Podcasts about RAND Corporation

Noam Dworman, Dan Naturman and Periel Aschenbrand are joined by Michael Mazarr, Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation, author of 10 books including Leap of Faith: Hubris, Negligence, and America's Greatest Foreign Policy Tragedy. Mazarr explains why the Iraq War was not an Israel-driven conspiracy but a catastrophic American decision born of post-9/11 panic, hubris, and bureaucratic failure. It's a needed rebuttal to takes like Dave Smith's, which mistake confident rhetoric for serious historical analysis. Leap of Faith available here:  https://a.co/d/06H6wnO1

Xi Jinping is purging again. Generals once seen as untouchable are gone, rivals erased, loyalty enforced through fear. Is this the move of a leader under real threat or the paranoia of a man who has ruled too long and trusts no one? To find out more, Venetia talks to Political Scientist Shanshan Mei from RAND Corporation.UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been to Beijing, the first British leader to do so in eight years, talking trade, visas and whisky tariffs while security concerns barely made the script. We hear from The Telegraph's Ben Riley-Smith, behind the smiles come burner phones, burner laptops, fears of honey traps and even planes being bugged. Economic opportunity versus national security. Values versus power. Meanwhile Britain faces its own reckoning. Spies in Parliament. Phones hacked inside Downing Street. A vast Chinese mega embassy rising in central London amid warnings from MI5. Venetia is joined in the studio by The Telegraph's Gareth Corfield and Rozina Sabur to discuss the extent of the national security threat posed by China.Read Rozina Sabur's hacking scoop: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/26/china-hacked-downing-street-phones-for-years/Read Gareth Corfield's embassy scoop: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/12/revealed-china-embassy-secret-plans-spy-basement/Read Colin Freeman's analysis: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/27/general-zhang-youxia-chinas-nuclear-secrets/Producer: Peter ShevlinExecutive Producer: Louisa Wells► Sign up to our most popular newsletter, From the Editor. Look forward to receiving free-thinking comment and the day's biggest stories, every morning. telegraph.co.uk/fromtheeditorContact us with feedback or ideas:battlelines@telegraph.co.uk @venetiarainey@RolandOliphant Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Story Point Estimations are failing your Team! - Here We Go Again...Story Pointing wasn't a completely novel idea. It evolved out of the Delphi method — a research technique that helped drive consensus and forecasting built on collective wisdom. In 1950s, RAND Corporation began using it as a way to forecast the effect of technology on warfare.So, it wasn't just an idea dreamed up by someone in the Agile community randomly — no. It's actually based on a scientific approach. Something that's been applied and true in other disciplines for many, many years.And, when Scrum needed a prescriptive technique to help the Teams estimate and measure the amount of work the Team could consistently deliver Sprint after Sprint, this became a recommended approach.How to connect with AgileDad:- [website] ⁠https://www.agiledad.com/⁠- [instagram] ⁠https://www.instagram.com/agile_coach/⁠- [facebook] ⁠https://www.facebook.com/RealAgileDad/⁠- [Linkedin] ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/leehenson/

This episode with my friend and HBS classmate Todd Wilcox was recorded before Todd was nominated for his current role as Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security. We speak about his background and views on business and the world. Todd Wilcox was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security (DS) on October 14, 2025. In this role, he leads the security and law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of State, ensuring a safe environment for U.S. foreign policy operations. He oversees a global team of Special Agents, Diplomatic Couriers, Security Engineering Officers, Security Technical Specialists, contractors, and administrative personnel.Mr. Wilcox brings decades of leadership experience as a decorated combat veteran, former CIA case officer, and successful entrepreneur. Before joining the State Department, he founded Patriot Defense in 2005, a company dedicated to supporting those who defend America. He served as its Chief Executive Officer for 10 years before transitioning to Executive Chairman, where he guided the company's vision and acquisition strategy.Prior to his business career, Mr. Wilcox served as an Arabic-speaking CIA Field Operations Officer focused on Middle East and counterterrorism issues. His final assignment was as the CIA Liaison Officer to the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force in Orlando. He joined the CIA in 1997 after serving in the U.S. Army, where he earned the Green Beret as a Special Forces A-Team commander and completed a combat tour during Operation Desert Storm.Mr. Wilcox's achievements have been recognized by the U.S. Army ROTC Hall of Fame, Ernst & Young's Entrepreneur of the Year award, and the Orlando Business Journal's Veterans of Influence Award. He has served on the boards of the National Defense University Foundation, RAND Corporation's Center for Middle East Public Policy, and the Orlando Economic Partnership.An active member of the Young Professionals Organization (YPO), Mr. Wilcox also serves as Treasurer of Business Force, a nonprofit political action committee.

