Podcasts about safeguards

The gap between the rich and the very, very rich is getting wider. Trump, tech bosses sign voluntary pact pledging 'robust' AI safeguards. McDonalds is pushing to have AI price your Big Mac. Florida legislature has labeled 90 groups as terrorist organizations. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Aubrey Masango speaks to Claire Thomson, Family Attorney, Mediator and Legal Coach, about protection orders, who can apply for them, the application process and how they can safeguard victims of domestic violence and harassment. Tags: Aubrey Masango, 702, Protection orders, domestic violence, abuse, harassment, family law, victims, legal matters, South Africa The Aubrey Masango Show is presented by late night radio broadcaster Aubrey Masango. Aubrey hosts in-depth interviews on controversial political issues and chats to experts offering life advice and guidance in areas of psychology, personal finance and more. All Aubrey’s interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from The Aubrey Masango Show. Listen live on weekdays between 20:00 and 24:00 (SA Time) to The Aubrey Masango Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk between 20:00 and 21:00 (SA Time) https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk Find out more about the show here https://buff.ly/lzyKCv0 and get all the catch-up podcasts https://buff.ly/rT6znsn Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfet Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The ever-evolving battle against spammers continues and bad actors are catching on and adapting to abuse inboxes faster with artificial intelligence. MJ Sohn of Shopify stopped by to inform us on the fight against spammers using AI to abuse your inbox and what can be done. So get ready for this cybercrime episode of Emails Not Dead and hear about how the bad guys are trying to get away with it.   Email's Not Dead is a podcast about how we communicate with each other and the broader world through modern technologies. Email isn't dead, but it could be if we don't change how we think about it. Hosts Jonathan Torres and Eric Trinidad dive into the email underworld and come back out with a distinctive look at the way developers and marketers send email. 

-A FOIA expert at the University of Florida told the Washington Post, "I think we have to watch the government really carefully on how they use AI to redact records, because I think it's going to be a very powerful tool for secrecy.” -Gates said the more pressing concern is when bad actors tap into the power of AI to aid with bioterrorism or mass financial fraud incidents. -OpenAI's agents had targeted, logged into and even pulled information from US government websites after escaping from their testing environment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Highlights – Minister Bowen's BYONCE for Data Centres The federal government and Energy Minister Chris Bowen have committed that data centre development approvals will be contingent on BYONCE – Bring Your Own New Clean Energy. The signs are promising –The Energy reports a consultation paper has been released by the federal government that confirmed that the Clean Energy Regulator would use the Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin (REGO) scheme to ensure that data centres contract for renewable energy that is genuinely additional to existing sources and aligned with BYONCE.   Highlights – China Generation 8MCY2026 China's total power generation growth slowed to 0.9% yoy in August 2026, while zero-emissions generation grew 8.8% yoy, more than offsetting demand growth and driving a second consecutive monthly decline in fossil fuel generation. Coal generation fell by 4.3% yoy.  Solar remained the #2 generation source at 13.1% YTD, ahead of wind at 10.8%, while zero-emissions sources supplied 42.3% of total generation. 8 months into 2026, China's national emissions continue to plateau, six years ahead of 2030.   Lowlights – BHP's FY2026 Annual Report confirms their shameful climate walkback In May, Angus Grigg & Maryanne at ABC 4Corners and The Guardian's Christopher Knaus and Adam Morton gave us the big reveal – BHP was locking in diesel fossil fuel use in its Pilbara operations and effectively reversing its commitments on emissions reduction while telling the public it was going green. This highlighted the shameful climate science denialism of the BHP board under Chair Ross McEwan and new CEO Brandon Craig. Four months later, last week we got the big middle finger with confirmation that BHP's emissions in 2035 will be a reported 33% higher than previously expected. The board had listened to its shareholders and the climate scientists and decided to totally ignore them. CEF continues to lobby the government to turn the $3bn annual subsidy to imported diesel for the mining sector into a TTI, a tailwind to energy security and decarbonisation.   Lowlights – Sanjeev Gupta is taking the piss, still Reading veteran ABC journalist Paul Barry's insightful book "The Big Steal" reveals the massive ongoing global fraud being perpetrated by international master scammer, who literally bled Whyalla Steelworks dry. I continue to highlight this because Gupta somehow still controls InfraBuild, a firm employing 4,500 Australians and is in all likelihood according to Barry's book trading while insolvent for potentially a decade, yet ASIC is dead silent on this. ASIC asleep at the wheel, again.   Main Story – CEF's Safeguard Mechanism Submission Matt Pollard led on CEF's submission to the DCCEEW consultation on the 2026 Safeguard Mechanism Review — an review required to strengthen the Federal Government's flagship policy for driving emissions reduction and fossil fuel abatement across industry. CEF's submission is grounded in enhancing the existing policy framework and improving the effectiveness of the integrated structure of the Safeguard Mechanism, the ACCU Scheme, and the Nature Repair Market. This is key to building investor confidence in deploying capital into on-site abatement for industrial facilities under the Safeguard, and patient capital into nature-based solutions that deliver critical co-benefits in nature repair. CEF sees it as imperative that industry, regulators, investors, landholders and the academic community focus on enhancing the standard and integrity of this structure, and not on abandoning this model. Markets work best with a price signal, and 'polluter pays' is a longstanding core market principle Australia needs to enhance, not discard. Australia has an incredible opportunity to harness the scalability of compliance carbon markets to build a world-scale structure to sustainably generate significant positive outcomes that restore, conserve, and protect Australia's natural capital, and simultaneously create the critical investment signal of a rising price on carbon, supported by fundamentals that will drive such market conditions, catalysing large-scale capital deployment into on-site abatement in industry. Australia's opportunity, and challenge, is in forming market conditions, improving investor confidence and market participation, and ensuring system integrity and stakeholder buy-in. This is key to ensuring the integration of the ACCU Scheme with the Safeguard Mechanism to incentivise high-quality abatement and investment into nature-based solutions while simultaneously not limiting or hindering onsite emissions reductions at industrial facilities. CEF's submission was focussed upon broadening and deepening the policy settings of the Safeguard Mechanism, recommending:  Establishing a progressively rising real price floor in the Safeguard Mechanism through purchasing option or reverse auction structures in the ACCU market to increase demand when secondary market prices fall below a rising floor.  The Federal Government introduce a significantly greater carbon price liability for entities that exceed their Safeguard baselines by >30% through the purchasing of credits from the Government at a significant market premium over the purchase price paid through price floor auctions.  The Federal Government introduce an Australian CBAM for product variables currently most associated with trade-exposed, baseline adjustment (TEBA) concessions to level the playing field for trade-exposed commodities without hindering the decarbonisation of industry and limiting new, low-emissions manufacturing and value-adding capacity to compete in the domestic market with emissions-intensive counterparts.  The Safeguard Mechanism be expanded more effectively to the electricity sector to accelerate the phase out of fossil fuel-based generation and support the deployment of critical renewable energy generation, ideally aligned to ensure coal plant closure timetable certainty.  The Safeguard Mechanism floor be lowered to 75,000tpa as an efficient next step extension. The Federal Government investigate the potential introduction of Carbon Contracts-for-Difference (CCfD) to accelerate investment into decarbonisation capex for captured facilities — where the current cost of compliance for Safeguard is met from ACCUs and SMCs as the lowest-cost abatement method. Our recommendations are centred upon absorbing lessons from international best practice and the development of carbon pricing mechanisms across the world, and in particular, our key trading partners in Northeast Asia. Link to CEF submission    What's coming up?  13-14 October 2026 Annual Industrial Net Zero Summit in Sydney 25-29th October 2026 Bunbury in SW WA I'll be speaking at the Innovative Industries of the Future 2026 Regional Conference

