Podcasts about Satisfaction

Follow Us! Twitter: @StreamerSZN Kyle: @KBizzl311 Dylan: @dylanmazzola Instagram: @StreamerSZN SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel: youtube.com/channel/UCXTLztI5KsYQLH0WptJaL-Q Website: undergroundsportsphiladelphia.com Twitch: twitch.tv/undergroundsportsPHI Merch & Apparel are on the way! tomahawkshades.com | Promo Code: "USP" for 25% off at checkout! Biñho Board: https://binhoboard.com/?ref=Underground Manscaped.com | Promo Code: "USP" for 20% off and free shipping! Statesidevodka.com | Promo Code "USP" for 10% off the 1L vodka bottle Intro Music: "Stranger Things Theme Song: C418 REMIX" Outro Music: "Stranger Things Theme Song: C418 REMIX"

"Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment. Full effort is full victory." -Mohandas Gandhi. Learning the ropes on my new RODECaster Pro 2. It's awesome! Going scuba diving this weekend for my Advanced Open Water certification. Enjoying using the Fitness Court right here in Oswego, N.Y. looking forward to going to Aqua Spa today for a float in the salt tank. Almost seven years of sobriety! Some facts about July and a visit to the History Channel. Also a "did you know" and word of the day. Enjoy. Contact me at WLOAP.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/wloap/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/wloap/support

The Rolling Stones made a huge impression on The Wolf & Action Jackson as teenagers and their music has been the backbone of their rock n roll journey for decades.  We first saw them on Steel Wheels as teenagers and have explored every chapter of their catalog like rock n roll archeologists.  Though I vowed not to chase after the Stones anymore years ago, the opportunity to see them in Hyde Park while living in London was too much to pass up.  Celebrating 60 years of live music, Saturday June 25, 2022 in Hyde Park was the first time the band played London with out Charlie Watts.  In front of 85,000 fans, including the 8 year old Wolf Cub, the Stones played tribute to Charlie and showed they weren't just a legacy act but still the best in the business.Action & I run through the setlist, the grounds, the crowd, the Keith songs, the getting in & the escape at the end.  It was a special night in London and I'm glad I was there.  Should I go again on July 3?

My guest this week, film maker David Marsh, is healing from the inside out.  From what? You'll need to listen to this episode to find out.   As he continues to heal, he's tried many things and realized through life experiences, the universe is even bigger than he originally perceived.   He's a story teller, made with love.  Along the way, he believes that so many things weave together to make up our perspective.   And as we go along, we should get comfortable trusting.   Because there really is no certainty. Ever.   So, when you're wondering what's next, try to let it unfold.  This has been one of my big lessons this year.    Letting it unfold, like everything on the planet, is easier said than done.  (When people say "easier said than done", remind them that, of course it's easier said than done.) What isn't?   But if we are to really supposed to figure out what this thing called life means, we must.  It's the only thing that we can really do.    Control is an illusion.   A few more tips from David: There's no way to mess up this life! Let go of control Connecting with your joy space is very important   And some questions to ask along your journey: What can't you imagine stopping? How will you get there?   He's overcome so much, and now he's simply adapting to life. We could learn a lot from him.   More about David: David Marsh is a Filmmaker and his latest film, Adapting To Dive, is available now on Amazon. Seven days before leaving to make a documentary with Diveheart, his son dies of a drug overdose. He decides to go anyway but doesn't tell anyone about his loss. He learns about healing and adapting from these adaptive divers. David loves to create documentaries and tell stories that connect to the heart. He loves to explore the human journey and document it through video. His latest film is the Winner of Feature Documentary in the 2022 Orlando International Film Festival. He has found that satisfaction in your career comes best when you are following your enthusiasm and creating things you're passionate about.    Current Documentaries online: ADAPTING TO DIVE (Amazon, TubiTV, LookhuTV) HEALING FROM THE INSIDE OUT (Amazon, TubiTV, XUMO) SOULBLAZE YOUR LIFE (TubiTV)   And check out my bestselling book: Peace, Possibilities, and Perspective: 8 Secrets to Serenity and Satisfaction in Your Life and Career https://2possibilityandbeyond.com/my-book

(1:35) - Chuck and Paul kickoff hour two talking about how soaring mortgage rates are cooling down home sales.(13:00) - Running through fast food and fast casual restaurants ranked according to customer satisfaction.(22:08) - Stack roulette.(32:49) - Paul LaMonica of CNNBusiness called into the show to talk about how the cooling of cryptocurrency is affecting Coinbase.

In the third part of our series on the atonement, Clinton Collister and Jamie Franklin discuss three prominent theories concerning our understanding of this issue: Christ's death and resurrection as victory over the powers of sin and darkness, the theory that Christ's death was a ransom paid to Satan in order to free human beings from the penalty of sin and the theory that Christ's death was an offering made to God in order to liberate human beings from the price that they owed to God due to sin. We plan in our fourth episode in this series to discuss the Abelardian view of the atonement and the theory of penal substitutionary atonement.Thanks for listening. To get in touch, please send an email to holycofe@gmail.comand follow us on Twitter @holycofe1.

The center of all the intuitive eating principles is satisfaction. Diet culture and disordered eating have disconnected you from eating for pleasure and enjoyment, but with this sixth principle of intuitive eating you can rediscover satisfaction with food again. Join the Group Coaching Fall 2022 Waitlist Purchase the Podcast Workbook Mentioned in this Episode: Group Coaching Episode 133: What is and is not Intuitive Eating? Episode 138: Feeling Your Fullness The Podcast Intuitive Eating Series Workbook Connect with Jennifer on Social Media @jennifer_healthcoach4life Full transcript of this episode can be found at https://www.healthcoach4life.com/podcast Join my email list here More Resources: Join the private community here Purchase the workbook at any time here Apply for one on one coaching with Jen HERE Food and Feelings Journal Shop Morning Motivation Journal

La music story du jour c'est celle de Benny Benassi… Il n'était pas là au moment de la Renaissance, n'a pas connu Leonard de Vinci, n'exagérons pas, reste que Benny Benassi est une figure tutélaire, historique de la scène électro italienne. Classé parmi les meilleurs DJs du monde au début des années 2000, notamment avec « Satisfaction », l'artiste poursuit aujourd'hui sa carrière plus simplement mais avec talent, comme avec ce nouveau single « Lightwaves »   Crédit photo : facebook.com/bennybenassi

Assumptions fly under the radar. So much of what you do, think and perceive is assumptions. Identify them, question them and fix it!Strategy Call Link https://tinyurl.com/casellacallsMain website https://tinyurl.com/casellawebsite

Today was a first live stream with my producer, Josiah. We are covering the protests that are going on all over the country. INSANITY! ________________________________________________________________ ⇩ TODAY'S SPONSORS ⇩ MY MEDIC: You never know when you're going to need a medical kit, which is why the Slightly Offens*ve team always has one on hand. The MYFAK Pro is not your typical box of bandages, it comes with over 100 quality first aid and trauma supplies. Get yours today at https://mymedic.com/ and use promo code OFFENSIVE for 15% off and access to a FREE lifesaving online course! UNDERTAC: Men are being inundated with over-priced boxers, designed for testosterone deficient men, but here at Slightly Offens*ve we demand more. That's why we trust UnderTac. Head to http://www.getundertac.com/ for 20% off with the offer code OFFENSIVE20. Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. MOINK: Tired of not knowing where your meat comes from? Our newest sponsor, Moink, delivers grass-fed and grass-finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and wild-caught Alaskan salmon, direct to your door - helping Family Farms become financially independent outside of big agriculture. Go to https://www.moinkbox.com/offensive right now and get FREE FILET MIGNON for a year!! ________________________________________________________________ Become a subscriber at BlazeTV https://get.blazetv.com/slightly-offe... use my code "ELIJAH" to get $10 off a full year ________________________________________________________________ Slightly Offens*ve Merch: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collectio... ________________________________________________________________ ➤BOOKINGS/INQUIRIES: JOSIAH@SLIGHTLYOFFENSIVE.COM _________________________________________________________________ ⇩ SOCIAL MEDIA ⇩ ➤ INSTAGRAM https://www.instagram.com/slightlyoffens ➤ PARLER https://parler.com/profile/Elijahscha... ➤ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer ➤ FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/officialslig... Producer: Josiah David: https://youtu.be/YBb7fRkMt0E Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Avoid Waste + Season Meaningfully = A.W.S.M. AWSM Sauce is the world's first guilt-free sauce brand - AWSM delivers the best sweet and savory condiment ingredients right to your door for a convenient and eco-conscious way to enjoy your favorite meals. At AWSM, they prioritize three things: Taste, Sustainability, and Satisfaction. With a keen focus on these key values, they have successfully revolutionized the food industry while cutting down on cumbersome kitchen clutter. Co-founders Paul Lehmann and Carl Starkey join Justin to discuss this “awesome” brand!

A new MP3 sermon from Peace Protestant Reformed Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Reconciled to God through Satisfaction Subtitle: Heidelberg Catechism Speaker: Rev. John Marcus Broadcaster: Peace Protestant Reformed Church Event: Sunday Service Date: 6/26/2022 Bible: Romans 8:3 Length: 50 min.