Director Paul Jay discusses his upcoming documentary How to Stop a Nuclear War, featuring Daniel Ellsberg's final interviews before his death. In conversation with Cole Smith, a former Air Force nuclear missile operator, Jay explains why Ellsberg's journey from Cold War hawk to whistleblower provides the perfect lens for understanding our current nuclear crisis. The discussion covers Cold War lies, the risks of AI-controlled nuclear systems, and concrete steps toward disarmament, including phasing out ICBMs and ending launch-on-warning policies. TranscriptListenDonateSubscribe Cole SmithIt's a privilege to be here, obviously, in a space that's strange for me because I used to work in these silos or ones that were very similar to these. For five years, I was a nuclear missile operator in the Air Force from 2012 to 2017, during which time many journalists, including Geoff Brumfiel, who's here somewhere, did fantastic reporting on some of the shortcomings of the missile force. Anyway, that's a whole other story.It does strike me after the last panel that what we've moved into after lunch is something that is sort of a tone shift in some ways. There's an old quote that you might have heard that a lot of people attribute to Damon of Athens, which is, "Show me the songs of a people, and I care not who writes the laws." I think in some ways, that is not to say that policy is not important, but that one of the ways that we have to move forward on this subject is through the stories that we tell.So, Paul, if you could begin by telling us where you're at with your film. If you could also just catch us up on how you came into your career to be a filmmaker on this subject.Paul JayHi. I think it's a brilliant idea to have the meeting here. Seeing that missile out there. I grew up at a time when I was... I have a young son, he's 13. He's actually up here. I made a deal with him. If he sat through all the panels, he gets to go trail riding in Bentonville.Cole SmithCan I get in on that deal?Paul JayAbsolutely. Please, because I won't get on a bike. He could use some company. So I was around his age during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I was well aware. I was into newspapers when I was six, seven years old, so I was as scared to death as everyone was during that time. By the time I was in high school, I had quit in grade 10 and never went to university because I was absolutely sure I'd be dead by the age of 20.It's interesting because my film features Daniel Ellsberg. When he worked at RAND Corporation, he was offered a pension, and he laughed and said, "I'm not putting money into a pension fund. We're not going to be here."But by the '90s and the end of the '90s, I was pretty much in as much denial about the risks of nuclear war as most others. Then, in around 2018, I read Dan Ellsberg's book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, and that book scared the shit out of me. I said to myself, "This is the most important book I've ever read in my life because of what's at stake." So, I interviewed Dan, and eventually he agreed that I could make a documentary film featuring him, and so the more I get into the topic, the more I realize how dangerous the moment is.Before we watch the trailer, I would like a promise from everyone. Of course, you're not going to make it, but I'm going to ask anyway. Can everyone please stop saying, since the end of the Cold War? It did not end. The Cold War wasn't just about the Soviet Union. The Cold War was about suppressing domestic dissent, weakening workers' unions. It was about exaggerating the external threat, whether it was the Soviet Union or now China.Listen to the rhetoric of President Trump. Is it different than McCarthy's? Is it different than the 1950s? How about Joe Biden saying he's going to defend Taiwan and risk nuclear war? How is that different than what we heard all throughout the Cold War? The Cold War didn't end. We are in the midst of it, and most of us are looking at the world through the filters that we were taught as children, a fabric of lie after lie after lie.If I had more time, I could give you the whole history of the lies, but Dan Ellsberg asked us with this film, he said directly, he said he thought we had the opportunity to do what the Pentagon Papers did, which is uncover the lies of the nuclear era. And then we also want to propose solutions, which you'll see a little bit teased in the trailer, because I am a clinical optimist. Every rational bone in my body says there's nothing to be very optimistic about, and we'd better face up to this.You know, the danger of the moment we're in, yes, since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and probably far more dangerous because maybe we'll talk a bit about AI. We're at a convergence of the existential threat of climate, the existential threat of nukes, we don't know about new pandemics, and the financial architecture. '07, '08, if you listen to the business community that really knows, '07, '08, it was a whisper of what's coming. It's all coming at the same time.So are we humans going to make it? Well, every rational bone in my body says, probably not. As I said, I'm a clinical optimist, and I really do think we can make it, but we'd better face up to this crazy fabric of bullshit that we swim in.Cole SmithTo pivot back to you, Paul, a trusted voice to me, and obviously to you as well, one of the most trusted voices in terms of patriotism to this country, for me, is Daniel Ellsberg. But one of the things that I come up against as a former nuclear missile operator is when I talk to people under a certain age and tell them what I used to do, they look at me like, "What are you... People still do that?"Not to be disrespectful, but Daniel Ellsberg may fall into that category as well for a lot of Americans, where it's become a name that means a lot to maybe fewer amount of people, which, of course, is all the more reason to make a film about him. But I wonder if you could speak a bit about Daniel Ellsberg, and the question that every filmmaker gets is, why now? And so why is it important to lead into this conversation with his voice, specifically at this point in time?Paul JayWell, first of all, it's not a film about Daniel Ellsberg. It's a film about our current moment, what's at risk, and what we can do about it. My approach, my belief is we cannot really face up to the reality of the risk and what solutions are if we don't get past our Cold War mentality. Because we have such a built-in belief system that's been deliberately fabricated, promoted, and inculcated in Americans, in Canadians, and Europeans, right from 1945, '46, at the very least. The reason Ellsberg is a good way to tell the story, part of the story, is because he was a true believer. Ellsberg was the most militant Cold Warrior you could possibly find. I don't know if you know who Curtis LeMay was, but he was almost on the same page. He didn't want to launch. Curtis LeMay was, for people who don't know, the head of STRATCOM, the guy who actually firebombed Japan, ordered the dropping, and actually engineered the dropping of the nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ellsberg was on his page.And then over the course of his time working at RAND Corporation, advising the Pentagon and the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he started to realize this is all based on lies. They lied about the bomber gap. They said the Soviets had 1,000 nuclear bombers, when the Americans only had about 300, 400. The truth turned out to be completely the opposite.Then they had, and out of that, by the way, I'm going to cover some things pretty fast here, but if you want to know more, I'm around. They created something called the SAGE Radar System that came out of the bomber gap, where, "Oh, they're going to come get us with bombers. We're going to have a radar system in Northern Canada that's going to have BOMARC missiles. When they come in, we're going to shoot them out of the sky because they have the advantage; they have more bombers."First, it was a lie. There were no bombers. Second of all, the bloody thing never worked because they never figured out how to deal with radar jamming. But get this, and how come none of you... Raise one person who has ever heard of the SAGE radar system before. Maybe Matt. Not even Matt. Okay, here's one. Oh, two, three. That's remarkable. I almost never get-Cole SmithYou're in good company today.Paul JayI don't know if you know this, but the SAGE Radar System... Now, the Manhattan Project was the biggest industrial project in the history of the United States, and SAGE cost three times more than the Manhattan Project. Did you know that? I didn't know that until recently. It was a boondoggle. It was a scam. It never worked.Then they have the missile gap. You saw it here. "Oh, they have a thousand. We only have 40." It turned out the Soviets had four. But out of that, they created a program called BMEWS, B-M-E-W-S. This was linked to SAGE, and it was going to have a system that could knock out ICBMs on the way in. Never worked. The whole thing was nonsense. Another in today's dollars, billions and billions of dollars.It's been lie after lie, and you can draw a line from this lying right to the Golden Dome, because the anti-ballistic missile systems... I mean, my line about it is, "It's not about the dome, it's about the gold." These are boondoggles, but they're very dangerous boondoggles because they can destabilize the whole balance of nuclear power. Because the problem... I'm jumping way faster, but we don't have much time. The problem with the Golden Dome is that it's SDI of Reagan, but with AI.So, is it possible, and you know that they've always said it's impossible to hit a bullet, meaning an incoming missile, with a bullet, meaning a missile. Now they're saying, "Oh, no, with AI, now we can hit a bullet with a bullet." But it's an entire lie, because even if you can,