This week on Backcountry Conversations, host Trey Curtiss is joined by two BHA staffers: Mary Glaves, BHA's Alaska Program Manager, and Jack Polentes, who works on federal policy out of Washington, D.C. They recently joined members of BHA's Alaska chapter on a five-day, roughly 53-mile float down the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk River to document a landscape at the center of one of Alaska's biggest conservation fights: the proposed Ambler Industrial Road. The 211-mile, gated industrial road would run west from the Dalton Highway to the Ambler mining district, crossing 11 major rivers and requiring more than 2,900 culverts across permafrost. Mary and Jack describe the drive north from Fairbanks, a moving launch ceremony on the river, finding safe gravel-bar camps during a a 24-hour rainstorm that flooded the river, and the signs of development they saw along the way, including 37 helicopters in five days, freshly cut landing zones near a proposed bridge site, and a reactivated mining camp. The conversation also covers what they heard from the people who live, work, and hunt in the region, including trappers and residents in Bettles and Evansville, a longtime big-game guide, and even a career mining surveyor who called the project "in the wrong place." Their concerns range from disrupted moose hunting and risks to bush-plane traffic to the road's lack of public access and a proposed hunting and trapping ban along the corridor. Jack contrasts these on-the-ground views with the conversation in Washington, D.C., where he sees a wide disconnect. Both guests explain why this corner of the Brooks Range deserves national attention and how listeners can stay informed and speak up, including through the Hunters & Anglers for the Brooks Range coalition and by taking action today at BHA's Safeguard the Brooks Range campaign.

France is gearing up for an election this Sunday, September 27 to renew just about half of the Senate's 348 red velvet seats. The French parliament is the country's bicameral legislature. The lower house (the National Assembly) tends to overshadow the upper house (the Senate). So what does the Senate actually do? Is it a powerful protector of the regions or a retirement club for old, mostly male politicians? We take a closer look in French Connections.

Google Fined €403M by Irish DPC Over GDPR Location Data Violations, Anthropic and OpenAI CEOs Brief UN Security Council on AI Safety, and Adobe Officially Launches Redesigned Free Premiere App on Android. Download MP3 Please subscribe for free or get DTNS shows ad-free. A special thanks to all our supporters—without you, none of this would […]

Omari Richins, MPH of Public Health Careers podcast talks with Eduardo Ruiz, Chief Information Officer at the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH), about artificial intelligence and the future of public health.Eduardo discusses how public health can responsibly adopt AI, why human oversight and data governance matter, and how schools can prepare the next generation for an AI-enabled workforce. He also shares his unconventional journey from laboratory science to technology leadership and why technology should always remain centered on people.

Socialism isn't new.  Plato's "The Republic" outlines an ideal state with elements of socialism.  The Founding Fathers were well aware of the concept and purposefully wrote safeguards against it in our founding documents. Case in point: the Bill of Rights protects private property and Article 1 of the Constitution protects patents and intellectual property.  Please join our special guest, Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, and our student panel for this enlightening discussion.  

Nuclear-style safeguards proposed for AI risks Key lawmaker suggests action on AI safety legislation will wait until 2027 CISA releases cyber decoy guidance for infrastructure defenses Get the show notes here: https://cisoseries.com/cybersecurity-news-september-18-2026/ Huge thanks to our episode sponsor, Vanta Risk and regulation ramping up—and customers expect proof of security just to do business. Vanta's automation brings compliance, risk, and customer trust together on one AI-powered platform. So whether you're prepping for a SOC 2 or running an enterprise GRC program, Vanta keeps you secure—and keeps your deals moving. Learn more at vanta.com/ciso.

As artificial intelligence rapidly advances, lawmakers are facing growing pressure from the public and tech leaders to establish clear guardrails while maintaining American competitiveness. Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA) and Congressman Jay Obernolte (R-CA) discuss their bipartisan FRONTIER Act. The Act addresses concerns about development risks, global competition with China, and the misuse of the technology. They explore how the federal government can balance strict safety standards with fostering innovation for AI's immense benefits. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today the European Commission has prosponed banning access for under 13's with restricted access for under 15's. Our reporter Edel McAllister spoke to students at St. Macdaras Community College in Templeogue about how social media apps impact them. We also hear from the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport, Patrick O'Donovan. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Smart 7 is an award winning daily podcast, in association with METRO, that gives you everything you need to know in 7 minutes, at 7am, 7 days a week…With over 20 million downloads and consistently charting, including as No. 1 News Podcast on Spotify, we're a trusted source for people every day and we've won Gold at the Signal International Podcast awardsIf you're enjoying it, please follow, share, or even post a review, it all helps... Today's episode includes the following:https://x.com/BBCr4today/status/2099757600371814779/video/1 https://x.com/LBC/status/2099797679827984851/video/1 https://x.com/clashreport/status/2099773266835497144/video/1 https://x.com/RidgeandFrost/status/2099785629861122072/video/1 https://x.com/SkyNews/status/2099830483227939142/video/1 https://x.com/atrupar/status/2099927962841747732/video/1 https://x.com/SpursOfficial/status/2099992314751901996/video/1 https://x.com/SpencerAlthouse/status/2099680225697087612/video/1 https://x.com/netflix/status/2099830594104377685/video/1 Contact us over @TheSmart7pod or visit www.thesmart7.com or find out more at www.metro.co.uk Voiced by Jamie East, using AI, written by Liam Thompson, researched by Lucie Lewis and produced by Daft Doris. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Economic journalist Charlie Gasparino makes his return to Sid & Friends in the Morning to expand on his most recent New York Post column: "White House may impose ‘limited safeguards' on AI to prevent apocalypse, mass extinction."

Plus - Larry Ellison cancels $7.5 billion sale of Oracle stock; OpenAI's Sam Altman says it would be ‘ill-advised' to go public in 2026 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In recent days, warnings and risks surrounding AI have taken an existential turn. A former Anthropic employee stated that "the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade." And Anthropic's CEO urged AI companies to "pace the frontier" in developing new technologies.But is there political will to make that happen?This episode was produced by Sophia Paliza-Carre and Karen Zamora, with audio engineering by Tiffany Vera Castro. Our director is Jonas Adams.It was edited by Kara Platoni, Brett Neely, Rebekah Metzler, Sarah Handel and Tinbete Ermyas.Our interim executive producer is Courtney Dorning.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show's perks include bonus episodes and sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

LA County warns that a Paramount exodus from California would cripple the state. SoCal Congressmen demand an emergency House session to pass A.I. safeguards. The owner of the Clippers apologizes and says he'll accept his fate in the NBA salary cap scandal. Plus, more on Morning Edition. Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.comSupport the show: https://laist.com

This is the noon All Local for Monday, September 14, 2026

Obama recently said that Democrats need to make artificial intelligence one of their “central agendas” and “have a very clear plan” to address concerns around the technology's economic impact and safety. Also, while OpenAI has filed confidentially for an IPO, the company will not be going public this year, according to CEO Sam Altman. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

1. Remember Past Misery 2. Remember Present Mercies

1. Remember Past Misery 2. Remember Present Mercies

Join Dave and Wayne for genre television show news, a glimpse into what the hosts are watching, listener feedback, and analysis of the Apple TV+ series Silo. This week on the SciFi TV Rewatch podcast we consider who knew the nuclear bomb would detonate in Atlanta, and why those in charge deliberately separate Daniel and Helen. In Silo 18 the tension mounts as Knox and Shirley scramble to cap the pipe to prevent those in Silo 1 from successfully initiating the Safeguard. In our What We're Watching segment, Wayne finishes the Hulu series The Bear, and Dave keeps plugging away at the novel Consider Phlebas.  In Listener Feedback, Alan in England and Alan in Missouri provide audio feedback, and Brandon in Illinois and Cincinnati Joe check in via email..  Remember to join the genre television and film discussion on the SciFi TV Rewatch Facebook group for the latest genre television show news and podcast releases. Episode Grade: Dave 9.8  Wayne 9.7