As we continue to explore 1 Peter, we learn how to live with the end in sight. We see in scripture that the end of all things is near, and because of that, we need to be alert and sober minded. God's desires need to be placed before ours and we need to love each other deeply while practicing caring hospitality. The real question is, if you knew Jesus was returning today, what would you change about how you are serving him right now? In light of the end being near, we don't need to get mired down in depression, but strive even more to point all glory to God and serve him faithfully. John Piper says – “If you are most satisfied in family or job or fame or success or money or food or music or health or staying alive — if you are more satisfied in any of those than you are in God — then you diminish the glory of God, and you magnify the glory of what you're most satisfied by. The Bible makes clear that we should live in order to display the supreme worth and beauty and glory of God. That's our primary reason for existence.” Based on this, how is your love for others? What things do you need to change? Are you satisfied in God? As always, if you've got questions, you can reach out anytime – burnthickory.com/next. We'd love to connect with you, answer any questions and take time to pray with you.

Jeremiah 31:25

This week's episode looks at “All You Need is Love”, the Our World TV special, and the career of the Beatles from April 1966 through August 1967. Click the full post to read liner notes, links to more information, and a transcript of the episode. Patreon backers also have a thirteen-minute bonus episode available, on "Rain" by the Beatles. Tilt Araiza has assisted invaluably by doing a first-pass edit, and will hopefully be doing so from now on. Check out Tilt's irregular podcasts at http://www.podnose.com/jaffa-cakes-for-proust and http://sitcomclub.com/ NB for the first few hours this was up, there was a slight editing glitch. If you downloaded the old version and don't want to redownload the whole thing, just look in the transcript for "Other than fixing John's two flubbed" for the text of the two missing paragraphs. Errata I say "Come Together" was a B-side, but the single was actually a double A-side. Also, I say the Lennon interview by Maureen Cleave appeared in Detroit magazine. That's what my source (Steve Turner's book) says, but someone on Twitter says that rather than Detroit magazine it was the Detroit Free Press. Also at one point I say "the videos for 'Paperback Writer' and 'Penny Lane'". I meant to say "Rain" rather than "Penny Lane" there. Resources No Mixcloud this week due to the number of songs by the Beatles. I have read literally dozens of books on the Beatles, and used bits of information from many of them. All my Beatles episodes refer to: The Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn, All The Songs: The Stories Behind Every Beatles Release by Jean-Michel Guesdon, And The Band Begins To Play: The Definitive Guide To The Songs of The Beatles by Steve Lambley, The Beatles By Ear by Kevin Moore, Revolution in the Head by Ian MacDonald, and The Beatles Anthology. For this episode, I also referred to Last Interview by David Sheff, a longform interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono from shortly before Lennon's death; Many Years From Now by Barry Miles, an authorised biography of Paul McCartney; and Here, There, and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles by Geoff Emerick and Howard Massey. Particularly useful this time was Steve Turner's book Beatles '66. I also used Turner's The Beatles: The Stories Behind the Songs 1967-1970. Johnny Rogan's Starmakers and Svengalis had some information on Epstein I hadn't seen anywhere else. Some information about the "Bigger than Jesus" scandal comes from Ward, B. (2012). “The ‘C' is for Christ”: Arthur Unger, Datebook Magazine and the Beatles. Popular Music and Society, 35(4), 541-560. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2011.608978 Information on Robert Stigwood comes from Mr Showbiz by Stephen Dando-Collins. And the quote at the end from Simon Napier-Bell is from You Don't Have to Say You Love Me, which is more entertaining than it is accurate, but is very entertaining. Sadly the only way to get the single mix of "All You Need is Love" is on this ludicrously-expensive out-of-print box set, but the stereo mix is easily available on Magical Mystery Tour. Patreon This podcast is brought to you by the generosity of my backers on Patreon. Why not join them? Transcript A quick note before I start the episode -- this episode deals, in part, with the deaths of three gay men -- one by murder, one by suicide, and one by an accidental overdose, all linked at least in part to societal homophobia. I will try to deal with this as tactfully as I can, but anyone who's upset by those things might want to read the transcript instead of listening to the episode. This is also a very, very, *very* long episode -- this is likely to be the longest episode I *ever* do of this podcast, so settle in. We're going to be here a while. I obviously don't know how long it's going to be while I'm still recording, but based on the word count of my script, probably in the region of three hours. You have been warned. In 1967 the actor Patrick McGoohan was tired. He had been working on the hit series Danger Man for many years -- Danger Man had originally run from 1960 through 1962, then had taken a break, and had come back, retooled, with longer episodes in 1964. That longer series was a big hit, both in the UK and in the US, where it was retitled Secret Agent and had a new theme tune written by PF Sloan and Steve Barri and recorded by Johnny Rivers: [Excerpt: Johnny Rivers, "Secret Agent Man"] But McGoohan was tired of playing John Drake, the agent, and announced he was going to quit the series. Instead, with the help of George Markstein, Danger Man's script editor, he created a totally new series, in which McGoohan would star, and which McGoohan would also write and direct key episodes of. This new series, The Prisoner, featured a spy who is only ever given the name Number Six, and who many fans -- though not McGoohan himself -- took to be the same character as John Drake. Number Six resigns from his job as a secret agent, and is kidnapped and taken to a place known only as The Village -- the series was filmed in Portmeirion, an unusual-looking town in Gwynnedd, in North Wales -- which is full of other ex-agents. There he is interrogated to try to find out why he has quit his job. It's never made clear whether the interrogators are his old employers or their enemies, and there's a certain suggestion that maybe there is no real distinction between the two sides, that they're both running the Village together. He spends the entire series trying to escape, but refuses to explain himself -- and there's some debate among viewers as to whether it's implied or not that part of the reason he doesn't explain himself is that he knows his interrogators wouldn't understand why he quit: [Excerpt: The Prisoner intro, from episode Once Upon a Time, ] Certainly that explanation would fit in with McGoohan's own personality. According to McGoohan, the final episode of The Prisoner was, at the time, the most watched TV show ever broadcast in the UK, as people tuned in to find out the identity of Number One, the person behind the Village, and to see if Number Six would break free. I don't think that's actually the case, but it's what McGoohan always claimed, and it was certainly a very popular series. I won't spoil the ending for those of you who haven't watched it -- it's a remarkable series -- but ultimately the series seems to decide that such questions don't matter and that even asking them is missing the point. It's a work that's open to multiple interpretations, and is left deliberately ambiguous, but one of the messages many people have taken away from it is that not only are we trapped by a society that oppresses us, we're also trapped by our own identities. You can run from the trap that society has placed you in, from other people's interpretations of your life, your work, and your motives, but you ultimately can't run from yourself, and any time you try to break out of a prison, you'll find yourself trapped in another prison of your own making. The most horrifying implication of the episode is that possibly even death itself won't be a release, and you will spend all eternity trying to escape from an identity you're trapped in. Viewers became so outraged, according to McGoohan, that he had to go into hiding for an extended period, and while his later claims that he never worked in Britain again are an exaggeration, it is true that for the remainder of his life he concentrated on doing work in the US instead, where he hadn't created such anger. That final episode of The Prisoner was also the only one to use a piece of contemporary pop music, in two crucial scenes: [Excerpt: The Prisoner, "Fall Out", "All You Need is Love"] Back in October 2020, we started what I thought would be a year-long look at the period from late 1962 through early 1967, but which has turned out for reasons beyond my control to take more like twenty months, with a song which was one of the last of the big pre-Beatles pop hits, though we looked at it after their first single, "Telstar" by the Tornadoes: [Excerpt: The Tornadoes, "Telstar"] There were many reasons for choosing that as one of the bookends for this fifty-episode chunk of the podcast -- you'll see many connections between that episode and this one if you listen to them back-to-back -- but among them was that it's a song inspired by the launch of the first ever communications satellite, and a sign of how the world was going to become smaller as the sixties went on. Of course, to start with communications satellites didn't do much in that regard -- they were expensive to use, and had limited bandwidth, and were only available during limited time windows, but symbolically they meant that for the first time ever, people could see and hear events thousands of miles away as they were happening. It's not a coincidence that Britain and France signed the agreement to develop Concorde, the first supersonic airliner, a month after the first Beatles single and four months after the Telstar satellite was launched. The world was becoming ever more interconnected -- people were travelling faster and further, getting news from other countries quicker, and there was more cultural conversation – and misunderstanding – between countries thousands of miles apart. The Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan, the man who also coined the phrase “the medium is the message”, thought that this ever-faster connection would fundamentally change basic modes of thought in the Western world. McLuhan thought that technology made possible whole new modes of thought, and that just as the printing press had, in his view, caused Western liberalism and individualism, so these new electronic media would cause the rise of a new collective mode of thought. In 1962, the year of Concorde, Telstar, and “Love Me Do”, McLuhan wrote a book called The Gutenberg Galaxy, in which he said: “Instead of tending towards a vast Alexandrian library the world has become a computer, an electronic brain, exactly as an infantile piece of science fiction. And as our senses have gone outside us, Big Brother goes inside. So, unless aware of this dynamic, we shall at once move into a phase of panic terrors, exactly befitting a small world of tribal drums, total interdependence, and superimposed co-existence.