strategy of conducting town halls in Republican-held districts, vying to exploit the GOP's advised moratorium on the events to make inroads with frustrated voters, pick up battleground seats, and flip control of the House in next year's midterms.” One Democrat, Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign co-chair Ro Khanna, has held three town halls in Republican-held districts, whose main takeaway was “People are mad.” Republicans who have bucked the GOP leadership and held town halls anyway, such as Wyoming Rep. Harriet Hageman and Indiana congresswoman Victoria Spartz have found themselves looking down the barrel of constituents furious at the conduct of the administration in general and DOGE in particular. This, combined with the upset Democratic victories in recent special elections, has the GOP on a defensive backfoot for the first time in months. Could we be looking at the beginning of a Democratic tea party? Only time will tell.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

⭐️ Join the School for School Counselors Mastermind today to become the school counselor you were meant to be. ⭐️**********************************You get the call:“Can you come get this student?”But when you walk in, it's clear- this isn't really about the kid.It's about stress. Dysregulation. Maybe even burnout. For the adult.And if school counselors keep stepping in without asking bigger questions, we're not solving the problem… we're just keeping the cycle going.In this episode, we're talking about:How to tell when a referral isn't about student behaviorThe Five-Minute Behavior Consult you can use with teachers todayHow to support staff without becoming the fixerWhy this shift protects your energy- and your jobIf behavior support is starting to feel like your full-time job, this episode is for you.00:00 Introduction: The Daily Struggles of School Counselors02:10 Understanding Adult Dysregulation in Schools07:17 Identifying Signs of Adult-Induced Student Behavior Issues11:30 The Five Minute Behavior Consult: A Solution-Focused Approach17:35 Implementing Change Despite Administrative Challenges21:00 The Role of School Counselors in Shaping School Culture24:40 Elevating the Role of School CounselorsReferences:Gallup. (2022, June 1). K-12 workers have highest burnout rate in U.S. Gallup News. https://news.gallup.com/poll/393500/workers-highest-burnout-rate.aspxSchwartz, S. (2022, June 15). Stress, burnout, depression: Teachers and principals are not OK right now, new data confirm. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/stress-burnout-depression-teachers-and-principals-are-not-doing-well-new-data-confirm/2022/06Steiner, E. D., & Woo, A. (2021). Job-related stress threatens the teacher supply: Key findings from the 2021 State of the U.S. Teacher Survey (RR-A1108-1). RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1108-1.html**********************************Our goal at School for School Counselors is to help school counselors stay on fire, make huge impacts for students, and catalyze change for our roles through grassroots advocacy and collaboration. Listen to get to know more about us and our mission, feel empowered and inspired, and set yourself up for success in the wonderful world of school counseling.Hang out in our Facebook groupJump in, ask questions, share your ideas and become a part of the most empowering school counseling group on the planet! (Join us to see if we're right.)Join the School for School Counselors MastermindThe Mastermind is packed with all the things your grad program never taught you IN ADDITION TO unparalleled support and consultation. No more feeling alone, invisible, unappreciated, or like you just don't know what to do next. We've got you!Did someone share this podcast with you? Be sure to subscribe for all the new episodes!!

Two months into U.S. President Donald Trump's second term, the U.S.-Chinese relationship—the most consequential one in the world by a long stretch—faces new uncertainty. Trump has threatened larger tariffs as China has continued its military buildup and activities in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. But Trump has also focused his ire on allied capitals, rather than on Beijing, and talked about making a deal with his “very good friend” Xi Jinping. In a recent essay for Foreign Affairs, Jude Blanchette and Ryan Hass stressed the importance, and highlighted the challenge, of understanding the balance of power with America's top rival. The biggest risk, they argue, is not that Washington will underestimate China's strength, but that it will neglect the sources of its own. Blanchette runs the China Research Center at the RAND Corporation; Hass, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, long worked on China policy at the National Security Council and State Department. They joined editor Dan Kurtz-Phelan to discuss Beijing's assessment of American power, the prospects for a “grand bargain” between Trump and Xi, and whether fears of American decline risk becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can find sources, transcripts, and more episodes of The Foreign Affairs Interview at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview.