Innovation comes in many areas and compliance professionals need to not only be ready for it but embrace it. Join Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance as he visits with top innovative minds, thinkers and creators in the award-winning Innovation in Compliance podcast. In this episode, host Tom visits with Bennett Borden, from Clarion AI Partners.  Borden is a lawyer and data scientist whose career has long focused on the intersection of law, data, and technology, including AI governance, compliance, and the legal implications of generative AI. Drawing on experience from the CIA, big law, and his work leading AI-focused legal practices, he views generative AI as a disruptive force that is reshaping both legal services and business models. Borden argues that effective AI governance requires “governance engineering”; translating legal obligations into technical controls and measurable proof of compliance rather than treating compliance as a separate burden. He also encourages lawyers and organizations to embrace AI proactively, using it to build more efficient, future-ready practices while managing risk through practical, system-level safeguards.  Key Highlights  ·      AI-Driven Law Practice Beyond the Billable Hour ·      Compliance as guardrails for faster innovation ·      Gift, Travel, and Entertainment Sandbox Projects ·      Trust Built by Enterprise Licenses and Safeguards ·      Microsecond-by-Microsecond Compliance Proof for AI Governance  Resources  Bennett Borden on LinkedIn Clarion AI Partners Website Clarion AI Partners on LinkedIn   Innovation in Compliance was recently honored as the Number 4 podcast in Risk Management by 1,000,000 Podcasts

Send us Fan Mail00:00 Brought to You by Quantra00:22 Intro00:31 Safeguard Tariffs Face Court Challenge03:22 A Word from Quantra 04:34 ISFA EDGE Awards Debut06:24 Coverings 2027 Awards Seek Entries07:52 Orlando Home of Coverings Through 202908:47 Booths Available for Xiamen 202710:20 Cambria English Program Marks 10th11:53 A Move to Natural Materials?14:36 Outro15:03 Brought to You by QuantraRadio Stone Update is presented on the second and fourth Wednesdays every month at 9 a.m. everywhere on Earth with the latest news and insights in hard surfaces. Check our archives at www.radiostoneupdate.com.

Katherine Flechaus shares Protective Patterns that Hold Us Back. Ways we have learned to react. Surviving can instinctually create patterns to keep us Safe.  Society creates labels that can generate these patterns from beliefs. Repatterning our core Beliefs are the deeper answer.  Free guide to use your own dog to feel calm and confident to fly- ServiceDogPro.com! Joanne's Book to help families talk about Emotions:Super Dog Helps Boys Fears

The Silo Season 3 finale revealed the voice, exposed Silo 1, and set up the final war. Chanel, Brandon & Sharmane break it all down.

21st message from Philippians 3:1-3 Watch Our Sermons Online! Freedom Baptist - Facebook Freedom Baptist - YouTube Freedom Baptist - LinkedIn

OpenAI announced its next big model, GPT-6 Astra, and also, by the way, that AGI is here now.Today on The Vergecast, we've got an all-star panel to break down the news of the week.First, senior AI reporter Hayden Field joins us to talk about our supposed AGI era and Nvidia's acquisition of Hugging Face. Then, our friend Joanna Stern pops in to talk about new Apple CEO John Ternus, old Apple CEO Tim Cook, and to, most importantly, speculate on the format of next week's Apple keynote.We wrap things up with a super-special lightning round from the IFA electronics show in Berlin. Senior reviewer Jennifer Pattison Tuohy and editor Dominic Preston each pick out the five most interesting gadgets they saw at the show.And two more things: Vergecast producer Travis Larchuk pops in to tell his tale of identity theft woe and warn you that he isn't the one DMing you on Twitter to ask you to be on The Vergecast. Plus, Brendan Carr is a dummy. Further reading: OpenAI's next big AI model has ‘entered the AGI era' Researchers fear safety disaster ahead of OpenAI's Astra release OpenAI delayed its new model's development after the Hugging Face hack Nvidia is buying Hugging Face for almost $13 billion John Ternus sends first memo as Apple CEO teasing a ‘huge launch next week' Phil Schiller is leaving his biggest jobs at Apple Siri AI is already changing how I use my iPhone IFA 2026: the biggest tech and gadget announcements This might be the fanciest toothbrush launch ever. Anker's new MindBase is an AI-powered brain for your smart home This NAS company wants to run your local smart home I want to wrap myself in Hue's new Liane rope lights Homey just made the smart home controller I hoped Apple would The robot butler dream doesn't have legs Here's Xiaomi's wide 18 Fold I held the first truly bezel-free phone Acer's new concept hardware is a gaming handheld with a keyboard Lenovo's new MacBook Neo competitor comes in two sizes and seven colors Packard Bell is back, and more colorful than ever. Subscribe to The Verge for unlimited access to theverge.com, subscriber-exclusive newsletters, and our ad-free podcast feed. We love hearing from you! Email your questions and thoughts to vergecast@theverge.com or call us at 866-VERGE11. 0:00 Welcome00:46 Fake Travis warning03:01 OpenAI's Astra model05:45 Safeguards and delays08:55 Opaque recurrence fears13:08 What Astra does well18:08 Access tiers and rollout19:53 Nvidia buys Hugging Face23:04 Is this really AGI26:28 AGI vibes and Microsoft clause32:17 Apple event preview33:41 Ternus keynote politics39:43 Keynote Vibes Shift40:23 Tim Cook Era Review44:56 Services And Fees Machine47:15 Phil Schiller Steps Back49:52 Event Predictions Fold And AI55:43 Siri AI Real Use Cases58:32 Smart Home Display Rumors59:47 Bets And Keynote Structure01:05:19 Brendan Carr Is A Dummy01:09:23 IFA Lightning Round01:10:49 Philips Hue Smart Lighting01:11:03 Hue Rope Light Rave01:11:44 Sticker Shock Pricing01:13:03 Xiaomi Wide Foldable01:15:43 Dyson Camera Toothbrush01:20:31 Tecno Bezelless Concept01:22:42 Local AI Smart Home Hub01:27:09 MacBook Neo Clones01:29:35 Homey Dial Controller01:33:39 Acer DualPlay Handheld01:36:19 Dreame Humanoid Robot01:39:44 Packard Bell Revival01:42:17 Wrap Up And Credits Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us Fan MailIn this episode: Christi and Angela welcome back Denver-based construction law attorney Kate Strauss, now leading the construction team at the national firm Fennemore, to discuss rapid AI adoption in construction. Strauss describes the divide between office staff who are high AI adopters and field staff who may distrust “Big Brother” technology, along with growing AI fatigue and the need to retain human connection and technical competence. The conversation highlights survey data showing increased AI investment and usage in administrative work, estimating, and preconstruction, driven partly by labor shortages and fast promotions. Strauss outlines hidden legal risks, including discoverability of chat histories, potential waiver of attorney-client privilege, and litigation scrutiny of AI-generated contracts and change orders, urging company leaders to implement clear AI platforms, training, safeguards, escalation points, and true human oversight.Supported by: NPKSupport the show

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – How safe are you really? Do you expect government actors to come protect you? Who makes sure those actors aren't the ones you need protection from? What do you do then? Meanwhile, the Department of Justice recently sent out watchers to oversee primary elections in Florida and Wyoming. I guess no one told the DOJ that Congress has no...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – How safe are you really? Do you expect government actors to come protect you? Who makes sure those actors aren't the ones you need protection from? What do you do then? Meanwhile, the Department of Justice recently sent out watchers to oversee primary elections in Florida and Wyoming. I guess no one told the DOJ that Congress has no...