… Terror is the normal state of any oral society, for in it everything affects everything all the time.…” He coined the term “the Global Village” to describe this new collectivism. The story we've seen over the last fifty episodes is one of a sort of cultural ping-pong between the USA and the UK, with innovations in American music inspiring British musicians, who in turn inspired American ones, whether that being the Beatles covering the Isley Brothers or the Rolling Stones doing a Bobby Womack song, or Paul Simon and Bob Dylan coming over to the UK and learning folk songs and guitar techniques from Martin Carthy. And increasingly we're going to see those influences spread to other countries, and influences coming *from* other countries. We've already seen one Jamaican artist, and the influence of Indian music has become very apparent. While the focus of this series is going to remain principally in the British Isles and North America, rock music was and is a worldwide phenomenon, and that's going to become increasingly a part of the story. And so in this episode we're going to look at a live performance -- well, mostly live -- that was seen by hundreds of millions of people all over the world as it happened, thanks to the magic of satellites: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "All You Need is Love"] When we left the Beatles, they had just finished recording "Tomorrow Never Knows", the most experimental track they had recorded up to that date, and if not the most experimental thing they *ever* recorded certainly in the top handful. But "Tomorrow Never Knows" was only the first track they recorded in the sessions for what would become arguably their greatest album, and certainly the one that currently has the most respect from critics. It's interesting to note that that album could have been very, very, different. When we think of Revolver now, we think of the innovative production of George Martin, and of Geoff Emerick and Ken Townshend's inventive ideas for pushing the sound of the equipment in Abbey Road studios, but until very late in the day the album was going to be recorded in the Stax studios in Memphis, with Steve Cropper producing -- whether George Martin would have been involved or not is something we don't even know. In 1965, the Rolling Stones had, as we've seen, started making records in the US, recording in LA and at the Chess studios in Chicago, and the Yardbirds had also been doing the same thing. Mick Jagger had become a convert to the idea of using American studios and working with American musicians, and he had constantly been telling Paul McCartney that the Beatles should do the same. Indeed, they'd put some feelers out in 1965 about the possibility of the group making an album with Holland, Dozier, and Holland in Detroit. Quite how this would have worked is hard to figure out -- Holland, Dozier, and Holland's skills were as songwriters, and in their work with a particular set of musicians -- so it's unsurprising that came to nothing. But recording at Stax was a different matter.  While Steve Cropper was a great songwriter in his own right, he was also adept at getting great sounds on covers of other people's material -- like on Otis Blue, the album he produced for Otis Redding in late 1965, which doesn't include a single Cropper original: [Excerpt: Otis Redding, "Satisfaction"] And the Beatles were very influenced by the records Stax were putting out, often namechecking Wilson Pickett in particular, and during the Rubber Soul sessions they had recorded a "Green Onions" soundalike track, imaginatively titled "12-Bar Original": [Excerpt: The Beatles, "12-Bar Original"] The idea of the group recording at Stax got far enough that they were actually booked in for two weeks starting the ninth of April, and there was even an offer from Elvis to let them stay at Graceland while they recorded, but then a couple of weeks earlier, the news leaked to the press, and Brian Epstein cancelled the booking. According to Cropper, Epstein talked about recording at the Atlantic studios in New York with him instead, but nothing went any further. It's hard to imagine what a Stax-based Beatles album would have been like, but even though it might have been a great album, it certainly wouldn't have been the Revolver we've come to know. Revolver is an unusual album in many ways, and one of the ways it's most distinct from the earlier Beatles albums is the dominance of keyboards. Both Lennon and McCartney had often written at the piano as well as the guitar -- McCartney more so than Lennon, but both had done so regularly -- but up to this point it had been normal for them to arrange the songs for guitars rather than keyboards, no matter how they'd started out. There had been the odd track where one of them, usually Lennon, would play a simple keyboard part, songs like "I'm Down" or "We Can Work it Out", but even those had been guitar records first and foremost. But on Revolver, that changed dramatically. There seems to have been a complex web of cause and effect here. Paul was becoming increasingly interested in moving his basslines away from simple walking basslines and root notes and the other staples of rock and roll basslines up to this point. As the sixties progressed, rock basslines were becoming ever more complex, and Tyler Mahan Coe has made a good case that this is largely down to innovations in production pioneered by Owen Bradley, and McCartney was certainly aware of Bradley's work -- he was a fan of Brenda Lee, who Bradley produced, for example. But the two influences that McCartney has mentioned most often in this regard are the busy, jazz-influenced, basslines that James Jamerson was playing at Motown: [Excerpt: The Four Tops, "It's the Same Old Song"] And the basslines that Brian Wilson was writing for various Wrecking Crew bassists to play for the Beach Boys: [Excerpt: The Beach Boys, "Don't Talk (Put Your Head on My Shoulder)"] Just to be clear, McCartney didn't hear that particular track until partway through the recording of Revolver, when Bruce Johnston visited the UK and brought with him an advance copy of Pet Sounds, but Pet Sounds influenced the later part of Revolver's recording, and Wilson had already started his experiments in that direction with the group's 1965 work. It's much easier to write a song with this kind of bassline, one that's integral to the composition, on the piano than it is to write it on a guitar, as you can work out the bassline with your left hand while working out the chords and melody with your right, so the habit that McCartney had already developed of writing on the piano made this easier. But also, starting with the recording of "Paperback Writer", McCartney switched his style of working in the studio. Where up to this point it had been normal for him to play bass as part of the recording of the basic track, playing with the other Beatles, he now started to take advantage of multitracking to overdub his bass later, so he could spend extra time getting the bassline exactly right. McCartney lived closer to Abbey Road than the other three Beatles, and so could more easily get there early or stay late and tweak his parts. But if McCartney wasn't playing bass while the guitars and drums were being recorded, that meant he could play something else, and so increasingly he would play piano during the recording of the basic track. And that in turn would mean that there wouldn't always *be* a need for guitars on the track, because the harmonic support they would provide would be provided by the piano instead. This, as much as anything else, is the reason that Revolver sounds so radically different to any other Beatles album. Up to this point, with *very* rare exceptions like "Yesterday", every Beatles record, more or less, featured all four of the Beatles playing instruments. Now John and George weren't playing on "Good Day Sunshine" or "For No One", John wasn't playing on "Here, There, and Everywhere", "Eleanor Rigby" features no guitars or drums at all, and George's "Love You To" only features himself, plus a little tambourine from Ringo (Paul recorded a part for that one, but it doesn't seem to appear on the finished track). Of the three songwriting Beatles, the only one who at this point was consistently requiring the instrumental contributions of all the other band members was John, and even he did without Paul on "She Said, She Said", which by all accounts features either John or George on bass, after Paul had a rare bout of unprofessionalism and left the studio. Revolver is still an album made by a group -- and most of those tracks that don't feature John or George instrumentally still feature them vocally -- it's still a collaborative work in all the best ways. But it's no longer an album made by four people playing together in the same room at the same time. After starting work on "Tomorrow Never Knows", the next track they started work on was Paul's "Got to Get You Into My Life", but as it would turn out they would work on that song throughout most of the sessions for the album -- in a sign of how the group would increasingly work from this point on, Paul's song was subject to multiple re-recordings and tweakings in the studio, as he tinkered to try to make it perfect. The first recording to be completed for the album, though, was almost as much of a departure in its own way as "Tomorrow Never Knows" had been. George's song "Love You To" shows just how inspired he was by the music of Ravi Shankar, and how devoted he was to Indian music. While a few months earlier he had just about managed to pick out a simple melody on the sitar for "Norwegian Wood", by this point he was comfortable enough with Indian classical music that I've seen many, many sources claim that an outside session player is playing sitar on the track, though Anil Bhagwat, the tabla player on the track, always insisted that it was entirely Harrison's playing: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Love You To"] There is a *lot* of debate as to whether it's George playing on the track, and I feel a little uncomfortable making a definitive statement in either direction. On the one hand I find it hard to believe that Harrison got that good that quickly on an unfamiliar instrument, when we know he wasn't a naturally facile musician. All the stories we have about his work in the studio suggest that he had to work very hard on his guitar solos, and that he would frequently fluff them. As a technical guitarist, Harrison was only mediocre -- his value lay in his inventiveness, not in technical ability -- and he had been playing guitar for over a decade, but sitar only a