Is the Chinese military really ready for war? In this episode, Chris and Matt speak with Timothy Heath, a senior international defense researcher at RAND Corporation, about his provocative new report The Chinese Military's Doubtful Combat Readiness. Heath argues that the PLA remains deeply shaped by its political mission to preserve CCP rule—and is poorly optimized for high-end combat. They discuss how China's military modernization masks enduring political constraints, why in his view war over Taiwan remains unlikely, and what China might do instead to challenge US interests through proxy warfare, cyber, and global coercion. Heath also explores the CCP's legitimacy crisis, China's evolving strategic partnerships with Russia and Iran, and why the specter of global systemic war can't be ruled out. Subscribe and share to stay ahead in the world of intelligence, geopolitics, and current affairs. Please share this episode using these links YouTube: https://youtu.be/ruZFgM3oLhM Podfollow: https://pod.fo/e/2be562 Read Timothy's reporting The Chinese Military's Doubtful Combat Readiness: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA830-1.html Timothy's other work for the RAND Corporation: https://www.rand.org/about/people/h/heath_timothy_r.html Support Secrets and Spies Become a “Friend of the Podcast” on Patreon for £3/$4: www.patreon.com/SecretsAndSpies Buy merchandise from our Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/60934996 Subscribe to our YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDVB23lrHr3KFeXq4VU36dg For more information about the podcast, check out our website: https://secretsandspiespodcast.com Connect with us on social media Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/secretsandspies.bsky.social Instagram: https://instagram.com/secretsandspies Facebook: https://facebook.com/secretsandspies Spoutible: https://spoutible.com/SecretsAndSpies Follow Chris and Matt on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/fultonmatt.bsky.social https://bsky.app/profile/chriscarrfilm.bsky.social Secrets and Spies is produced by F & P LTD. Music by Andrew R. Bird Secrets and Spies sits at the intersection of intelligence, covert action, real-world espionage, and broader geopolitics in a way that is digestible but serious. Hosted by filmmaker Chris Carr and writer Matt Fulton, each episode unpacks global events through the lens of intelligence and geopolitics, featuring expert insights from former spies, authors, and analysts.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveMana Afsari is a writer and sometime contributor to Wisdom of Crowds, whose career has taken her from the RAND Corporation, to a job as an assistant to a great American poet, to the position of Research Associate at the Aspen Institute's Philosophy and Society Initiative. In January, Mana published an essay titled, “Last Boys at the Beginning of History,” a fascinating reported piece about the young men with intellectual ambitions who joined the National Conservative movement and voted for Donald Trump. The essay went viral and earned praise from both liberals and conservatives. Damon Linker of Notes from the Middleground called it “a remarkable essay that's generated considerable (and well-justified) buzz.”Mana joins Santiago Ramos and Shadi Hamid to discuss the essay and the general question of why ambitious, inquisitive and searching young men are attracted to the MAGA movement. “I am not a right wing zoologist,” Mana says, but it is important to understand where these men are coming form. These young intellectuals are not your average Trump voter. They are not the “DOGE boys,” either. But they are becoming a significant part of the GOP leadership class. Shadi wants to know why an interest in culture and ideas has led these men toward right wing spaces. Mana responds that right wing spaces, at least until recently, had a less politicized approach to culture. Many of these young men are interested in things, like history or cartography, which some suggest are “right-coded.” “Most things that are supposedly right-coded should not be right-coded,” Mana says.And what do they think of Trump? “They don't think of Trump as Odoacer, they see him as Julius Caesar. They don't see him as a barbarian, but as a restorer of the republic.”In our bonus section for paid subscribers, Shadi talks about going to a recent right wing party and says it was “a safe space, it was inclusive”; Santiago asks Shadi if he ever went to right wing parties during the War on Terror; Mana distinguishes the desire for free and open discussion versus the desire to “say whatever you want,” i.e., slurs; and Santiago argues that the Israel-Palestine conflict has made all political sides rediscover the importance of freedom of speech.Required Reading and Listening:* Mana Afsari, “Last Boys at the Beginning of History” (The Point).* Santiago Ramos, “Let Us Now Praise the Supermen” (WoC).* Santiago Ramos, “Do You Know What Time It Is?” (WoC).* Damir Marusic, “Barbarians at the Gate” (WoC).* Shadi Hamid, “Why Half of America is Cheering for Chaos” (Washington Post). * Wisdom of Crowds podcast episode, “The Masculine World is Adrift” (WoC).* Henry Kissinger quote about Trump (Financial Times).* Vittoria Elliot, “The Young, Inexperienced Engineers Aiding Elon Musk's Government Takeover” (Wired).* Norman Podhoretz, Ex-Friends: Falling Out with Allen Ginsberg, Lionel and Diana Trilling, Lillian Hellman, Hannah Arendt and Norman Mailer (Amazon). * C. P. Cavafy, “Waiting for the Barbarians” (Poetry Foundation). * Odoacer (Britannica).* Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman, What are Children For? On Ambivalence and Choice (Amazon). This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Governance and Markets.Free preview video:Full video for paid subscribers below:

In just three months, Romania has gone from a stable and loyal member of the European Union and Nato, to a country where a far-right, pro-Russia figure has come from almost nowhere to become favourite for the presidency. A result which has sent shockwaves across the continent. In November Calin Georgescu, with no affiliated political party and whose campaign has been largely on social media, won the first round of Presidential elections in Romania. But then serious allegations surfaced over the legitimacy of Georgescu's campaign, resulting in the Constitutional Court annulling the vote and Georgescu facing charges, which he strongly denies. Presidential hopefuls have until the 15 March to register their candidacy for the new elections, which are being rerun on 4 and 18 May. As protesters take to the streets of Bucharest, will the Romanian Constitutional Court rule that Georgescu can or cannot stand? If he is allowed to stand, can he become President? And how might the Romanian elections affect the future direction of the EU and Nato?Contributors: Veronica Anghel, assistant professor at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at The European University Institute, Italy Oana Popescu-Zamfir, director of the GlobalFocus Center, associated expert at Carnegie Europe and associate researcher for the European Council on Foreign Relations, Romania Anca Agachi, defence policy analyst at RAND Corporation and a nonresident fellow at The Atlantic Council, USA Costin Ciobanu, political scientist with Aarhus University, Denmark Presenter: Tanya BeckettProducer: Vicky Carter Researcher: Katie Morgan Production Co-ordinator: Liam Morrey Technical producer: Nicky Edwards Editor: Tara McDermottImage credit: Andrei Pungovschi via Getty Images

Feb 19, 2025 – A few years back we discussed a report looking at military planning around brain implants and other genetic modifications. Today, we cover a recent report produced by the RAND Corporation which considers six potential scenarios...

Join Stephanie Kalota, U.S. Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Veteran, founder of The Political Veteran Podcast, and AHG correspondent, as she provides key updates on public policy affecting veterans and active military personnel. In this discussion, Stephanie breaks down executive orders from Presidents Biden and Trump, the ongoing legal battles over the transgender military ban, VA secretary nominations, and major veteran issues like mental health and homelessness. Gain insight into policies shaping the military today, the Rand Corporation's research, and what lies ahead for veterans.

Send us a textThe FTGN Merch Store is Live!! Help Support the site with official FTGN Gear!The 25th Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth joins Joe for a candid conversation about leadership, self-awareness, and the evolving challenges of guiding the largest branch of the U.S. military. With over three decades of experience in national security, she shares her expectations for Army leaders, the importance of self-development, and why critical thinking and communication skills are essential for success at the highest levels.Secretary Wormuth also highlights her strong support for the Army's Command Assessment Program (CAP), emphasizing early self-development, the power of feedback, and the role of humility and reflection in building resilient leadership teams. She also stresses the importance of maintaining the Army's apolitical stance, fostering public trust, and ensuring continuity through times of change.Topics Covered:The key attributes of effective Army leadersThe role of the Command Assessment Program in shaping leadershipWhy feedback and reflection are crucial for personal growthBalancing professional and personal priorities over a long careerWhy military leaders need to remain apolitical and be non-combatants in the culture warsHonorable Christine Wormuth was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and appointed as the 25th Secretary of the U.S. Army May 28, 2021. The Secretary of the Army is the senior civilian official within the Department of Defense responsible for all matters relating to the U.S. Army.Prior to confirmation, she was the Director of the International Defense and Security Center at the RAND Corporation where she was a frequent writer and speaker on foreign policy, national security and homeland security issues.Prior to RAND, she served in several roles during the Obama Administration. From December 2010 until August 2012 she was a special assistant to the president and senior director for Defense at the National Security Council. Wormuth then served as deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Forces, and led the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. From 2014-2016 she served in DOD as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, where she advised the Secretary of Defense on the full range of regional and functional national security issues.Wormuth entered the government as a Presidential Management Intern and began her public service career in the Policy Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1996 through 2002. After leaving government, she worked in the private sector on defense issues, and then was a Senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies for five years. A special thanks to this week's sponsors!Veteran-founded Adyton. Step into the next generation of equipment management with Log-E by Adyton. Whether you are doing monthly inventories or preparing for deployment, Log-E is your pocket property book, giving real-time visibility into equipment status and mission readiness. Learn more about how Log-E can revolutionize your property tracking process here!Exray a veteran-owned apparel brand elevating the custom gear experience. Exray provides free design services and creates dedicated web stores for units.Onebrief, the transformative software platform redefining operational planning and military staff workflows