Nuclear guardrails are gone, and no one in power seems to care. In Part One of a conversation with Barry Stevens and Globe and Mail columnist Doug Saunders, Lloyd Axworthy — the former Canadian Foreign Minister who led the campaign to ban landmines — traces how the memory of nuclear danger has faded even as more countries foolishly flirt with joining the club. Deterrence, once treated as gospel, has been quietly disproven on real battlefields, yet nobody in power seems to have noticed. Axworthy warns of a world sliding back toward the bomb just as it forgets why it feared one.This interview was conducted in collaboration with How To Rule The World https://www.youtube.com/@WorldFederalism and Project Save the World https://tosavetheworld.ca/ — it also appears on those channels.

Investigative reporter and film maker Greg Palast exposes the tricks that could steal your vote - From voter purges to new suppression tactics, SaveYourVote.org reveals what's happening and gives Americans a way to fight back.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

St. Charles County Police Chief Kurt Frisz joins the show to discuss the department's decision to discontinue its contract with Flock Safety after a new internal audit tool uncovered a civilian employee misusing license plate reader data for personal reasons. Chief Frisz explains the procedural gaps that led to terminating Flock, outlines how the department owns and audits its separate Genetec license plate reader system, and highlights ongoing legislative work with state lawmakers to establish statutory penalties for improper surveillance database access. Hashtags:#KurtFrisz #StCharlesCounty #FlockSafety #LicensePlateReaders #Genetec #PolicePolicy #MoPol #TalkRadioGuest List:Kurt Frisz, St. Charles County Police Chief, discussed internal audit processes, the termination of the department's Flock Safety contract, and ongoing use of alternative license plate reader technology.

Our non-spoiler podcast won't apologize as we breakdown season 3 episode 9 'Gray Goo' of the Apple TV show 'SILO.' Solo/Jimmy is back on the show and in our hearts! Daniel and Helen listen to an exposition dump from Per Stensen and Team Silo, but won't be seeds! + Team Juliette knows where the Safeguard pipe is located but can they cap it before the Algorithm caps them? Apple TV+ sci-fi post-apocalyptic dystopian drama! Based on Hugh Howey's Silo series of books: WOOL, SHIFT and DUST. and producer Graham Yost's television show choices! 00:00 Intro 02:07 Listener Feedback 03:36 Catfish's rating 06:25 Bubba's rating  16:22 Upcoming Podcasts   19:03 Best job within Silo world   21:29 Ep8 Breakdown: Before Times  35:32 'Silo Slam' of the Week  40:27 Ep8 Breakdown: Silo 17  46:52 Orla Kent/Supply Mystery 52:24 Ep8 Breakdown: Team Juliette   1:02:07 Silo Speculation  1:09:33 Judicial Debate  1:12:10 Deeply Dumb Catfish Community Questions  1:17:22 Is it a Date?  1:19:04 Feedback 1:31:17 Book vs Show POd   SEASON 3 EPISODE 8 'Gray Goo' Knox's father Gus comes clean about a secret. Charlotte makes a life-changing decision. s3e08 s03e08 s3e8  Director Amber Templemore (directed by) Writers Jenny DeArmitt (written for television by)  Hugh Howey (based on the book series 'Silo' by) Graham Yost (created by) Jenny DeArmitt (executive story editor) Cast Rebecca Ferguson ... Juliette Nichols Common ... Robert Sims Harriet Walter ... Martha Walker Tim Robbins ... Bernard Chinaza Uche ... Paul Billings Steve Zahn ... Solo Avi Nash ... Lukas Kyle Ashley Zukerman ... Congressman Daniel Keene Jessica Henwick ... Helen Drew Rick Gomez ... Patrick Kennedy Shane McRae ... Knox Remmie Milner ... Shirley Alexandria Riley ... Camille Sims Reed Birney ... Henry Laura Innes ... Senator Rosalind Thurman Jessica Brown Findlay ... Charlotte Keene Morven Christie ... Anna Thurman Matt Craven ... Dr. Victor Crnkovich Elijah Cook ... Sam Ramsey Billy Postlethwaite ... Deputy Hank aka 'Silo Ren' Clare Perkins ... Carla McLain Colin Hanks ... Per Stensen / Per Stenson Caitlin Zoz ... Kathleen Billings Gemma Acosta ... Glenda Harwood Ian Drysdale ... Mortician Ferdinand Kingsley ... George Wilkins (archive footage) Sonita Henry ... Regina Jackson Ned Dennehy ... Ed Harwood Chris Fulton ... Mike Liam Akpan ... Deputy Jerry Chipo Chung ... Sandy Will Merrick ... Danny Olatunji Ayofe ... Teddy Akie Kotabe ... Diego Florian Clare ... Chris Emerson Jacqueline Berces ... Nurse Amy Quelin Sepulveda ... Orla Kent Celine Arden ... Sheila Kent Marcello Cruz ... Juan Alameda Celine Arden ... Sheila Kent Miltos Yerolemou ... Rudy Kent LaToya Harding ... Deputy Hildy Micah Abna ... News Reporter Joseph Balderrama ... James Alameda Michael Blight ... Prisoner Oliver Branson-Cole ... Guide Ema Kosac ... Fangirl Jane Georgina Arthur ... Fangirl Sally Tuwaine Barrett ... Tony Stacy Liu ... Gayle Carlos Damasceno ... Deputy Amelie Child Villiers ... Young Juliette George Robinson ... Mark Chambers Chrisitan Ochoa Lavernia ... Amundson Georgina Sadler ... Audrey Orlando Norman ... Rick Nathan Clough ... Heckler Pike Sara Hazemi ... Eater Angela Yeoh ... Deputy Molly Karins Reggie Absolom ... Benny Lolita Chakrabarti ... Mrs. Kyle Tom Cox ... Raider Chad Khairika Sinani ... Raider Jean Ross Armstrong ... Asa William Hope ... Gus Knox Music by Atli Örvarsson ... (music by)  Cinematographer Jean-Philippe Gossart (director of photography)  Production Design Nicole Northridge (production designer) Hannah Purdy Foggin (Associate production designer)  Art Directors Rebecca Barker-McLean (art direction) Luke Bradley Nick Chapman (vehicle art director) Lilyana Houghton-Freeman (art direction) Sara Kuna (art director) Amaya Valentina (art direction)  Set Decorator Leire Artero (Assisting set decorating coordinator)  #silo #siloseries #silotv #siloappletv #wool #rebeccaferguson #siloappletvplus #rebeccaferguson #common #hughhowey #appletv #appletvplus #tv #television #scifi #tvshow #jessicahenwick #colinhanks

What is vendor due diligence? Why is it important? What do most people get wrong? What are best practices? What do you do if a vendor refuses?We had on Richy Glassberg, CEO at SafeGuard Privacy to answer these questions and more. Plus, he shares some of the biggest red flags he's ever seen in his career when it comes to vendor due diligence. You don't want to miss this awesome episode! 