few months. There's also some session documentation suggesting that an unknown sitar player was hired. On the other hand there's the testimony of Anil Bhagwat that Harrison played the part himself, and he has been very firm on the subject, saying "If you go on the Internet there are a lot of questions asked about "Love You To". They say 'It's not George playing the sitar'. I can tell you here and now -- 100 percent it was George on sitar throughout. There were no other musicians involved. It was just me and him." And several people who are more knowledgeable than myself about the instrument have suggested that the sitar part on the track is played the way that a rock guitarist would play rather than the way someone with more knowledge of Indian classical music would play -- there's a blues feeling to some of the bends that apparently no genuine Indian classical musician would naturally do. I would suggest that the best explanation is that there's a professional sitar player trying to replicate a part that Harrison had previously demonstrated, while Harrison was in turn trying his best to replicate the sound of Ravi Shankar's work. Certainly the instrumental section sounds far more fluent, and far more stylistically correct, than one would expect: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Love You To"] Where previous attempts at what got called "raga-rock" had taken a couple of surface features of Indian music -- some form of a drone, perhaps a modal scale -- and had generally used a guitar made to sound a little bit like a sitar, or had a sitar playing normal rock riffs, Harrison's song seems to be a genuine attempt to hybridise Indian ragas and rock music, combining the instrumentation, modes, and rhythmic complexity of someone like Ravi Shankar with lyrics that are seemingly inspired by Bob Dylan and a fairly conventional pop song structure (and a tiny bit of fuzz guitar). It's a record that could only be made by someone who properly understood both the Indian music he's emulating and the conventions of the Western pop song, and understood how those conventions could work together. Indeed, one thing I've rarely seen pointed out is how cleverly the album is sequenced, so that "Love You To" is followed by possibly the most conventional song on Revolver, "Here, There, and Everywhere", which was recorded towards the end of the sessions. Both songs share a distinctive feature not shared by the rest of the album, so the two songs can sound more of a pair than they otherwise would, retrospectively making "Love You To" seem more conventional than it is and "Here, There, and Everywhere" more unconventional -- both have as an introduction a separate piece of music that states some of the melodic themes of the rest of the song but isn't repeated later. In the case of "Love You To" it's the free-tempo bit at the beginning, characteristic of a lot of Indian music: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Love You To"] While in the case of "Here, There, and Everywhere" it's the part that mimics an older style of songwriting, a separate intro of the type that would have been called a verse when written by the Gershwins or Cole Porter, but of course in the intervening decades "verse" had come to mean something else, so we now no longer have a specific term for this kind of intro -- but as you can hear, it's doing very much the same thing as that "Love You To" intro: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Here, There, and Everywhere"] In the same day as the group completed "Love You To", overdubbing George's vocal and Ringo's tambourine, they also started work on a song that would show off a lot of the new techniques they had been working on in very different ways. Paul's "Paperback Writer" could indeed be seen as part of a loose trilogy with "Love You To" and "Tomorrow Never Knows", one song by each of the group's three songwriters exploring the idea of a song that's almost all on one chord. Both "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Love You To" are based on a drone with occasional hints towards moving to one other chord. In the case of "Paperback Writer", the entire song stays on a single chord until the title -- it's on a G7 throughout until the first use of the word "writer", when it quickly goes to a C for two bars. I'm afraid I'm going to have to sing to show you how little the chords actually change, because the riff disguises this lack of movement somewhat, but the melody is also far more horizontal than most of McCartney's, so this shouldn't sound too painful, I hope: [demonstrates] This is essentially the exact same thing that both "Love You To" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" do, and all three have very similarly structured rising and falling modal melodies. There's also a bit of "Paperback Writer" that seems to tie directly into "Love You To", but also points to a possible very non-Indian inspiration for part of "Love You To". The Beach Boys' single "Sloop John B" was released in the UK a couple of days after the sessions for "Paperback Writer" and "Love You To", but it had been released in the US a month before, and the Beatles all got copies of every record in the American top thirty shipped to them. McCartney and Harrison have specifically pointed to it as an influence on "Paperback Writer". "Sloop John B" has a section where all the instruments drop out and we're left with just the group's vocal harmonies: [Excerpt: The Beach Boys, "Sloop John B"] And that seems to have been the inspiration behind the similar moment at a similar point in "Paperback Writer", which is used in place of a middle eight and also used for the song's intro: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Paperback Writer"] Which is very close to what Harrison does at the end of each verse of "Love You To", where the instruments drop out for him to sing a long melismatic syllable before coming back in: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Love You To"] Essentially, other than "Got to Get You Into My Life", which is an outlier and should not be counted, the first three songs attempted during the Revolver sessions are variations on a common theme, and it's a sign that no matter how different the results might  sound, the Beatles really were very much a group at this point, and were sharing ideas among themselves and developing those ideas in similar ways. "Paperback Writer" disguises what it's doing somewhat by having such a strong riff. Lennon referred to "Paperback Writer" as "son of 'Day Tripper'", and in terms of the Beatles' singles it's actually their third iteration of this riff idea, which they originally got from Bobby Parker's "Watch Your Step": [Excerpt: Bobby Parker, "Watch Your Step"] Which became the inspiration for "I Feel Fine": [Excerpt: The Beatles, "I Feel Fine"] Which they varied for "Day Tripper": [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Day Tripper"] And which then in turn got varied for "Paperback Writer": [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Paperback Writer"] As well as compositional ideas, there are sonic ideas shared between "Paperback Writer", "Tomorrow Never Knows", and "Love You To", and which would be shared by the rest of the tracks the Beatles recorded in the first half of 1966. Since Geoff Emerick had become the group's principal engineer, they'd started paying more attention to how to get a fuller sound, and so Emerick had miced the tabla on "Love You To" much more closely than anyone would normally mic an instrument from classical music, creating a deep, thudding sound, and similarly he had changed the way they recorded the drums on "Tomorrow Never Knows", again giving a much fuller sound. But the group also wanted the kind of big bass sounds they'd loved on records coming out of America -- sounds that no British studio was getting, largely because it was believed that if you cut too loud a bass sound into a record it would make the needle jump out of the groove. The new engineering team of Geoff Emerick and Ken Scott, though, thought that it was likely you could keep the needle in the groove if you had a smoother frequency response. You could do that if you used a microphone with a larger diaphragm to record the bass, but how could you do that? Inspiration finally struck -- loudspeakers are actually the same thing as microphones wired the other way round, so if you wired up a loudspeaker as if it were a microphone you could get a *really big* speaker, place it in front of the bass amp, and get a much stronger bass sound. The experiment wasn't a total success -- the sound they got had to be processed quite extensively to get rid of room noise, and then compressed in order to further prevent the needle-jumping issue, and so it's a muddier, less defined, tone than they would have liked, but one thing that can't be denied is that "Paperback Writer"'s bass sound is much, much, louder than on any previous Beatles record: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Paperback Writer"] Almost every track the group recorded during the Revolver sessions involved all sorts of studio innovations, though rarely anything as truly revolutionary as the artificial double-tracking they'd used on "Tomorrow Never Knows", and which also appeared on "Paperback Writer" -- indeed, as "Paperback Writer" was released several months before Revolver, it became the first record released to use the technique. I could easily devote a good ten minutes to every track on Revolver, and to "Paperback Writer"s B-side, "Rain", but this is already shaping up to be an extraordinarily long episode and there's a lot of material to get through, so I'll break my usual pattern of devoting a Patreon bonus episode to something relatively obscure, and this week's bonus will be on "Rain" itself. "Paperback Writer", though, deserved the attention here even though it was not one of the group's more successful singles -- it did go to number one, but it didn't hit number one in the UK charts straight away, being kept off the top by "Strangers in the Night" by Frank Sinatra for the first week: [Excerpt: Frank Sinatra, "Strangers in the Night"] Coincidentally, "Strangers in the Night" was co-written by Bert Kaempfert, the German musician who had produced the group's very first recording sessions with Tony Sheridan back in 1961. On the group's German tour in 1966 they met up with Kaempfert again, and John greeted him by singing the first couple of lines of the Sinatra record. The single was the lowest-selling Beatles single in the UK since "Love Me Do". In the US it only made number one for two non-consecutive weeks, with "Strangers in the Night" knocking it off for a week in between. Now, by literally any other band's standards, that's still a massive hit, and it was the Beatles' tenth UK number one in a row (or ninth, depending on which chart you use for "Please Please Me"), but it's a sign that the group were moving out of the first phase of total unequivocal dominance of the charts. It was a turning point in a lot of other ways as well. Up to this point, while the group had been experimenting with different