As the Japanese police prepare for a raid on the Aum Shinrikyo compound, cult leader Shoko Asahara launches a desperate chemical weapons attack in downtown Tokyo. During the height of Monday morning rush hour, Aum terrorists target five commuter trains with sarin gas, killing 13 people and scarring the psyche of an entire nation. In the aftermath, survivors struggle to pick up the pieces of their lives and adapt to new realities.    SOURCES: Amarasingam, A. (2017, April 5). A history of sarin as a weapon. The Atlantic.  Brackett, D. W. Holy Terror: Armageddon in Tokyo. 1996. Cotton, Simon. “Nerve Agents: What Are They and How Do They Work?” American Scientist, vol. 106, no. 3, 2018, pp. 138–40.  Danzig, Richard; Sageman, Marc; Leighton, Terrance; Hough, Lloyd; Yuki, Hidemi; Kotani, Rui; Hosford, Zachary M.. Aum Shinrikyo: Insights Into How Terrorists Develop Biological and Chemical Weapons . Center for a New American Security. 2011 “Former ER Doctor Recalls Fear Treating Victims in 1995 Tokyo Sarin Attack.” The Japan Times, March 18, 2025.. Gunaratna, Rohan. “Aum Shinrikyo's Rise, Fall and Revival.” Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, vol. 10, no. 8, 2018, pp. 1–6.  Harmon, Christopher C. “How Terrorist Groups End: Studies of the Twentieth Century.” Strategic Studies Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 3, 2010, pp. 43–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269787.  “IHT: A Safe and Sure System — Until Now.” The New York Times, 21 Mar. 1995. Jones, Seth G., and Martin C. Libicki. “Policing and Japan's Aum Shinrikyo.” How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida, RAND Corporation, 2008, pp. 45–62.  Kaplan, David E. (1996) “Aum's Shoko Asahara and the Cult at the End of the World”. WIRED.  Lifton, Robert Jay. Destroying the World to Save It: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorism. 1999. Murakami, Haruki. Underground: The Tokyo Gas Attack and the Japanese Psyche. Translated by Alfred Birnbaum and Philip Gabriel. 2001. Murphy, P. (2014, June 21). Matsumoto: Aum's sarin guinea pig. The Japan Times.  Reader, Ian. Religious Violence in Contemporary Japan: The Case of Aum Shinrikyo.  2000. Tucker, Jonathan B. “Chemical/Biological Terrorism: Coping with a New Threat.” Politics and the Life Sciences, vol. 15, no. 2, 1996, pp. 167–83.  Ushiyama, Rin. “Shock and Anger: Societal Responses to the Tokyo Subway Attack.” Aum Shinrikyō and Religious Terrorism in Japanese Collective Memory., The British Academy, 2023, pp. 52–80.  Williams, Richard. 2003. “Marathon Man.” The Guardian, May 16, 2003. “Woman bedridden since AUM cult's 1995 sarin gas attack on Tokyo subway dies at 56.” The Mainichi (English), 20 Mar. 2020, “30 Years After Sarin Attack — Lessons Learned / Brother Kept Diary For Sister Caught in Sarin Attack, Chronicling Her 25-Year Struggle With Illness” The Japan News, 19 Mar. 2025, Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One on One Video Call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US