The new safeguards include more detailed monitoring of models during the development process, as well as greater emphasis on alignment and security during the post-training process. Also, on Tuesday, Warp introduced Warp Factories, a new infrastrructure system designed to make building AI software factories as easy as possible. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Guest host of Fox & Friends First Todd Piro joins hosts Marc Cox and Kim St. Onge to discuss major national headlines. Piro reacts to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General grand jury indictment charging 14 individuals—including 13 current or former Penn State University students—in connection with a campus cocaine trafficking network operating out of off-campus houses associated with Delta Upsilon and Sigma Chi. State Attorney General Dave Sunday identified 24-year-old Agostino Abbatiello as a key supplier in the multi-year operation. Additionally, the segment examines AI usage trends and academic integrity following OpenAI's introduced parental control features and "quiet hours" restrictions on ChatGPT. Piro evaluates the practical application of AI tools in legal education and professional law practice. Hashtags: #ToddPiro #PennState #CocaineBust #DeltaUpsilon #SigmaChi #ChatGPT #MarcCoxShow

In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, we put legal and procedural safeguards in place, so a corrupt president couldn't direct his Department of Justice to vindictively or selectively or otherwise unlawfully go after his perceived enemies. Despite this, Donald Trump has told the Department of Justice to revive the reflecting pool case against Olympian David Hearn. Trump has ripped through every safeguard in his determination to hurt people, persecute his critics, and prosecute his perceived foes.Glenn reviews some of the Watergate safeguards that were put in place, and explains how Trump violates them all.Find Glenn on Substack: glenkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Flock Introduces New Safeguards for Camera System After Backlash and Criticism (0:45) Trump Takes Ballroom Appeal to the Supreme Court (~16:03) Trump, Hegseth, and Others Comment on Status of USS Lincoln (~20:36) Mangione Pleads Guilty, But Doesn't Take Plea Agreement. What Does This Mean for Double Jeopardy? (~32:09) Quick Hitters (~41:27) Critical Thinking Segment (~45:09) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Scammers are everywhere! But they can't harm you, if they can't find you! Use code JORDAN at https://incogni.com/jordan and get 60% off an annual plan! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, we put legal and procedural safeguards in place, so a corrupt president couldn't direct his Department of Justice to vindictively or selectively or otherwise unlawfully go after his perceived enemies. Despite this, Donald Trump has told the Department of Justice to revive the reflecting pool case against Olympian David Hearn. Trump has ripped through every safeguard in his determination to hurt people, persecute his critics, and prosecute his perceived foes.Glenn reviews some of the Watergate safeguards that were put in place, and explains how Trump violates them all.Find Glenn on Substack: glenkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us Fan MailRadio Stone Update is presented on the second and fourth Wednesdays every month at 9 a.m. everywhere on Earth with the latest news and insights in hard surfaces. Check our archives at www.radiostoneupdate.com.

With the recent cyberattacks on Minnesota’s water system, State Representative of the 85th District, Dagmara Avelar joins Lisa Dent to spotlight the House Bill she proposed last year that would increase cybersecurity of the Illinois water system and help prevent potential attacks. With no current regulation in place, the bill would require Illinois’ water systems […]