lyrical subjects on album tracks, every single had lyrics about romantic relationships -- with the possible exception of "Help!", which was about Lennon's emotional state but written in such a way that it could be heard as a plea to a lover. But in the case of "Paperback Writer", McCartney was inspired by his Aunt Mill asking him "Why do you write songs about love all the time? Can you ever write about a horse or the summit conference or something interesting?" His response was to think "All right, Aunt Mill, I'll show you", and to come up with a lyric that was very much in the style of the social satires that bands like the Kinks were releasing at the time. People often miss the humour in the lyric for "Paperback Writer", but there's a huge amount of comedy in lyrics about someone writing to a publisher saying they'd written a book based on someone else's book, and one can only imagine the feeling of weary recognition in slush-pile readers throughout the world as they heard the enthusiastic "It's a thousand pages, give or take a few, I'll be writing more in a week or two. I can make it longer..." From this point on, the group wouldn't release a single that was unambiguously about a romantic relationship until "The Ballad of John and Yoko",  the last single released while the band were still together. "Paperback Writer" also saw the Beatles for the first time making a promotional film -- what we would now call a rock video -- rather than make personal appearances on TV shows. The film was directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg, who the group would work with again in 1969, and shows Paul with a chipped front tooth -- he'd been in an accident while riding mopeds with his friend Tara Browne a few months earlier, and hadn't yet got round to having the tooth capped. When he did, the change in his teeth was one of the many bits of evidence used by conspiracy theorists to prove that the real Paul McCartney was dead and replaced by a lookalike. It also marks a change in who the most prominent Beatle on the group's A-sides was. Up to this point, Paul had had one solo lead on an A-side -- "Can't Buy Me Love" -- and everything else had been either a song with multiple vocalists like "Day Tripper" or "Love Me Do", or a song with a clear John lead like "Ticket to Ride" or "I Feel Fine". In the rest of their career, counting "Paperback Writer", the group would release nine new singles that hadn't already been included on an album. Of those nine singles, one was a double A-side with one John song and one Paul song, two had John songs on the A-side, and the other six were Paul. Where up to this point John had been "lead Beatle", for the rest of the sixties, Paul would be the group's driving force. Oddly, Paul got rather defensive about the record when asked about it in interviews after it failed to go straight to the top, saying "It's not our best single by any means, but we're very satisfied with it". But especially in its original mono mix it actually packs a powerful punch: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Paperback Writer"] When the "Paperback Writer" single was released, an unusual image was used in the advertising -- a photo of the Beatles dressed in butchers' smocks, covered in blood, with chunks of meat and the dismembered body parts of baby dolls lying around on them. The image was meant as part of a triptych parodying religious art -- the photo on the left was to be an image showing the four Beatles connected to a woman by an umbilical cord made of sausages, the middle panel was meant to be this image, but with halos added over the Beatles' heads, and the panel on the right was George hammering a nail into John's head, symbolising both crucifixion and that the group were real, physical, people, not just images to be worshipped -- these weren't imaginary nails, and they weren't imaginary people. The photographer Robert Whittaker later said: “I did a photograph of the Beatles covered in raw meat, dolls and false teeth. Putting meat, dolls and false teeth with The Beatles is essentially part of the same thing, the breakdown of what is regarded as normal. The actual conception for what I still call “Somnambulant Adventure” was Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments. He comes across people worshipping a golden calf. All over the world I'd watched people worshiping like idols, like gods, four Beatles. To me they were just stock standard normal people. But this emotion that fans poured on them made me wonder where Christianity was heading.” The image wasn't that controversial in the UK, when it was used to advertise "Paperback Writer", but in the US it was initially used for the cover of an album, Yesterday... And Today, which was made up of a few tracks that had been left off the US versions of the Rubber Soul and Help! albums, plus both sides of the "We Can Work It Out"/"Day Tripper" single, and three rough mixes of songs that had been recorded for Revolver -- "Doctor Robert", "And Your Bird Can Sing", and "I'm Only Sleeping", which was the song that sounded most different from the mixes that were finally released: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "I'm Only Sleeping (Yesterday... and Today mix)"] Those three songs were all Lennon songs, which had the unfortunate effect that when the US version of Revolver was brought out later in the year, only two of the songs on the album were by Lennon, with six by McCartney and three by Harrison. Some have suggested that this was the motivation for the use of the butcher image on the cover of Yesterday... And Today -- saying it was the Beatles' protest against Capitol "butchering" their albums -- but in truth it was just that Capitol's art director chose the cover because he liked the image. Alan Livingston, the president of Capitol was not so sure, and called Brian Epstein to ask if the group would be OK with them using a different image. Epstein checked with John Lennon, but Lennon liked the image and so Epstein told Livingston the group insisted on them using that cover. Even though for the album cover the bloodstains on the butchers' smocks were airbrushed out, after Capitol had pressed up a million copies of the mono version of the album and two hundred thousand copies of the stereo version, and they'd sent out sixty thousand promo copies, they discovered that no record shops would stock the album with that cover. It cost Capitol more than two hundred thousand dollars to recall the album and replace the cover with a new one -- though while many of the covers were destroyed, others had the new cover, with a more acceptable photo of the group, pasted over them, and people have later carefully steamed off the sticker to reveal the original. This would not be the last time in 1966 that something that was intended as a statement on religion and the way people viewed the Beatles would cause the group trouble in America. In the middle of the recording sessions for Revolver, the group also made what turned out to be their last ever UK live performance in front of a paying audience. The group had played the NME Poll-Winners' Party every year since 1963, and they were always shows that featured all the biggest acts in the country at the time -- the 1966 show featured, as well as the Beatles and a bunch of smaller acts, the Rolling Stones, the Who, the Yardbirds, Roy Orbison, Cliff Richard and the Shadows, the Seekers, the Small Faces, the Walker Brothers, and Dusty Springfield. Unfortunately, while these events were always filmed for TV broadcast, the Beatles' performance on the first of May wasn't filmed. There are various stories about what happened, but the crux appears to be a disagreement between Andrew Oldham and Brian Epstein, sparked by John Lennon. When the Beatles got to the show, they were upset to discover that they had to wait around before going on stage -- normally, the awards would all be presented at the end, after all the performances, but the Rolling Stones had asked that the Beatles not follow them directly, so after the Stones finished their set, there would be a break for the awards to be given out, and then the Beatles would play their set, in front of an audience that had been bored by twenty-five minutes of awards ceremony, rather than one that had been excited by all the bands that came before them. John Lennon was annoyed, and insisted that the Beatles were going to go on straight after the Rolling Stones -- he seems to have taken this as some sort of power play by the Stones and to have got his hackles up about it. He told Epstein to deal with the people from the NME. But the NME people said that they had a contract with Andrew Oldham, and they weren't going to break it. Oldham refused to change the terms of the contract. Lennon said that he wasn't going to go on stage if they didn't directly follow the Stones. Maurice Kinn, the publisher of the NME, told Epstein that he wasn't going to break the contract with Oldham, and that if the Beatles didn't appear on stage, he would get Jimmy Savile, who was compering the show, to go out on stage and tell the ten thousand fans in the audience that the Beatles were backstage refusing to appear. He would then sue NEMS for breach of contract *and* NEMS would be liable for any damage caused by the rioting that was sure to happen. Lennon screamed a lot of abuse at Kinn, and told him the group would never play one of their events again, but the group did go on stage -- but because they hadn't yet signed the agreement to allow their performance to be filmed, they refused to allow it to be recorded. Apparently Andrew Oldham took all this as a sign that Epstein was starting to lose control of the group. Also during May 1966 there were visits from musicians from other countries, continuing the cultural exchange that was increasingly influencing the Beatles' art. Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys came over to promote the group's new LP, Pet Sounds, which had been largely the work of Brian Wilson, who had retired from touring to concentrate on working in the studio. Johnston played the record for John and Paul, who listened to it twice, all the way through, in silence, in Johnston's hotel room: [Excerpt: The Beach Boys, "God Only Knows"] According to Johnston, after they'd listened through the album twice, they went over to a piano and started whispering to each other, picking out chords. Certainly the influence of Pet Sounds is very noticeable on songs like "Here, There, and Everywhere", written and recorded a few weeks after this meeting: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "Here, There, and Everywhere"] That track, and the last track recorded for the album, "She Said She Said" were unusual in one very important respect -- they were recorded while the Beatles were no longer under contract to EMI Records. Their contract expired on the fifth of June, 1966, and they finished Revolver without it having been renewed -- it would be several months before their new contract was signed, and it's rather lucky for music lovers that Brian Epstein was the kind of manager who considered personal relationships and basic honour and decency more important than the legal niceties, unlike any other managers of the era, otherwise we would not have Revolver in the form we know it today. After the meeting with Johnston, but before the recording of those last couple of Revolver tracks, the Beatles also met up again with Bob Dylan, who was on a UK tour with a new, loud, band he was working with called The Hawks. While the Beatles and Dylan all admired each other, there was by this point a lot of wariness on both sides, especially between Lennon and Dylan, both of them very similar personality types and neither wanting to let their guard down around the other or appear unhip. There's a famous half-hour-long film sequence of Lennon and Dylan sharing a taxi, which is a fascinating, excruciating, example of two insecure but arrogant men both trying desperately to impress the other but also equally desperate not to let the other know that they want to impress them: [Excerpt: Dylan and Lennon taxi ride] The day that was filmed, Lennon and Harrison also went to see Dylan play at the Royal Albert Hall. This tour had been controversial, because Dylan's band were loud and raucous, and Dylan's fans in the UK still thought of him as a folk musician. At one gig, earlier on the tour, an audience member had famously yelled out "Judas!" -- (just on the tiny chance that any of my listeners don't know that, Judas was the disciple who betrayed Jesus to the authorities, leading to his crucifixion) -- and that show was for many years bootlegged as the "Royal Albert Hall" show, though in fact it was recorded at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester. One of the *actual* Royal Albert Hall shows was released a few years ago -- the one the night before Lennon and Harrison saw Dylan: [Excerpt: Bob Dylan, "Like a Rolling Stone", Royal Albert Hall 1966] The show Lennon and Harrison saw would be Dylan's last for many years. Shortly after returning to the US, Dylan was in a motorbike accident, the details of which are still mysterious, and which some fans claim was faked altogether. The accident caused him to cancel all the concert dates he had booked, and devote himself to working in the studio for several years just like Brian Wilson. And from even further afield than America, Ravi Shankar came over to Britain, to work with his friend the violinist Yehudi Menuhin, on a duet album, West Meets East, that was an example in the classical world of the same kind of international cross-fertilisation that was happening in the pop world: [Excerpt: Yehudi Menuhin and Ravi Shankar, "Prabhati (based on Raga Gunkali)"] While he was in the UK, Shankar also performed at the Royal Festival Hall, and George Harrison went to the show. He'd seen Shankar live the year before, but this time he met up with him afterwards, and later said "He was the first person that impressed me in a way that was beyond just being a famous celebrity. Ravi was my link to the Vedic world. Ravi plugged me into the whole of reality. Elvis impressed me when I was a kid, and impressed me when I met him, but you couldn't later on go round to him and say 'Elvis, what's happening with the universe?'" After completing recording and mixing the as-yet-unnamed album, which had been by far the longest recording process of their career, and which still nearly sixty years later regularly tops polls of the best album of all time, the Beatles took a well-earned break. For a whole two days, at which point they flew off to Germany to do a three-day tour, on their way to Japan, where they were booked to play five shows at the Budokan. Unfortunately for the group, while they had no idea of this when they were booked to do the shows, many in Japan saw the Budokan as sacred ground, and they were the first ever Western group to play there. This led to numerous death threats and loud protests from far-right activists offended at the Beatles defiling their religious and nationalistic sensibilities. As a result, the police were on high alert -- so high that there were three thousand police in the audience for the shows, in a venue which only held ten thousand audience members. That's according to Mark Lewisohn's Complete Beatles Chronicle, though I have to say that the rather blurry footage of the audience in the video of those shows doesn't seem to show anything like those numbers. But frankly I'll take Lewisohn's word over that footage, as he's not someone to put out incorrect information. The threats to the group also meant that they had to be kept in their hotel rooms at all times except when actually performing, though they did make attempts to get out. At the press conference for the Tokyo shows, the group were also asked publicly for the first time their views on the war in Vietnam, and John replied "Well, we think about it every day, and we don't agree with it and we think that it's wrong. That's how much interest we take. That's all we can do about it... and say that we don't like it". I say they were asked publicly for the first time, because George had been asked about it for a series of interviews Maureen Cleave had done with the group a couple of months earlier, as we'll see in a bit, but nobody was paying attention to those interviews. Brian Epstein was upset that the question had gone to John. He had hoped that the inevitable Vietnam question would go to Paul, who he thought might be a bit more tactful. The last thing he needed was John Lennon saying something that would upset the Americans before their tour there a few weeks later. Luckily, people in America seemed to have better things to do than pay attention to John Lennon's opinions. The support acts for the Japanese shows included  several of the biggest names in Japanese rock music -- or "group sounds" as the genre was called there, Japanese people having realised that trying to say the phrase "rock and roll" would open them up to ridicule given that it had both "r" and "l" sounds in the phrase. The man who had coined the term "group sounds", Jackey Yoshikawa, was there with his group the Blue Comets, as was Isao Bito, who did a rather good cover version of Cliff Richard's "Dynamite": [Excerpt: Isao Bito, "Dynamite"] Bito, the Blue Comets, and the other two support acts, Yuya Uchida and the Blue Jeans, all got together to perform a specially written song, "Welcome Beatles": [Excerpt: "Welcome Beatles" ] But while the Japanese audience were enthusiastic, they were much less vocal about their enthusiasm than the audiences the Beatles were used to playing for. The group were used, of course, to playing in front of hordes of screaming teenagers who could not hear a single note, but because of the fear that a far-right terrorist would assassinate one of the group members, the police had imposed very, very, strict rules on the audience. Nobody in the audience was allowed to get out of their seat for any reason, and the police would clamp down very firmly on anyone who was too demonstrative. Because of that, the group could actually hear themselves, and they sounded sloppy as hell, especially on the newer material. Not that there was much of that. The only song they did from the Revolver sessions was "Paperback Writer", the new single, and while they did do a couple of tracks from Rubber Soul, those were under-rehearsed. As John said at the start of this tour, "I can't play any of Rubber Soul, it's so unrehearsed. The only time I played any of the numbers on it was when I recorded it. I forget about songs. They're only valid for a certain time." That's certainly borne out by the sound of their performances of Rubber Soul material at the Budokan: [Excerpt: The Beatles, "If I Needed Someone (live at the Budokan)"] It was while they were in Japan as well that they finally came up with the title for their new album. They'd been thinking of all sorts of ideas, like Abracadabra and Magic Circle, and tossing names around with increasing desperation for several days -- at one point they seem to have just started riffing on other groups' albums, and seem to have apparently seriously thought about naming the record in parodic tribute to their favourite artists -- suggestions included The Beatles On Safari, after the Beach Boys' Surfin' Safari (and possibly with a nod to their recent Pet Sounds album cover with animals, too), The Freewheelin' Beatles, after Dylan's second album, and my favourite, Ringo's suggestion After Geography, for the Rolling Stones' Aftermath. But eventually Paul came up with Revolver -- like Rubber Soul, a pun, in this case because the record itself revolves when on a turntable. Then it was off to the Philippines, and if the group thought Japan had been stressful, they had no idea what was coming. The trouble started in the Philippines from the moment they stepped off the plane, when they were bundled into a car without Neil Aspinall or Brian Epstein, and without their luggage, which was sent to customs. This was a problem in itself -- the group had got used to essentially being treated like diplomats, and to having their baggage let through customs without being searched, and so they'd started freely carrying various illicit substances with them. This would obviously be a problem -- but as it turned out, this was just to get a "customs charge" paid by Brian Epstein. But during their initial press conference the group were worried, given the hostility they'd faced from officialdom, that they were going to be arrested during the conference itself. They were asked what they would tell the Rolling Stones, who were going to be visiting the Philippines shortly after, and Lennon just said "We'll warn them". They also asked "is there a war on in the Philippines? Why is everybody armed?" At this time, the Philippines had a new leader, Ferdinand Marcos -- who is not to be confused with his son, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, also known as Bongbong Marcos, who just became President-Elect there last month. Marcos Sr was a dictatorial kleptocrat, one of the worst leaders of the latter half of the twentieth century, but that wasn't evident yet. He'd been elected only a few months earlier, and had presented himself as a Kennedy-like figure -- a young man who was also a war hero. He'd recently switched parties from the Liberal party to the right-wing Nacionalista Party, but wasn't yet being thought of as the monstrous dictator he later became. The person organising the Philippines shows had been ordered to get the Beatles to visit Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos at 11AM on the day of the show, but for some reason had instead put on their itinerary just the *suggestion* that the group should meet the Marcoses, and had put the time down as 3PM, and the Beatles chose to ignore that suggestion -- they'd refused to do that kind of government-official meet-and-greet ever since an incident in 1964 at the British Embassy in Washington where someone had cut off a bit of Ringo's hair. A military escort turned up at the group's hotel in the morning, to take them for their meeting. The group were all still in their rooms, and Brian Epstein was still eating breakfast and refused