Day 1,024.Today, amid renewed Russian bombardments across the entirety of Ukraine, we consider the impact of new weapons of war. Then, our first formal dispatch from the frontline city of Kharkiv.Contributors:Francis Dearnley (Assistant Comment Editor). @FrancisDearnley on X.Michael Bohnert (Engineer & Researcher, RAND Corporation). @mbohnert on X.With thanks to Oleh Synyehubov, Governor of Kharkiv Oblast.Articles Referenced:‘A brilliant journalist and brilliant human being': David Knowles remembered with Public Service Awardhttps://pressgazette.co.uk/news/david-knowles-francis-dearnley-public-service-british-journalism-awards-2024/Russian spy ring ‘plotted to exploit small boats crisis to abduct journalist in UK'https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/10/russian-spy-ring-plotted-to-exploit-small-boats-crisis-to-a/Russian missile scientist ‘assassinated by Ukrainian special forces'https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/12/russian-cruise-missiles-designer-assassinated-by-ukraine/Subscribe to The Telegraph: telegraph.co.uk/ukrainethelatestEmail: ukrainepod@telegraph.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this special edition podcast, N2K's Executive Editor Brandon Karpf talks with author, CEO and cybersecurity advisor Dr. Bilyana Lilly about her new novel "Digital Mindhunters." Book Overview In a high-stakes game of espionage and deception, a female analyst uncovers Russia's plot to wield artificial intelligence, espionage, and disinformation as weapons of chaos against the United States. As she races against time to thwart an assassination plot, she finds herself entangled in a web of international intrigue and discovers a parallel threat from a Chinese spy network aiming to steal data, manipulate American voters, and harness technology to dismantle the very foundations of U.S. democracy. In a world where lies are a weapon and trust is a luxury, she navigates the treacherous worlds of arms dealers, hackers, and spies to protect her country. About the author Dr. Bilyana Lilly is a cybersecurity and information warfare expert. She advises senior executives in the private and public sector on how to mitigate cybersecurity risk across their enterprises. Dr. Lilly serves on the Advisory Boards of the venture capital firm Night Dragon and the cybersecurity firm RunSafe Security. She chairs the Democratic Resilience Track of the Warsaw Security Forum and is an adjunct senior advisor for critical infrastructure and resilience at the Institute for Security and Technology. Her previous roles include a manager at Deloitte's Financial Cybersecurity Practice and a fellow at the RAND Corporation. Dr. Lilly holds a PhD in policy analysis and cyber security, and three master's degrees, including an honors degree from Oxford University. Her book "Russian Information Warfare" became a bestseller and is on display at the Pentagon. Dr. Lilly is a mentor and a speaker at RSA, DefCon, CyCon, and the Executive Women's Forum. She has been denounced by Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and called cyber expert by Tom Hanks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Day 990.Today, we consider the Trump peace plan reportedly being mooted by his staffers, hear live from another vital summit of European leaders, and discuss a ‘shopping list' of weapons and permissions Western leaders could action over the next two months to support Ukraine. Later, following the missile damage to Kharkiv's iconic Derzhprom building, we do a deeper dive into the impact of this war on Ukrainian heritage and architecture.Contributors:Francis Dearnley (Assistant Comment Editor). @FrancisDearnley on X.James Crisp (Europe Editor). @JamesCrisp6 on X.Michael Bohnert (Engineer & Researcher, RAND Corporation. @mbohnert on X.With thanks to Ievgeniia Gubkina, Ukrainian architect, architectural and urban historian, and curator. @BartlettArchUCL on X.Articles Referenced:Trump mulls Ukraine peace plan: British troops patrolling an 800-mile buffer zone (The Telegraph):https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/11/07/donald-trump-ukraine-peace-plan-british-troops-buffer-zone/Trump Promised to End the War in Ukraine. Now He Must Decide How (Wall Street Journal):https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-presidency-ukraine-russia-war-plans-008655c0Subscribe to The Telegraph: telegraph.co.uk/ukrainethelatestEmail: ukrainepod@telegraph.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.