When the Title Changes but the Authority Doesn't: Family Business Succession with Paul Edelman Most family business succession plans fail not because the legal structure is wrong, but because authority never actually moves. In this episode of Wealth Actually, Frazer Rice talks with Paul Edelman, PhD of Edelman & Associates about how to tell the difference between a real handoff and a cosmetic one. Edelman unbundles succession into six separate questions, explains the three behavioral tells that reveal who is really in charge, draws a hard line between a legitimate safeguard and an open-ended veto, and makes the case that agreement from a family is not the same thing as ownership of a decision. https://youtu.be/p2KCsftvM74 Key Takeaways Succession is not one decision — it is at least six. Who gets the economic benefit of ownership, who votes the shares, who appoints and removes directors, who runs operations, who receives what information, and who retains informal influence after formal authority ends. Watch behavior, not titles. Compensation changes and org charts are easy to read and easy to fake. How decisions actually get made — and whether they get reversed — is the real signal. Three tells that authority hasn't moved: the next management layer still routes real decisions to the founder; the successor has never had a disputed call stand; and in a genuine crisis, the founder is the one who walks into the room. Speed is not the test. A five-year transition can be disciplined development; a six-month transition can be denial with a deadline. The test is whether milestones and readiness criteria are observable and stable, or whether the goalposts keep moving. “Not ready” is not a concern — it is a placeholder. If a founder cannot restate it in specific, testable terms, the obstacle is emotional rather than substantive, and it needs a different path. Advisor impatience often masquerades as clarity. When you catch yourself thinking “why can't they just do this,” ask whose timeline is actually being served — the family's, or your need to close the file. A safeguard is bounded; a veto is not. Reserve specific extraordinary decisions with defined scope, thresholds, triggers, evidence, and duration. “The successor is in charge unless the founder feels uncomfortable” is an undefined operational veto. Agreement is not ownership. A family can be outvoted and formally agree while owning nothing. Ownership comes from having weighed the trade-offs and the implications of each option in the room. Timestamps [00:00] Cold open — why “he's just not ready” is untestable [01:05] Welcome: founders at the sell-or-transfer crossroads [01:48] Unbundling succession into six separate questions [02:23] Running a diagnostic on where the founder actually is [03:00] Watch behavior, not titles — and what the CFO tells you [04:00] Decision reversals and the second-guessing test [05:00] The crisis test: who owns the emergency [05:36] Fast handoff vs. staged succession and prolonged ambiguity [06:10] Milestones that show it's working — and goalposts that keep moving [08:00] Inside vs. outside successors and family dynamics [08:54] Competing heirs and the outside CEO as bridge or avoidance [09:47] Reading resistance: making “not ready” addressable [11:10] The advisory ecosystem's frustration with stalled progress [12:16] Whose timeline is being served? [13:31] Push, pause, or reframe — the art and science of advising [15:00] When to change the forum, the decision rights, or bring in a facilitator [15:36] Safeguards vs. vetoes and the trap doors founders build [17:37] Board composition: independence vs. familiarity [20:00] Restructuring boards to create seats for new expertise [20:54] Income-dependent family members vs. growth-minded owners [21:34] Agreement is not ownership: dividends vs. reinvestment [23:31] Matching complexity to the outcomes you need [25:00] Communicating decisions to people who weren't in the room [25:26] How to reach Paul Edelman [25:46] The Edelman–Shenkman trilogy for estate planning attorneys [29:19] Close Pull Quotes “If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story.” — Paul Edelman “To have authority when things are going well is fine. But the person who owns the crisis is the one who's really owning the leadership.” — Paul Edelman “A safeguard should be limited, explicit, and connected to some extraordinary risk. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse any old ordinary decision.” — Paul Edelman “Just because there's an agreement in name doesn't mean there's ownership of the decision.” — Paul Edelman About the Guest Paul Edelman, PhD is a coach, facilitator, and mentor at Edelman & Associates, where he works with family enterprise and family office leaders on decisions that cannot be delegated. He holds a PhD in developmental psychology from Harvard University and a BS in physics from MIT, and serves as faculty at The UHNW Institute and the Bertarelli Institute for Family Entrepreneurship at Babson College. Contact Paul Edelman Email: paul@edelmancoaching.com Website: edelmancoaching.com (contact form on site) LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/pauledelman The Edelman & Shenkman Trilogy Paul and Martin M. “Marty” Shenkman, CPA, MBA, JD, PFS, AEP (Distinguished), of Shenkman Tietz, have written a three-part series aimed at estate planning attorneys: Simplicity and its trade-offs — When Clients Ask for a Simple Estate Plan, WealthManagement.com / Trusts & Estates, July 8, 2026. The language of estate planning conversations — published in Steve Leimberg's LISI Estate Planning Newsletter (subscriber archive). Beneficiary education — forthcoming October 2026, expected in Estate Planning. Paul's running author archive: wealthmanagement.com/author/paul-edelman More from Paul Edelman Approval Is Not Ownership: Helping Family Office Investment Decisions Hold Under Pressure — Family Wealth Report, July 1, 2026 How Families Can Override Emotions to Make Better Judgments — Family Business Magazine, April 9, 2026 Lessons For Families And Their Advisors From A Hit TV Series — Family Wealth Report, February 24, 2026 Stronger Family Bonds and Better Strategic Decisions — FFI Practitioner, January 20, 2026 Frequently Asked Questions What are the six questions a family business succession decision should be broken into?Who receives the economic benefit of ownership; who votes the shares; who appoints and removes directors; who runs the company operationally; who receives what information; and who continues to hold influence after formal authority ends. Bundling these into a single “handoff” decision is what creates ambiguity. How can you tell whether authority has really transferred to a successor?Watch three behaviors. First, where the next management layer goes for real decisions — employees are excellent at reading where power actually lives. Second, whether the successor has ever made a call the founder disagreed with and had it stand. Third, the crisis test: when a covenant breaks or a key employee leaves, who walks into the room and who gets briefed afterward. Is a fast succession better than a gradual one?Speed itself is not the test. A five-year transition can represent disciplined development, and a six-month transition can be avoidance followed by an arbitrary deadline. What matters is whether responsibility moves against observable milestones, whether the successor learns from outcomes instead of being rescued, and whether readiness criteria stay fixed rather than shifting each time the successor advances. What is the difference between a safeguard and a veto?A safeguard is limited, explicit, and tied to extraordinary risk — selling the company, debt above a threshold, issuing new equity, changing core strategy, or related-party transactions — with defined scope, thresholds, process, duration, trigger, evidence, and who decides. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse ordinary decisions. If the founder can intervene whenever they feel uncomfortable, that is an undefined operational veto. How should advisors handle their own frustration with a stalled family?Notice that impatience often feels like clarity. When you think “I see exactly what they need to do, why can't they just do it,” that is often the moment to slow down and ask whose timeline is being served — whether the ambiguity is genuinely damaging the company, or whether the recommendation mainly closes the case and relieves the advisor's discomfort with uncertainty. What makes an independent director genuinely independent in a family company?The ability to exercise business judgment and fiduciary duty free from undue family influence or loyalty to a particular branch. A director who is the founder's golfing buddy or tied to one family faction will struggle to deliver the value independence is supposed to provide. Why isn't agreement good enough?Because agreement in name is not ownership. A family branch can be outvoted, formally accept the outcome, and still feel no responsibility for it. Ownership comes from working through the trade-offs — what each option makes better and worse — so participants can say they helped weigh the considerations even if the result was not their first choice. Full Transcript [00:00] Paul Edelman: The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like, for example, the most general concern that people will say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It's not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable. [00:36] Announcer: Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast, the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators that will give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at wealthactually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests. [01:05] Frazer Rice: Welcome aboard, Paul. [01:07] Paul Edelman: Thanks, Frazer. Looking forward to our conversation. [01:09] Frazer Rice: Well, it's important because I deal with a bunch of founders and a bunch of other business owners, families, et cetera, that are trying to make sense out of the concept of passing along the business either to the next generation or deciding to sell it, and all sorts of parts of that tough crossroads that everybody has to go through at some point. And that's really the crux of your practice — to help people with those conversations. [01:34] Paul Edelman: Yes. [01:35] Frazer Rice: So when we're thinking about that and kind of unbundling the decision to pass the business along, when a family wants to talk about that, what are the separate parts of that decision that need to be contemplated? [01:48] Paul Edelman: Well, I see at least six different questions that need to be separated. One is who receives the economic benefit of ownership in the company. Another is who gets to vote the shares. And a third is who appoints and removes the directors. Then there's who runs the company from an operational standpoint, and who receives what information. And then, who continues to have influence even though they may no longer have formal authority. [02:23] Frazer Rice: So once you get into the… it always seems to me to be tough to sort of say, okay, here are six things that have to happen, and that's a lot for somebody to digest in the course of one or two meetings and get the buy-in from all the different constituencies that are interested in what the business is up to. How do you run a diagnostic to understand where a founder is — or generation one — in their own head space, and understanding what control being passed on looks like in summary form on those six different aspects that you brought up? [03:00] Paul Edelman: I think the key thing is to watch behavior more than titles. People often pay a lot of attention to when the titles have shifted or compensation shifts, things like that. But they pay less attention to how decisions are being made and whether those decisions get reversed. So when the title has moved but the authority hasn't moved, you tend to see three different things. First of all, you can see something going on at the next level down in management — not with the founder and successor per se, but with the other executives. You can ask yourself, who do they go to for the real decisions? If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story. [04:00] Paul Edelman: Employees are excellent at reading where the actual power lives, because they can't afford to be wrong about that sort of thing. So that's one clue. Another is to look at decision reversals, or what is more commonly called second-guessing. You want to look for whether the successor has made a call that the founder disagreed with. And if so, did it stand, or did it get reversed? If the company is two years into succession and that's never happened, it's possible that the successor is pre-clearing everything with the former CEO and only making decisions that they know will be approved. So in that case, it's not real authority. And a third situation is what you could call a crisis test. [05:00] Paul Edelman: So when something genuinely bad happens — there's a breach of a covenant, or a key employee departs, or a lawsuit — the question is, who do people go to? Who walks into the boardroom and into the decision-making situation, and who ends up getting briefed afterwards? To have authority when things are going well is fine, but the person who owns the crisis is the one who's really owning the leadership, in a sense. [05:36] Frazer Rice: So one of the avenues that I think is interesting, that I read in your materials ahead of time, was the idea that a quick succession oftentimes — and maybe not often, but can be — a better avenue in terms of moving the succession forward, as opposed to having a staged succession where a long period of ruminating and decision-making often perpetuates ambiguity, or even confusion, amongst different constituencies both managerially and ownership-wise. [06:10] Paul Edelman: Speed itself is not the test. You could have a five-year transition that represents disciplined development of the successor, and you could also have a six-month transition that essentially is a denial of what needs to happen, followed by some kind of a deadline. But you certainly don't want to allow things to drift. If the transition is proceeding gradually, you can tell it's working if responsibility and authority are moving according to observable milestones. So the successor is making increasingly consequential decisions. They're learning from the outcomes rather than being rescued by the founder or the prior leader from their mistakes. [07:01] Paul Edelman: They're developing important relationships and they're becoming someone that others rely on. The criteria for readiness also should become clearer over time, and the founder's involvement should change in ways that are recognizable. So that's the ideal. But sometimes a gradual transition represents avoidance, and in those cases you see criteria — sometimes people refer to them as the goalposts — that keep moving. And decisions are repeatedly returned to the founder. Also, each step that the successor takes toward greater authority may be followed by a new reason why the founder feels that they're not ready. So the question that can be asked is: what are the capabilities that the successor is developing, and what specific evidence would demonstrate that? [08:00] Frazer Rice: When you're diagnosing what those capabilities are, as part of that diagnosis, if the successor is inside the family versus outside the family, how do you diagnose whether that is a positive or a negative, in addition to maybe the harder skill sets that are being dealt with? [08:29] Paul Edelman: If the successor is from inside or outside the family, I would say that many of the capabilities needed for leadership are the same. [08:40] Frazer Rice: Yeah, I was going to say — if you run into situations where a family member is capable skill-wise, but there are dynamics issues that have prevented their succession to the throne, essentially. [08:54] Paul Edelman: Sometimes there may be a situation in which you have more than one potential successor and they're in competition with one another, and the family is reluctant to declare a winner. And so one move that can be made in that situation is to essentially bypass the decision by going to the outside to bring in someone. It could be a kind of conflict avoidance mechanism. On the other hand, if no successor is really ready, then sometimes going to the outside can be an interim move. So some companies will hire an external candidate for CEO with the expectation that part of the responsibility will be to develop one of the family members who ultimately may take over. [09:47] Frazer Rice: And so part of your methodology is to read resistance in the room and understand where those pain points are. How does a founder, or generation one, or the successive generations understand what the resistance is? And how do you help them overcome that? [10:02] Paul Edelman: The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like — for example, the most general concern that people say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It's not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable. If you try to do that and you're unable to, that's an indication that the concern is less about something specific and addressable, and more about some unpleasant feelings that the founder is experiencing — and that implies a different path for how to address those, or what needs to be done. [11:10] Frazer Rice: For those of us in, let's call it the advisory ecosystem — that can be the wealth manager, or the lawyer, or the accountant, the people who help guide the technical succession issues, whether it's tax planning or trusts and estates or even just the corporate handoff — oftentimes we're presented with situations that just get muddled, and we look at lack of progress with frustration. How does an advisor deal with that, when the instinct and in a sense the business model is to try to push, to get resolution and to get progress on these types of issues? [12:16] Paul Edelman: The signal that I watch for is what that impatience feels like to the advisor. Sometimes it feels like clarity. The advisor says to himself, oh, I see exactly what they need to do — why can't they just do this? And in my experience, that's often the moment when it's helpful for the advisor to slow down. Not because the family should be allowed to delay indefinitely, but because the advisor's own need for resolution may begin to shape what they say and do, and the advice that they give. [13:00] Paul Edelman: One useful check that advisors can use for themselves is to ask whose timeline is being served. There may be a genuine business reason to act — it may be, for example, that the continued ambiguity is hurting the company, or weakening the successor, or leaving employees unsure about who's in charge. But I would also ask myself, and other advisors can ask themselves, whether their recommendation is mainly to help them close the case, or to demonstrate progress, or to relieve their own discomfort with uncertainty. [13:31] Frazer Rice: The concept of — this is really, I guess, the mix of art and science of advising — between push versus pause versus a total restructure or a reframing of the conversation. There's an intersection of, you have to have the technicals down, but then experience in dealing with personalities, experience with dealing with the specific family and situation, and guiding that. [14:15] Frazer Rice: I imagine occasionally you run into situations where, at the intersection between the advisors and the family, they feel stuck. And so then the concept of getting them unstuck — yet there is resistance to maybe bringing in a facilitator to help grease the skids and get the conversation moving again. How do you help that reframing discussion? [14:40] Paul Edelman: I guess the question I would ask is, where do things stand? Has a decision actually been made, or is the obstacle substantive, or is it the process? So when a decision has been reached through a legitimate process and what you see is some sort of executional drag or discomfort, those are the situations where I think it's helpful to hold the boundary. You can acknowledge whatever feelings may be slowing things down, but there's not a need to reopen the decision. [14:55] Paul Edelman: On the other hand, if the discomfort that people are feeling suggests that there's some sort of important concern that hasn't yet been understood, then that's where I would pause. And that pause can involve useful work. You can ask people, what is it you're trying to protect? What are the consequences that you fear? What would need to be true for proceeding to feel responsible rather than reckless? And then there are times when it makes sense to restructure or to add structure. So for example, the choices are pretty clear, but the same conversation keeps recurring and producing the same result. In that case, you want to think in terms of either changing the forum, or clarifying the decision rights, or maybe dividing the issue into smaller decisions, or even bringing someone in to help structure the conversation, like a third-party facilitator. [15:36] Frazer Rice: The handoff ultimately — when the founder, or generation one, has gotten to the point where they're ready to move things along to the next set of operators, the next set of owners — and at the same time, in order to feel safe, they've created some safeguards, or let's call it some trap doors or back doors, to be able to help influence decisions if they feel like things are going in a different direction. How do you think about it so that they don't turn into pain points — maybe regret that turns into a veto power that stymies the succession, even if it's already been decided and put in motion? [16:21] Paul Edelman: Well, I think you put your finger on it. There's a key distinction to be made here between a safeguard and a veto. A safeguard should be limited, explicit, and connected to some extraordinary risk, whereas a veto is kind of an ongoing ability to stop or reverse any old ordinary decision. So when it comes to safeguards, a family might reserve certain kinds of decisions — like selling the company, or taking on debt above a certain level, or issuing new equity, or changing the basic business strategy, or entering into a transaction with a family member. [16:59] Paul Edelman: Those kinds of things can be specified, and the scope, the threshold, the decision process and the duration of the safeguard should be clear — as well as who can invoke that protection, what evidence is required, and who decides whether the trigger has occurred, and so on. So the problems arise when the arrangement is essentially one in which the successor is in charge unless the founder feels uncomfortable. If the founder is allowed to intervene anytime they feel uncomfortable, as opposed to for these specific kinds of reasons, then you're dealing with more of an undefined operational veto. [17:37] Frazer Rice: To that end — boards of directors related to these companies, whether they're private or public, but we're really talking about private in most cases. The constitution of those boards: how involved do you get in that? And what is the importance of independence versus familiarity versus family member input, to act as a go-between in many ways between founder, the operational executives, and then ultimately the owners? [18:07] Paul Edelman: Well, in order to really add value — the kind of value that independent directors can potentially offer to a company — they need to be adequately independent. That is to say, they need to be able to exercise their sound business judgment and carry out their fiduciary responsibilities in a way that is free from undue influence by other kinds of family considerations, and potentially loyalty to particular family members. So I think in those cases where a so-called independent board member is actually a golfing buddy of the CEO or the founder, or has a tie to one particular family member or branch of the family, it may be harder for them to bring the full value that an independent director can bring. [18:55] Paul Edelman: Then of course, another reason why companies bring in independent directors is because they have some additional expertise that the current board members or family members lack. So for example, a colleague and I are working with a company right now where the core business has been subject to commoditization, and they've made a strategic decision to diversify. But in order to diversify, they need to bring in people with new expertise, particularly in the line of business that they want to move into. In order to do that, they need to create some space in their board or boards of directors — they have several different kinds of boards. And as part of this, we were brought in to take a look at those existing boards and help them think about how to restructure in a way that could create some open seats while minimizing the displacement of people who are currently board members, including family members who are board members, who may not feel too positively about losing their board seat. [20:54] Frazer Rice: Related to board seats, but more specifically to family ownership — the concept of family members who rely on the family business for income, versus maybe other parts of the family that are looking at the business and thinking of growing the valuation or innovating with the business, that type of thing. With the tension between those two different components, how do you solve for that and have that conversation stay productive, when I imagine it can get emotional very quickly? [21:34] Paul Edelman: This is where a third-party facilitator can be helpful to slow things down. When things begin to get heated, it's often helpful to have a neutral or impartial person present who can help to reduce the heat in the conversations. There are a number of things in particular that can be done under those circumstances. First of all, anytime there are these kinds of tough decisions, there's never a single right answer. There's always trade-offs involved. And some boards work their way through these things by voting. I'm dealing with a situation right now where some members of the family were outvoted. At the end of that vote, they say, okay, we now have an agreement, we're going to move forward with this. But just because there's an agreement in name doesn't mean there's ownership of the decision. [22:34] Paul Edelman: So in order to create ownership, I think it is helpful to have the difficult conversations and to consider the implications of going one way versus another. If we were to distribute all this money in the form of dividends, what would be the benefits of that, and what would be the costs associated with that? And on the other hand, if we were to plow it all back into growth of the business, what's the upside and downside of that? Only by considering different options and the implications of each can the family ultimately arrive at a decision where people feel like, well, I may not have agreed to this, but I was part of the discussion, I was part of the process of weighing the different considerations, and I'm willing to buy into this. In other words, I feel some ownership for this decision. [23:31] Frazer Rice: As we start to wind down here, an interesting concept is what should all the constituencies come away with from the decision-making process. And as a follow-up to that is simplicity versus complexity of the solution. How do you manage that so that you take care of the needs of the business and the needs for structuring, with the need for simplicity, so that everyone who comes away from the discussion and the decision-making understands what's been put in place? [24:06] Paul Edelman: As far as the solution itself goes, the level of complexity should match what's required to accomplish the desired outcomes. So complexity for its own sake is not useful. But when you're trying to accomplish more than one thing at a time, it may require a more complex approach to the solution. So that's on the solution side. Now the other side of it has to do with communication. How do you share what's been decided with other people, especially people who haven't been in the room? And I think that the best way to do that is to try to explain clearly what was the context of the situation in which the need to make this decision arose; what were the desired outcomes that the decision makers were trying to produce, what were they trying to accomplish; and the flip side of that is what were they trying to avoid, or what were they trying to protect. [25:00] Paul Edelman: When you share all of that, the rationale for the decision becomes more understandable, and also you have a better case for justifying any complexity that's part of the decision. As far as complexity goes, of course, you want to use the simplest, most straightforward language to describe what you've come up with. But I think the key thing to getting buy-in is to make sure that the rationale is clear, and people understand that there was a thoughtful and systematic process behind it. [25:26] Frazer Rice: Really good stuff. Paul, how do people find you to hear more about what you're up to? [25:32] Paul Edelman: My website is edelmancoaching.com. So people can go to edelmancoaching.com, read more about the work that I do, and there's a contact form there. Or people can simply email paul@edelmancoaching.com. [25:46] Frazer Rice: Just to — because you're being very humble — you have a couple of articles coming out with Marty Shenkman, where the intersection of probably the trust and estate planning and the actual, let's say, getting the business ready for the next generation, whatever form that takes, is probably front and center there. How would people find that? [26:06] Paul Edelman: So we've written three articles recently, kind of a trilogy, and they're each going to be carried in different places. Two have already come out, and one is due to come out. These are aimed primarily at estate planning attorneys. But the first one is on when the client asks for a simple estate plan. And this relates a little bit to what you were describing, in a different domain — the domain of trusts and estate plans and so on. But the point that we make is that the client's request for simplicity is understandable, and ideally the attorney will validate that. But at the same time, along with the request for simplicity goes potentially some compromises, because when you have multiple desired outcomes, it may take more of a complex structure to achieve those outcomes. So the role of the planner is not to introduce complexity for its own sake, but to make clear to the client [27:06] Paul Edelman: what trade-offs they'd be making if they went with a simpler plan, and what additional protections they can get by considering a more complicated one. Then the second piece is on the use of language in these estate planning conversations. And again, it relates to this concept we were talking about a minute ago, of the difference between agreement and ownership. Some clients are willing to agree to whatever the attorney says. If you say to them, “Well, I think this is the best plan for you,” they say, “Fine, where do I sign?” But the goal, ideally, is more than just agreement. It's ownership. Because in the absence of ownership — and by ownership, I mean that the client understands the trade-offs that are being made, they feel that they had agency in the process of making those trade-offs — [28:06] Paul Edelman: and ultimately, if something doesn't work out as well as hoped, people will not go back and point a finger at the planner and say, “You did this, how could you do this?” or something like that, but rather, “This was a collaborative effort. You made clear what the choices were, and we made them together.” So that piece talks about language, and how, for example, there's a difference between saying to a client “you should do this,” and speaking to them in terms of what they can do. [28:42] Frazer Rice: And then the third piece — when's that coming out? [28:46] Paul Edelman: The third piece is on beneficiary education, and that one will come out in October. And so the first piece came out in a publication called Wealth Management. The second piece came out in a newsletter that's published by, I think it's LISI. And the piece that's coming out in October is, I think, being published in a magazine or a journal, something like Estate Planning. [29:19] Frazer Rice: They're everywhere. So, terrific. Well, Paul, thanks for being on. I'll put all that in the show notes, and look forward to staying in touch. [29:26] Paul Edelman: Thanks very much, Frazer. [29:28] Announcer: This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice, and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests. Additional Links Mark Tepsich of Family Governance https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/