Day 1,412. Today, as military and political chiefs from the Coalition of the Willing meet in Paris, President Zelensky continues to reshuffle his top team, including the replacement of the man behind Operation Spiderweb, a move that has been criticised in Ukraine. We have a look at how 2026 is being reported in the Russian media and, later, we speak to an analyst from the RAND corporation about how AI is now being fielded on drones in the war.ContributorsDominic Nicholls (Associate Editor of Defence). @DomNicholls on X.Lily Shanagher (Foreign Reporter). @LilyShanagher on X.Michael Bohnert (Engineer & Researcher, RAND Corporation). @mbohnert on X.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.LISTEN TO THIS PODCAST IN NEW LANGUAGES:The Telegraph has launched translated versions of Ukraine: The Latest in Ukrainian and Russian, making its reporting accessible to audiences on both sides of the battle lines and across the wider region, including Central Asia and the Caucasus. Just search Україна: Останні Новини (Ukr) and Украина: Последние Новости (Ru) on your on your preferred podcast app to find them. Listen here: https://linktr.ee/ukrainethelatestSubscribe: telegraph.co.uk/ukrainethelatestEmail: ukrainepod@telegraph.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this special year-end edition, hosts Ray Powell and Jim Carouso reflect on a transformative 2025 in the Indo-Pacific, examining the dramatic shift from conventional diplomacy to hard power politics under the Trump 2.0 administration. The episode provides a comprehensive review of the podcast's most impactful conversations, from national government leaders to topical experts, while analyzing the year's major geopolitical developments.Trump 2.0 and the Hard Power PivotJim and Ray discuss how the year began with U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel's appearance, marking the podcast's first sitting ambassador interview. Following President Trump's January inauguration, 2025 witnessed a fundamental reorientation of American Indo-Pacific policy away from soft power initiatives toward military deterrence and economic leverage through tariffs. They discuss how this approach disrupted established norms and international agreements, with potential Supreme Court challenges to executive power looming in 2026.China's Gray Zone and Political Warfare CampaignsGray zone and political warfare emerged as a dominant theme, with a topical episode featuring the RAND Corporation's Todd Helmus becoming the year's most downloaded audio content. The hosts recall what they learned about China's comprehensive political warfare strategy, which treats peacetime as a mere continuation of conflict through non-military means. Notable coverage included the extraordinary incident where two Chinese Coast Guard vessels collided near Scarborough Shoal, producing the year's top video episode as Beijing's propagandists struggled for four days to craft a narrative blaming the Philippines for a setback they couldn't admit to.Regional Flashpoints and ConflictsThe podcast provided critical context for unexpected conflicts, including the India-Pakistan and Thailand-Cambodia border wars. These complex, multi-generational disputes were unpacked by regional experts like Indian strategic analyst Nitin Gokhale and former Cambodian Ambassador Pou Sothirak.The Trump-Modi Relationship UnravelsWhat began as a seemingly stable partnership deteriorated rapidly in 2025, with Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin providing blunt analysis of an unexpectedly cooling U.S.-India relationship. The Trump administration's surprising pivot toward Pakistan represented a stunning reversal from Trump 1.0 policies, raising questions about Quad's future effectiveness and regional security cooperation.Transnational Crime and Human TraffickingInvestigative reporting by the Washington Post's Sue-Lin Wong exposed the exponential expansion and brutal reality of scam compounds across Myanmar, Cambodia and the Philippines, where human trafficking victims are forced into “pig-butchering” and cryptocurrency fraud operations. We also featured Washington Post reporter Rebecca Tan discussing the methamphetamine crisis fueled by Chinese precursor chemicals flowing through lawless Myanmar territories into markets across Asia.Historic Interviews and Podcast Milestones2025 brought unprecedented access, including interviews with Philippine Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro and the podcast's first head-of-state guest, Palau's President Surangel Whipps Jr. Documentary filmmaker Baby Ruth Villarama also came on to discuss Beijing's failed attempt to suppress her West Philippine Sea documentary, while North Korean defector Timothy Cho shared his harrowing escape story.​The hosts also recall the podcast's experiments with live broadcasts covering Australia's election results and China-Japan tensions.2026 OutlookMonthly listenership quadrupled in 2025, establishing the podcast as the leading Indo-Pacific affairs platform. As 2026 approaches, the hosts anticipate continued geopolitical turbulence, Supreme Court tariff decisions and evolving great power competition dynamics across the region.

Healthcare premiums keep rising, but plan quality often stays the same (or gets worse). In this conversation, Shaun Enders sits down with Donovan Pyle—CEO of Health Compass and author of Fixing Healthcare—to unpack why the employer-sponsored healthcare market functions the way it does. Donovan explains the "hidden supply chain" behind your healthcare spend, why broker incentives often conflict with employer outcomes, and how CEOs can start reclaiming wasted dollars by getting unbiased, fiduciary-aligned guidance and improving visibility into unit pricing. Key Topics Covered Why employer healthcare spend feels unstoppable, and why that belief is "trained" The healthcare supply chain and how lack of transparency drives waste How brokers were historically designed to function (and why incentives matter) Why networks can hide prices and distort the price/quality relationship The "discount off infinity" problem behind EOBs (Explanation of Benefits) Regulatory capture and why some states limit small-business options Certificate of Need ("CON") laws and how they restrict competition The shift toward fiduciary models (similar to what happened in retirement plans) Practical steps for CEOs: visibility, vendor stack, and unbiased advisory support Chapters / Timestamps (YouTube-style) 00:01 – Welcome + why this topic matters to Shaun (20 years of premium increases) 01:17 – The big numbers: employer-sponsored coverage, $1.3T spend, and the "waste" claim 02:03 – Why finance/HR teams aren't set up to understand healthcare procurement 03:54 – The broker dilemma: "the only voice you have" vs. conflicts of interest 05:29 – Why Donovan focuses on the employer-sponsored market (not Medicare/Medicaid) 07:27 – The origin story: the first U.S. insurance plan (1929) and what became Blue Cross 09:26 – Brokers as "retail distribution" and why costs rising helps the sell-side 11:59 – ACA, cost-plus dynamics, and why vertical integration changed the game 14:52 – Reframing healthcare: not one line item—a supply chain 16:31 – Shaun's parallel: higher education costs and "cracks in the veneer" 19:14 – The strategy universe expands once you get unbiased advice 21:21 – Cash pricing: why individuals sometimes get better pricing than big insurers 23:34 – Shaun's billing experience: allowed vs billed, even in integrated systems 25:35 – EOBs as marketing: "Island Speak" and the illusion of savings 29:40 – Small business reality in CA/NY/WA: limited options and why 34:50 – Certificate of Need ("CON") laws: regulating supply and blocking competition 42:07 – ACA subsidies: what's expiring and what the market may revert to 46:31 – The most practical step: get unbiased, fiduciary-aligned advice 51:16 – Parallels to financial services: commissions → fee-based fiduciary models 57:14 – Real example: PBM RFP leading to multi-million-dollar savings 59:18 – Bringing it back to purpose: time, meaning, and what drives Donovan 01:05:29 – Where to find Donovan + free executive summary roadmap https://assessment.healthcompassconsulting.com/tba Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/9vEdj0XBOyI Connect with Shaun: www.CallTSG.com www.BusinessFinanceAndSoul.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/shaunenders/ People / Organizations Mentioned Donovan Pyle – CEO, Health Compass; author of Fixing Healthcare Validation Institute – referenced as a place to find fiduciary-based firms RAND Corporation (2021 study referenced) – cash pricing / employer pricing dynamics David Goldhill – author of Catastrophic Care (chapter: "Island Speak") Harris Rosen – Rosen Hotels (Orlando), example of long-term employer healthcare strategy Resources Mentioned Free executive summary + roadmap: FixingHealthcare.com Book: Fixing Healthcare (Donovan Pyle) Book: Catastrophic Care (David Goldhill) Disclaimer This episode discusses healthcare financing and benefits strategy from an employer perspective. It is not medical, legal, or financial advice.