to disturb them, saying "Go back and tell the generals we're not coming." The group gave their performances as scheduled, but meanwhile there was outrage at the way the Beatles had refused to meet the Marcos family, who had brought hundreds of children -- friends of their own children, and relatives of top officials -- to a party to meet the group. Brian Epstein went on TV and tried to smooth things over, but the broadcast was interrupted by static and his message didn't get through to anyone. The next day, the group's security was taken away, as were the cars to take them to the airport. When they got to the airport, the escalators were turned off and the group were beaten up at the arrangement of the airport manager, who said in 1984 "I beat up the Beatles. I really thumped them. First I socked Epstein and he went down... then I socked Lennon and Ringo in the face. I was kicking them. They were pleading like frightened chickens. That's what happens when you insult the First Lady." Even on the plane there were further problems -- Brian Epstein and the group's road manager Mal Evans were both made to get off the plane to sort out supposed financial discrepancies, which led to them worrying that they were going to be arrested or worse -- Evans told the group to tell his wife he loved her as he left the plane. But eventually, they were able to leave, and after a brief layover in India -- which Ringo later said was the first time he felt he'd been somewhere truly foreign, as opposed to places like Germany or the USA which felt basically like home -- they got back to England: [Excerpt: "Ordinary passenger!"] When asked what they were going to do next, George replied “We're going to have a couple of weeks to recuperate before we go and get beaten up by the Americans,” The story of the "we're bigger than Jesus" controversy is one of the most widely misreported events in the lives of the Beatles, which is saying a great deal. One book that I've encountered, and one book only, Steve Turner's Beatles '66, tells the story of what actually happened, and even that book seems to miss some emphases. I've pieced what follows together from Turner's book and from an academic journal article I found which has some more detail. As far as I can tell, every single other book on the Beatles released up to this point bases their account of the story on an inaccurate press statement put out by Brian Epstein, not on the truth. Here's the story as it's generally told. John Lennon gave an interview to his friend, Maureen Cleave of the Evening Standard, during which he made some comments about how it was depressing that Christianity was losing relevance in the eyes of the public, and that the Beatles are more popular than Jesus, speaking casually because he was talking to a friend. That story was run in the Evening Standard more-or-less unnoticed, but then an American teen magazine picked up on the line about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus, reprinted chunks of the interview out of context and without the Beatles' knowledge or permission, as a way to stir up controversy, and there was an outcry, with people burning Beatles records and death threats from the Ku Klux Klan. That's... not exactly what happened. The first thing that you need to understand to know what happened is that Datebook wasn't a typical teen magazine. It *looked* just like a typical teen magazine, certainly, and much of its content was the kind of thing that you would get in Tiger Beat or any of the other magazines aimed at teenage girls -- the September 1966 issue was full of articles like "Life with the Walker Brothers... by their Road Manager", and interviews with the Dave Clark Five -- but it also had a long history of publishing material that was intended to make its readers think about social issues of the time, particularly Civil Rights. Arthur Unger, the magazine's editor and publisher, was a gay man in an interracial relationship, and while the subject of homosexuality was too taboo in the late fifties and sixties for him to have his magazine cover that, he did regularly include articles decrying segregation and calling for the girls reading the magazine to do their part on a personal level to stamp out racism. Datebook had regularly contained articles like one from 1963 talking about how segregation wasn't just a problem in the South, saying "If we are so ‘integrated' why must men in my own city of Philadelphia, the city of Brotherly Love, picket city hall because they are discriminated against when it comes to getting a job? And how come I am still unable to take my dark- complexioned friends to the same roller skating rink or swimming pool that I attend?” One of the writers for the magazine later said “We were much more than an entertainment magazine . . . . We tried to get kids involved in social issues . . . . It was a well-received magazine, recommended by libraries and schools, but during the Civil Rights period we did get pulled off a lot of stands in the South because of our views on integration” Art Unger, the editor and publisher, wasn't the only one pushing this liberal, integrationist, agenda. The managing editor at the time, Danny Fields, was another gay man who wanted to push the magazine even further than Unger, and who would later go on to manage the Stooges and the Ramones, being credited by some as being the single most important figure in punk rock's development, and being immortalised by the Ramones in their song "Danny Says": [Excerpt: The Ramones, "Danny Says"] So this was not a normal teen magazine, and that's certainly shown by the cover of the September 1966 issue, which as well as talking about the interviews with John Lennon and Paul McCartney inside, also advertised articles on Timothy Leary advising people to turn on, tune in, and drop out; an editorial about how interracial dating must be the next step after desegregation of schools, and a piece on "the ten adults you dig/hate the most" -- apparently the adult most teens dug in 1966 was Jackie Kennedy, the most hated was Barry Goldwater, and President Johnson, Billy Graham, and Martin Luther King appeared in the top ten on both lists. Now, in the early part of the year Maureen Cleave had done a whole series of articles on the Beatles -- double-page spreads on each band member, plus Brian Epstein, visiting them in their own homes (apart from Paul, who she met at a restaurant) and discussing their daily lives, their thoughts, and portraying them as rounded individuals. These articles are actually fascinating, because of something that everyone who met the Beatles in this period pointed out. When interviewed separately, all of them came across as thoughtful individuals, with their own opinions about all sorts of subjects, and their own tastes and senses of humour. But when two or more of them were together -- especially when John and Paul were interviewed together, but even in social situations, they would immediately revert to flip in-jokes and riffing on each other's statements, never revealing anything about themselves as individuals, but just going into Beatle mode -- simultaneously preserving the band's image, closing off outsiders, *and* making sure they didn't do or say anything that would get them mocked by the others. Cleave, as someone who actually took them all seriously, managed to get some very revealing information about all of them. In the article on Ringo, which is the most superficial -- one gets the impression that Cleave found him rather difficult to talk to when compared to the other, more verbally facile, band members -- she talked about how he had a lot of Wild West and military memorabilia, how he was a devoted family man and also devoted to his friends -- he had moved to the suburbs to be close to John and George, who already lived there. The most revealing quote about Ringo's personality was him saying "Of course that's the great thing about being married -- you have a house to sit in and company all the time. And you can still go to clubs, a bonus for being married. I love being a family man." While she looked at the other Beatles' tastes in literature in detail, she'd noted that the only books Ringo owned that weren't just for show were a few science fiction paperbacks, but that as he said "I'm not thick, it's just that I'm not educated. People can use words and I won't know what they mean. I say 'me' instead of 'my'." Ringo also didn't have a drum kit at home, saying he only played when he was on stage or in the studio, and that you couldn't practice on your own, you needed to play with other people. In the article on George, she talked about how he was learning the sitar,  and how he was thinking that it might be a good idea to go to India to study the sitar with Ravi Shankar for six months. She also talks about how during the interview, he played the guitar pretty much constantly, playing everything from songs from "Hello Dolly" to pieces by Bach to "the Trumpet Voluntary", by which she presumably means Clarke's "Prince of Denmark's March": [Excerpt: Jeremiah Clarke, "Prince of Denmark's March"] George was also the most outspoken on the subjects of politics, religion, and society, linking the ongoing war in Vietnam with the UK's reverence for the Second World War, saying "I think about it every day and it's wrong. Anything to do with war is wrong. They're all wrapped up in their Nelsons and their Churchills and their Montys -- always talking about war heroes. Look at All Our Yesterdays [a show on ITV that showed twenty-five-year-old newsreels] -- how we killed a few more Huns here and there. Makes me sick. They're the sort who are leaning on their walking sticks and telling us a few years in the army would do us good." He also had very strong words to say about religion, saying "I think religion falls flat on its face. All this 'love thy neighbour' but none of them are doing it. How can anybody get into the position of being Pope and accept all the glory and the money and the Mercedes-Benz and that? I could never be Pope until I'd sold my rich gates and my posh hat. I couldn't sit there with all that money on me and believe I was religious. Why can't we bring all this out in the open? Why is there all this stuff about blasphemy? If Christianity's as good as they say it is, it should stand up to a bit of discussion." Harrison also comes across as a very private person, saying "People keep saying, ‘We made you what you are,' well, I made Mr. Hovis what he is and I don't go round crawling over his gates and smashing up the wall round his house." (Hovis is a British company that makes bread and wholegrain flour). But more than anything else he comes across as an instinctive anti-authoritarian, being angry at bullying teachers, Popes, and Prime Ministers. McCartney's profile has him as the most self-consciously arty -- he talks about the plays of Alfred Jarry and the music of Karlheinz Stockhausen and Luciano Berio: [Excerpt: Luciano Berio, "Momenti (for magnetic tape)"] Though he was very worried that he might be sounding a little too pretentious, saying “I don't want to sound like Jonathan Miller going on" --