Nathan reports from two weeks in China, including WAIC in Shanghai and an AI safety hub launch at Tsinghua, to examine the American policy argument that any safety obligation is futile because China will not care. He finds that Chinese models and services currently have weaker safeguards than OpenAI and Anthropic, but argues the gap is often overstated once those two leaders are separated from the broader American field. The episode traces China's “45-degree line” idea that capability and safety should rise together, the university-centered structure of Chinese AI safety work, and the rapid growth of Chinese research on topics like self-replication, deception, evaluation faking, and interpretability. The stakes are whether US policy should be built around a simplified “but China” assumption, or around a more accurate picture of a rival ecosystem that is behind in some ways, converging in others, and paying closer attention to Western AI safety than many Americans realize. For full show notes, links, and references, read the episode page:https://www.cognitiverevolution.ai/nathan-goes-to-china-part-2-ai-safety-with-chinese-characteristics/ Sponsor: Claude: Claude by Anthropic is an AI collaborator that understands your workflow and helps you tackle research, writing, coding, and organization with deep context. Get started with Claude and explore Claude Pro at https://claude.ai/tcr CHAPTERS: (00:01) China safety framing (05:37) Safeguards and benchmarks (Part 1) (15:04) Sponsor: Claude (16:33) Safeguards and benchmarks (Part 2) (21:39) Company safety incentives (28:17) Research cross pollination (36:07) Nonprofits versus academia (45:13) Xi safety rhetoric (52:00) Tsinghua safety hub (01:00:28) Research paper boom (01:18:32) Governance track record (01:31:37) LLM regulatory process (01:42:57) Monitoring and enforcement (01:57:45) Risk framework gaps (02:05:08) Confucian alignment questions (02:11:49) Episode Outro (02:15:36) Outro PRODUCED BY: https://aipodcast.ing SOCIAL LINKS: Website: https://www.cognitiverevolution.ai Twitter (Podcast): https://x.com/cogrev_podcast Twitter (Nathan): https://x.com/labenz LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/nathanlabenz/ Youtube: https://youtube.com/@CognitiveRevolutionPodcast Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/the-cognitive-revolution-ai-builders-researchers-and/id1669813431 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6yHyok3M3BjqzR0VB5MSyk