Hello Interactors,Spain's high-speed trains feels like a totally different trajectory of modernity. America prides itself on being the tech innovator, but nowhere can we blast 180 MPH between city centers with seamless transfers to metros and buses…and no TSA drudgery. But look closer and the familiar comes into view — rising car ownership, rush-hour congestion (except in Valencia!), and growth patterns that echo America. I wanted to follow these parallel tracks back to the nineteenth-century U.S. rail boom and forward to Spain's high-spe ed era. Turns out it's not just about who gets faster rail or faster freeways, but what kind of growth they lock in once they arrive.TRAINS, CITIES, AND CONTRADICTIONSMy wife and I took high-speed rail (HSR) on our recent trip to Spain. My first thought was, “Why can't we have nice things?”They're everywhere.Madrid to Barcelona in two and a half hours. Barcelona to Valencia, Valencia back to Madrid. Later, Porto to Lisbon. Even Portugal is in on it. We glided out of city-center stations, slipped past housing blocks and industrial belts, then settled into the familiar grain of Mediterranean countryside at 300 kilometers an hour. The Wi-Fi (mostly) worked. The seats were comfortable. No annoying TSA.Where HSR did not exist or didn't quite fit our schedule, we filled gaps with EasyJet flights. We did rent a car to seek the 100-foot waves at Nazaré, Portugal, only to be punished by the crawl of Porto's rush-hour traffic in a downpour. Within cities, we took metros, commuter trains, trams, buses, bike share, and walked…a lot.From the perspective of a sustainable transportation advocate, we were treated to the complete “nice things” package: fast trains between cities, frequent rail and bus service inside them, and streets catering to human bodies more than SUVs. What surprised me, though, was the way these nice things coexist with growth patterns that look — in structural terms — uncomfortably familiar.In this video

On March 20th, 1995, the Tokyo subway system was flooded with sarin nerve gas in a coordinated terrorist attack by the religious cult Aum Shinrikyō. Led by the charismatic new-age guru, Shoko Asahara, the well-funded and technologically ambitious Aum organization manufactured and deployed chemical weapons in an attempt to bring about the end of the world. In the chaos that followed, 13 people were killed, thousands were injured, and the international community shuddered at the possibility of future attacks by fringe political groups.    SOURCES: Amarasingam, A. (2017, April 5). A history of sarin as a weapon. The Atlantic.  Cotton, Simon. “Nerve Agents: What Are They and How Do They Work?” American Scientist, vol. 106, no. 3, 2018, pp. 138–40.  Danzig, Richard; Sageman, Marc; Leighton, Terrance; Hough, Lloyd; Yuki, Hidemi; Kotani, Rui; Hosford, Zachary M.. Aum Shinrikyo: Insights Into How Terrorists Develop Biological and Chemical Weapons . Center for a New American Security. 2011. Gunaratna, Rohan. “Aum Shinrikyo's Rise, Fall and Revival.” Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, vol. 10, no. 8, 2018, pp. 1–6.  Harmon, Christopher C. “How Terrorist Groups End: Studies of the Twentieth Century.” Strategic Studies Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 3, 2010, pp. 43–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269787.  “IHT: A Safe and Sure System — Until Now.” The New York Times, 21 Mar. 1995. Jones, Seth G., and Martin C. Libicki. “Policing and Japan's Aum Shinrikyo.” How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida, RAND Corporation, 2008, pp. 45–62.  Kaplan, David E. (1996) “Aum's Shoko Asahara and the Cult at the End of the World”. WIRED.  Lifton, Robert Jay. Destroying the World to Save It: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorism. 1999. Murakami, Haruki. Underground: The Tokyo Gas Attack and the Japanese Psyche. Translated by Alfred Birnbaum and Philip Gabriel. 2001. Murphy, P. (2014, June 21). Matsumoto: Aum's sarin guinea pig. The Japan Times.  Reader, Ian. Religious Violence in Contemporary Japan: The Case of Aum Shinrikyo.  2000. Tucker, Jonathan B. “Chemical/Biological Terrorism: Coping with a New Threat.” Politics and the Life Sciences, vol. 15, no. 2, 1996, pp. 167–83.  Ushiyama, Rin. “Shock and Anger: Societal Responses to the Tokyo Subway Attack.” Aum Shinrikyō and Religious Terrorism in Japanese Collective Memory., The British Academy, 2023, pp. 52–80.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The average person will spend roughly a third of their life asleep, yet the importance of sleep is often overlooked. Sleep affects how we learn, work and maintain relationships, and poor sleep has been linked to a range of physical and mental health challenges. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about one in three adults in the U.S. doesn't get enough sleep on a regular basis, and experts attribute this to both lifestyle pressures and the growing presence of technology. At the same time, trends related to sleep and rest are growing in popularity on social media. On TikTok, some users view sleep as a time to allow skin and hair products to work overnight, a trend called the "morning shed." There's also "bed rotting," where people spend long stretches in bed scrolling online or watching tv. And sleep supplements like melatonin gummies are growing in popularity, as are "at-home" sleep remedies. Are these trends helpful or harmful to our sleep? We'll explore this question and more. Guests:- Nicoleta Olteanu, M.D., Adult and Pediatric Sleep Medicine, MetroHealth- Eric Yeh, M.D., Sleep Medicine, University Hospitals- Wendy Troxel, Ph.D., Senior Behavioral Scientist, RAND Corporation

It's easy to blame algorithms and AI for corroding our information ecosystem, but our guest this week argues that we have a just as much, if not more of a role to play in creating the environment we want to see. Ray Block Jr. is the Brown-McCourtney Career Development Professor at Penn State and the Michael D. Rich Chair in Countering Truth Decay and RAND Corporation. He joins us to discuss the new report, "Rebalancing the Information Ecosystem and Renewing Shared Societal Commitments for Information Use," published by RAND earlier this fall. Block's scholarly research includes community organizing and social identity. You'll hear that perspective come through in this conversation, which focuses on how social fabric — not fact checking or tech policy —is the key to creating a healthy information environment and, in turn, a healthy democracy. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Undead Iron Fist continues to tear through wraithlins as he makes his way to Rand Corporation. Unfortunately for Danny Rand, the Immortal Weapons step in his way.Issue Covered: Undead Iron Fist Volume 1, Issue 3

Were you inspired by "Star Trek" (or one of its innumerable spinoffs) as a young person? We know we were, so it was a pleasure to invite Glen Swanson, author of the new Star Trek history book "Inspired Enterprise" onto the show. We've all heard lore about the original series, but Swanson, who was previously the Chief Historian at the Johnson Space Center, used his prodigious skills to perform a deep dive into the topic. From Gene Roddenberry's original inspiration to working with Caltech, the RAND Corporation, and NASA; and on to the design of the good ship Enterprise itself (and the very popular AMT models that followed), this book provides everything you need to know to be a certified Trekker. Headlines: Comet 3I Atlas confirmed as a comet, not a spacecraft & NASA releases new images and details of the comet SpaceX's Starship Version 3 booster suffers damage during test Uranus reaches yearly opposition—best viewing opportunity Main Topic: The Real Inspirations Behind Star Trek Glenn Swanson shares career highlights as a NASA historian and magazine founder How Gene Roddenberry's background and influences shaped Star Trek NASA's direct involvement and technical guidance for Star Trek's creators The significant role of the aerospace industry, Rand Corporation, and real-world science in Star Trek's development The story behind NASA and the Smithsonian Enterprise shooting model connections AMT's plastic model kits fueled fan obsession and supported the show's visuals Influences from movies like Robinson Crusoe on Mars and Forbidden Planet Space Station K7 design's origins traced to NASA and Douglas Aircraft concepts Star Trek's impact on inspiring real-life astronauts and the space community Glenn Swanson's book, "Inspired Enterprise," and how you can get a signed copy Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Glen Swanson Download or subscribe to This Week in Space at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit

Were you inspired by "Star Trek" (or one of its innumerable spinoffs) as a young person? We know we were, so it was a pleasure to invite Glen Swanson, author of the new Star Trek history book "Inspired Enterprise" onto the show. We've all heard lore about the original series, but Swanson, who was previously the Chief Historian at the Johnson Space Center, used his prodigious skills to perform a deep dive into the topic. From Gene Roddenberry's original inspiration to working with Caltech, the RAND Corporation, and NASA; and on to the design of the good ship Enterprise itself (and the very popular AMT models that followed), this book provides everything you need to know to be a certified Trekker. Headlines: Comet 3I Atlas confirmed as a comet, not a spacecraft & NASA releases new images and details of the comet SpaceX's Starship Version 3 booster suffers damage during test Uranus reaches yearly opposition—best viewing opportunity Main Topic: The Real Inspirations Behind Star Trek Glenn Swanson shares career highlights as a NASA historian and magazine founder How Gene Roddenberry's background and influences shaped Star Trek NASA's direct involvement and technical guidance for Star Trek's creators The significant role of the aerospace industry, Rand Corporation, and real-world science in Star Trek's development The story behind NASA and the Smithsonian Enterprise shooting model connections AMT's plastic model kits fueled fan obsession and supported the show's visuals Influences from movies like Robinson Crusoe on Mars and Forbidden Planet Space Station K7 design's origins traced to NASA and Douglas Aircraft concepts Star Trek's impact on inspiring real-life astronauts and the space community Glenn Swanson's book, "Inspired Enterprise," and how you can get a signed copy Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Glen Swanson Download or subscribe to This Week in Space at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit

Were you inspired by "Star Trek" (or one of its innumerable spinoffs) as a young person? We know we were, so it was a pleasure to invite Glen Swanson, author of the new Star Trek history book "Inspired Enterprise" onto the show. We've all heard lore about the original series, but Swanson, who was previously the Chief Historian at the Johnson Space Center, used his prodigious skills to perform a deep dive into the topic. From Gene Roddenberry's original inspiration to working with Caltech, the RAND Corporation, and NASA; and on to the design of the good ship Enterprise itself (and the very popular AMT models that followed), this book provides everything you need to know to be a certified Trekker. Headlines: Comet 3I Atlas confirmed as a comet, not a spacecraft & NASA releases new images and details of the comet SpaceX's Starship Version 3 booster suffers damage during test Uranus reaches yearly opposition—best viewing opportunity Main Topic: The Real Inspirations Behind Star Trek Glenn Swanson shares career highlights as a NASA historian and magazine founder How Gene Roddenberry's background and influences shaped Star Trek NASA's direct involvement and technical guidance for Star Trek's creators The significant role of the aerospace industry, Rand Corporation, and real-world science in Star Trek's development The story behind NASA and the Smithsonian Enterprise shooting model connections AMT's plastic model kits fueled fan obsession and supported the show's visuals Influences from movies like Robinson Crusoe on Mars and Forbidden Planet Space Station K7 design's origins traced to NASA and Douglas Aircraft concepts Star Trek's impact on inspiring real-life astronauts and the space community Glenn Swanson's book, "Inspired Enterprise," and how you can get a signed copy Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Glen Swanson Download or subscribe to This Week in Space at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit

Were you inspired by "Star Trek" (or one of its innumerable spinoffs) as a young person? We know we were, so it was a pleasure to invite Glen Swanson, author of the new Star Trek history book "Inspired Enterprise" onto the show. We've all heard lore about the original series, but Swanson, who was previously the Chief Historian at the Johnson Space Center, used his prodigious skills to perform a deep dive into the topic. From Gene Roddenberry's original inspiration to working with Caltech, the RAND Corporation, and NASA; and on to the design of the good ship Enterprise itself (and the very popular AMT models that followed), this book provides everything you need to know to be a certified Trekker. Headlines: Comet 3I Atlas confirmed as a comet, not a spacecraft & NASA releases new images and details of the comet SpaceX's Starship Version 3 booster suffers damage during test Uranus reaches yearly opposition—best viewing opportunity Main Topic: The Real Inspirations Behind Star Trek Glenn Swanson shares career highlights as a NASA historian and magazine founder How Gene Roddenberry's background and influences shaped Star Trek NASA's direct involvement and technical guidance for Star Trek's creators The significant role of the aerospace industry, Rand Corporation, and real-world science in Star Trek's development The story behind NASA and the Smithsonian Enterprise shooting model connections AMT's plastic model kits fueled fan obsession and supported the show's visuals Influences from movies like Robinson Crusoe on Mars and Forbidden Planet Space Station K7 design's origins traced to NASA and Douglas Aircraft concepts Star Trek's impact on inspiring real-life astronauts and the space community Glenn Swanson's book, "Inspired Enterprise," and how you can get a signed copy Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Glen Swanson Download or subscribe to This Week in Space at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit

Bernie Sanders says a vast amount of wealth - $50 trillion - has moved from 90% of the population to the wealthiest Americans since the 1970s. The figure comes from a study by Carter Price, a senior mathematician at nonprofit research institute the RAND Corporation.Tim Harford speaks to Carter to understand how he calculated his figures and what they really mean.If you've seen a number in the news you think we should take a look at, email moreorless@bbc.co.uk Presenter: Tim Harford Producer: Nicolas Barrett Series producer: Tom Colls Sound mix: Giles Aspen Editor: Richard Vadon

Is your Empire feeling less than fresh? Does it feel like the modern world's best days are behind it? Do conquest and global power politics not hit as good as they used to? Welcome to the Age of Stagnation, a time when the fruits of the Industrial Revolution can be enjoyed but not replicated.It's making us all a little crazy, especially world leaders. With us today on the show is Michael Beckley, a political science professor at Tufts University and his career includes stretches at the Pentagon, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the RAND Corporation. To hear Beckley tell it, stagnation might not be such a bad thing. If we can avoid repeating the worst mistakes of the 20th century and let go of a “number go up” mind set, then maybe we can all learn to enjoy a long age of stabilization.The diminishing returns of the Industrial RevolutionWinners and losers in the Age of AscentMoore's Law sputters outStabilization isn't so bad. “We're some of the luckiest people who've ever lived.”Shenanigans and shithouseryAI isn't “ready” yetWhy conquest doesn't work anymoreChina as a paper tiger in the age of stabilizationAmerica's unique advantages“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.” - Mike TysonThe Stagnant OrderI Tried the Robot That's Coming to Live With You. It's Still Part Human.Michael BeckleySupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/warcollege. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

US President Donald Trump meets with five Central Asian leaders, seeking deals on critical minerals, energy, and trade. But can Washington gain a foothold in a region long dominated by Russia — and where China’s influence is rapidly expanding? In this episode: Zhumabek Sarabekov, Acting Director at the Institute of World Economics and Politics in Kazakhstan William Courtney, Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation & former US Ambassador to Kazakhstan Dakota Irvin, Senior Analyst at PRISM Strategic Intelligence Host: Nick Clark Connect with us:@AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

In this episode, Michael Mazarr, senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation and adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Security Studies, examines the sources of American national dynamism. A former associate dean at the U.S. National War College and president of the Stimson Center, Mazarr has written extensively on information technology, foreign policy, and national competitiveness. The conversation explores whether the United States can overcome disinformation and polarization to meet China's great power challenge in the 21st century.