A reported New Jersey voter-registration error involving 6,600 noncitizens becomes the starting point for Todd's broader argument about election integrity and public trust. He distinguishes evidence from conclusive proof, contending that acknowledged registration failures are reason enough to investigate vulnerabilities instead of dismissing concerns outright. Todd also examines the dispute between state officials and a software vendor over who was responsible for approving the registrations, while clearly presenting his own suspicion that government mismanagement—or indifference—may be the deeper problem. Turning to Congress, he urges listeners to press senators to consider the SAVE America Act and discusses its proposed safeguards, including documentary proof of citizenship at registration, voter photo identification, and limits on mass-mailed ballots while preserving requested absentee voting. He also responds to media arguments about whether improper registrations are widespread and highlights Senator Mike Lee's case for restoring confidence in elections. Throughout, Todd frames tighter procedures as a common-sense defense of constitutional self-government.

Peter Huessy. Peter Huessy and John Batchelor review classic films like Godzilla, On the Beach, and Dr. Strangelove to discuss cultural fears of nuclear war. They contrast cinematic depictions of accidental launches with modern safeguards, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent in a complex geopolitical landscape. (15)1940

Black history in the US is rich, profound -- and at risk of being lost forever, if not for the monumental efforts of Julieanna L. Richardson. As the founder of The HistoryMakers -- the largest national archive of African American video-oral history -- Richardson shares some of the unknown and incredible legacies of Black America, highlighting the importance of documenting and preserving the past for future generations. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.