My conversation with Dr Colin Clarke starts at about 34 minutes after headlines and clips Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous soul Colin P. Clarke, Ph.D., is the Executive Director of The Soufan Center. His research focuses on domestic and transnational terrorism, international security, and geopolitics. Dr. Clarke previously served as the Director of Research at The Soufan Group and as a Senior Research Fellow with The Soufan Center. Prior to those roles, Clarke was a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, and a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, where he spent a decade researching terrorism, insurgency, and criminal networks. At RAND, Clarke led studies on ISIS financing, the future of terrorism and transnational crime, and lessons learned from all insurgencies since the end of World War II. Clarke is also an Associate Fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT) – The Hague, a non-resident Senior Fellow in the Program on National Security at the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), an Associate Fellow at the Global Network on Extremism and Technology (GNET), and a member of the "Network of Experts" at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. He serves on the editorial board of three of the leading scholarly journals in the field of terrorism studies, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, and Perspectives on Terrorism. Clarke has testified before Congress on numerous occasions as an expert witness on a range of terrorism-related issues, appears frequently in the media to discuss national security-related matters, and has published several books on terrorism and armed conflict, including his forthcoming Moscow's Mercenaries: The Rise and Fall of the Wagner Group (Columbia University Press, 2026). Clarke has briefed his research at a range of national and international security forums, including the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Air Force Special Operations School, Society for Terrorism Research International Conference, the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), and the Counter ISIS Financing Group (CIFG), which is part of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. In 2011, he spent several months as an analyst with Combined Joint Interagency Task Force-Shafafiyat at ISAF headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan, working for General H.R. McMaster, the former U.S. National Security Advisor, where he was responsible for analyzing criminal patronage networks in Afghanistan and how these networks fueled the insurgency. Clarke has a Ph.D. in international security policy from the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public and International Affairs (GSPIA). Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift Send Pete $ Directly on Venmo All things Jon Carroll Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

Le président américain veut aligner les prix des médicaments aux États-Unis sur les plus bas pratiqués dans le monde.Un plan qui pourrait soulager les patients américains, mais peser lourd sur le portefeuille et l'accès aux traitements des Européens. Donald Trump justifie sa politique par un constat : les prix des médicaments aux États-Unis sont en moyenne plus de quatre fois supérieurs à ceux pratiqués dans les autres pays développés, selon la Rand Corporation, un institut de recherche américain. Cette différence s'explique par l'absence de régulation nationale. Les laboratoires fixent librement leurs tarifs, et les compagnies d'assurance privées négocient ensuite les remboursements, souvent sans réel pouvoir de contrainte. Résultat, les traitements sont vendus beaucoup plus chers qu'en Europe, où les prix sont encadrés par les autorités publiques. Pour corriger cette distorsion, Donald Trump veut désormais que les prix américains soient alignés sur les plus bas tarifs pratiqués à l'étranger. Une réforme qui, sur le papier, paraît bénéfique pour les patients américains. Mais dans les faits, elle risque de bouleverser tout l'équilibre mondial de l'industrie pharmaceutique. À lire aussiLes États-Unis piégés par leur dépendance aux médicaments indiens? Un effet de vase communicant : les laboratoires pourraient se détourner de l'Europe Le problème, c'est que le marché américain représente à lui seul la principale source de revenus des grands groupes pharmaceutiques. Si les prix baissent aux États-Unis, les laboratoires verront leurs marges chuter sur leur marché principal. Et pour compenser, ils pourraient relever leurs prix en Europe ou retarder la mise sur le marché de nouveaux traitements. Certains géants du secteur, comme Pfizer ou AstraZeneca, ont déjà annoncé revoir leurs stratégies de commercialisation sur le Vieux Continent. D'autres entreprises hésitent même à s'y implanter, ou exigent désormais davantage de contrôle dans les négociations de prix avec les autorités de santé. L'Europe, où les tarifs sont encadrés pays par pays et souvent bien plus bas qu'ailleurs, risque ainsi de devenir un marché secondaire pour les géants de la pharma. Un paradoxe pour un continent qui cherche justement à rester attractif et innovant dans le domaine de la santé. À lire aussiComment l'Union européenne compte éviter les pénuries de médicaments? Souveraineté pharmaceutique, un défi plus que jamais stratégique pour l'Europe Face à cette situation, Bruxelles reste prudente. La Commission européenne dit suivre de près l'évolution du dossier américain. Mais cette tension arrive à un moment charnière : l'Union révise actuellement sa législation pharmaceutique, en vigueur depuis 2004, afin de renforcer la compétitivité du secteur et réduire la dépendance aux importations. Depuis la pandémie de Covid-19, les Vingt-Sept ont pris conscience de leur fragilité : les principes actifs viennent majoritairement d'Asie, et une partie de l'innovation pharmaceutique dépend encore largement des États-Unis. Or, la politique actuelle de Donald Trump, en poussant à la relocalisation et à la défense des intérêts américains, risque d'accentuer cette dépendance européenne. La véritable question est donc celle-ci : qui paiera le prix de cette nouvelle guerre du médicament ? L'Europe, en acceptant de payer plus cher pour conserver l'accès à l'innovation ? Ou bien le monde pharmaceutique lui-même, s'il finit, à force de logique de court terme, par étouffer l'innovation et la coopération internationale ?

The RAND Corporation just cut 11% of staff--which is a further sign of a crisis of capital accumulation. The CIA is maybe rethinking China. The Trump administration is accelerating decoupling from China. Progressives and antiwar organizations send an open letter to Trump about detente with China. Graham Platner's tattoo is getting way too much attention, and also the reason he'll beat Susan Collins. Steve Bannon says Trump will be president in 2028, despite being unconstitutional.Subscribe to the Un-Diplomatic Newsletter: https://www.un-diplomatic.com/ Watch Un-Diplomatic Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@un-diplomaticpodcast Catch Un-Diplomatic on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/undiplomaticpodcast Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the individuals and not of any institutions.

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

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. 

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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