The Christian's privileged position: Access, Satisfaction and Proximity.

Wealth does not give joy, God gives joy.

Just what would it take for a truck stop to offer charging for long-haul electric trucks? We talk to Delia Meier of the Iowa 80 Group and CAT Scale to get the truck-stop view on that and on driver satisfaction. This episode of HDT's Leadership Insights podcast is sponsored by, and produced in partnership with, CAT Scale and its WeighMyTruck app. In this episode: The push to reduce trucking's carbon footprint The challenges of long-haul trucking electrification Driver shortage and productivity Keeping drivers happy Resources: Iowa 80 Truck Stop Behind the News: Clean-Truck Trends from ACT Expo [Video] Follow and connect with HDT on social media: LinkedIn Facebook Twitter

Full Description / Show Notes Steren and Corey talk about how Google Cloud Run got its name (00:49) Corey talks about his experiences using Google Cloud (2:42) Corey and Steven discuss Google Cloud's cloud run custom domains (10:01) Steren talks about Cloud Run's high developer satisfaction and scalability (15:54) Corey and Steven talk about Cloud Run releases at Google I/O (23:21) Steren discusses the majority of developer and customer interest in Google's cloud product (25:33) Steren talks about his 20% projects around sustainability (29:00) About SterenSteren is a Senior Product Manager at Google Cloud. He is part of the serverless team, leading Cloud Run. He is also working on sustainability, leading the Google Cloud Carbon Footprint product.Steren is an engineer from École Centrale (France). Prior to joining Google, he was CTO of a startup building connected objects and multi device solutions.Links Referenced: Google Cloud Run: https://cloud.run sheets-url-shortener: https://github.com/ahmetb/sheets-url-shortener snark.cloud/run: https://snark.cloud/run Twitter: https://twitter.com/steren TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. I'm joined today by Steren Giannini, who is a senior product manager at Google Cloud, specifically on something called Google Cloud Run. Steren, thank you for joining me today.Steren: Thanks for inviting me, Corey.Corey: So, I want to start at the very beginning of, “Oh, a cloud service. What are we going to call it?” “Well, let's put the word cloud in it.” “Okay, great. Now, it is cloud, so we have to give it a vague and unassuming name. What does it do?” “It runs things.” “Genius. Let's break and go for work.” Now, it's easy to imagine that you spent all of 30 seconds on a name, but it never works that way. How easy was it to get to Cloud Run as a name for the service?Steren: [laugh]. Such a good question because originally it was not named Cloud Run at all. The original name was Google Serverless Engine. But a few people know that because they've been helping us since the beginning, but originally it was Google Serverless Engine. Nobody liked the name internally, and I think at one point, we wondered, “Hey, can we drop the engine structure and let's just think about the name. And what does this thing do?” “It runs things.”We already have Cloud Build. Well, wouldn't it be great to have Cloud Run to pair with Cloud Build so that after you've built your containers, you can run them? And that's how we ended up with this very simple Cloud Run, which today seems so obvious, but it took us a long time to get to that name, and we actually had a lot of renaming to do because we were about to ship with Google Serverless Engine.Corey: That seems like a very interesting last-minute change because it's not just a find and replace at that point, it's—Steren: No.Corey: —“Well, okay, if we call it Cloud Run, which can also be a verb or a noun, depending, is that going to change the meaning of some sentences?” And just doing a find and replace without a proofread pass as well, well, that's how you wind up with funny things on Twitter.Steren: API endpoints needed to be changed, adding weeks of delays to the launch. That is why we—you know, [laugh] announced in 2018 and publicly launched in 2019.Corey: I've been doing a fair bit of work in cloud for a while, and I wound up going down a very interesting path. So, the first native Google Cloud service—not things like WP Engine that ride on top of GCP—but my first native Google Cloud Service was done in service of this podcast, and it is built on Google Cloud Run. I don't think I've told you part of this story yet, but it's one of the reasons I reached out to invite you onto the show. Let me set the stage here with a little bit of backstory that might explain what the hell I'm talking about.As listeners of this show are probably aware, we have sponsors whom we love and adore. In the early days of this show, they would say, “Great, we want to tell people about our product”—which is the point of a sponsorship—“And then send them to a URL.” “Great. What's the URL?” And they would give me something that was three layers deep, then with a bunch of UTM tracking parameters at the end.And it's, “You do realize that no one is going to be sitting there typing all of that into a web browser?” At best, you're going to get three words or so. So, I built myself a URL redirector, snark.cloud. I can wind up redirecting things in there anywhere it needs to go.And for a long time, I did this on top of S3 and then put CloudFront in front of it. And this was all well and good until, you know, things happened in the fullness of time. And now holy crap, I have an operations team involved in things, and maybe I shouldn't be the only person that knows how to work on all of these bits and bobs. So, it was time to come up with something that had a business user-friendly interface that had some level of security, so I don't wind up automatically building out a spam redirect service for anything that wants to, and it needs to be something that's easy to work with. So, I went on an exploration.So, at first it showed that there were—like, I have an article out that I've spoken about before that there are, “17 Ways to Run Containers on AWS,” and then I wrote the sequel, “17 More Ways to Run Containers on AWS.” And I'm keeping a list, I'm almost to the third installation of that series, which is awful. So, great. There's got to be some ways to build some URL redirect stuff with an interface that has an admin panel. And I spent three days on this trying a bunch of different things, and some were running on deprecated versions of Node that wouldn't build properly and others were just such complex nonsense things that had got really bad. I was starting to consider something like just paying for Bitly or whatnot and making it someone else's problem.And then I stumbled upon something on GitHub that really was probably one of the formative things that changed my opinion of Google Cloud for the better. And within half an hour of discovering this thing, it was up and running. I did the entire thing, start to finish, from my iPad in a web browser, and it just worked. It was written by—let me make sure I get his name correct; you know, messing up someone's name is a great way to say that we don't care about them—Ahmet Balkan used to work at Google Cloud; now he's over at Twitter. And he has something up on GitHub that is just absolutely phenomenal about this, called sheets-url-shortener.And this is going to sound wild, but stick with me. The interface is simply a Google Sheet, where you have one column that has the shorthand slug—for example, run; if you go to snark.cloud/run, it will redirect to Google Cloud Run's website. And the second column is where you want it to go. The end.And whenever that gets updated, there's of course some caching issues, which means it can take up to five seconds from finishing that before it will actually work across the entire internet. And as best I can tell, that is fundamentally magic. But what made it particularly useful and magic, from my perspective, was how easy it was to get up and running. There was none of this oh, but then you have to integrate it with Google Sheets and that's a whole ‘nother team so there's no way you're going to be able to figure that out from our Docs. Go talk to them and then come back in the day.They were the get started, click here to proceed. It just worked. And it really brought back some of the magic of cloud for me in a way that I hadn't seen in quite a while. So, all which is to say, amazing service, I continue to use it for all of these sponsored links, and I am still waiting for you folks to bill me, but it fits comfortably in the free tier because it turns out that I don't have hundreds of thousands of people typing it in every week.Steren: I'm glad it went well. And you know, we measure tasks success for Cloud Run. And we do know that most new users are able to deploy their apps very quickly. And that was the case for you. Just so you know, we've put a lot of effort to make sure it was true, and I'll be glad to tell you more about all that.But for that particular service, yes, I suppose Ahmet—who I really enjoyed working with on Cloud Run, he was really helpful designing Cloud Run with us—has open-sourced this side project. And basically, you might even have clicked on a deploy to Cloud Run button on GitHub, right, to deploy it?Corey: That is exactly what I did and it somehow just worked and—Steren: Exactly.Corey: And it knew, even logging into the Google Cloud Console because it understands who I am because I use Google Docs and things, I'm already logged in. None of this, “Oh, which one of these 85 credential sets is it going to be?” Like certain other clouds. It was, “Oh, wow. Wait, cloud can be easy and fun? When did that happen?”Steren: So, what has happened when you click that deploy to Google Cloud button, basically, the GitHub repository was built into a container with Cloud Build and then was deployed to Cloud Run. And once on Cloud Run, well, hopefully, you have forgotten about it because that's what we do, right? We—give us your code, in a container if you know containers if you don't just—we support, you know, many popular languages, and we know how to build them, so don't worry about that. And then we run it. And as you said, when there is low traffic or no traffic, it scales to zero.When there is low traffic, you're likely going to stay under the generous free tier. And if you have more traffic for, you know, Screaming in the Cloud suddenly becoming a high destination URL redirects, well, Cloud Run will scale the number of instances of this container to be able to handle the load. Cloud Run scales automatically and very well, but only—as always—charging you when you are processing some requests.Corey: I had to fork and make a couple of changes myself after I wound up doing some testing. The first was to make the entire thing case insensitive, which is—you know, makes obvious sense. And the other was to change the permanent redirect to a temporary redirect because believe it or not, in the fullness of time, sometimes sponsors want to change the landing page in different ways for different campaigns and that's fine by me. I just wanted to make sure people's browser cache didn't remember it into perpetuity. But it was easy enough to run—that was back in the early days of my exploring Go, which I've been doing this quarter—and in the couple of months this thing has been running it has been effectively flawless.It's set it; it's forget it. The only challenges I had with it are it was a little opaque getting a custom domain set up that—which is still in beta, to be clear—and I've heard some horror stories of people saying it got wedged. In my case, no, I deployed it and I started refreshing it and suddenly, it start throwing an SSL error. And it's like, “Oh, that's not good, but I'm going to break my own lifestyle here and be patient for ten minutes.” And sure enough, it cleared itself and everything started working. And that was the last time I had to think about any of this. And it just worked.Steren: So first, Cloud Run is HTTPS only. Why? Because it's 2020, right? It's 2022, but—Corey: [laugh].Steren: —it's launched in 2020. And so basically, we have made a decision that let's just not accept HTTP traffic; it's only HTTPS. As a consequence, we need to provision a cert for your custom domain. That is something that can take some time. And as you said, we keep it in beta or in preview because we are not yet satisfied with the experience or even the performance of Cloud Run custom domains, so we are actively working on fixing that with a different approach. So, expect some changes, hopefully, this year.Corey: I will say it does take a few seconds when people go to a snark.cloud URL for it to finish resolving, and it feels on some level like it's almost like a cold start problem. But subsequent visits, the same thing also feel a little on the slow and pokey side. And I don't know if that's just me being wildly impatient, if there's an optimization opportunity, or if that's just inherent to the platform that is not under current significant load.Steren: So, it depends. If the Cloud Run service has scaled down to zero, well of course, your service will need to be started. But what we do know, if it's a small Go binary, like something that you mentioned, it should really take less than, let's say, 500 milliseconds to go from zero to one of your container instance. Latency can also be due to the way the code is running. If it occurred is fetching things from Google Sheets at every startup, that is something that could add to the startup latency.So, I would need to take a look, but in general, we are not spinning up a virtual machine anytime we need to scale horizontally. Like, our infrastructure is a multi-tenant, rapidly scalable infrastructure that can materialize a container in literally 300 milliseconds. The rest of the latency comes from what does the container do at startup time?Corey: Yeah, I just ran a quick test of putting time in front of a curl command. It looks like it took 4.83 seconds. So, enough to be perceptive. But again, for just a quick redirect, it's generally not the end of the world and there's probably something I'm doing that is interesting and odd. Again, I did not invite you on the show to file a—Steren: [laugh].Corey: Bug report. Let's be very clear here.Steren: Seems on the very high end of startup latencies. I mean, I would definitely expect under the second. We should deep-dive into the code to take a look. And by the way, building stuff on top of spreadsheets. I've done that a ton in my previous lives as a CTO of a startup because well, that's the best administration interface, right? You just have a CRUD UI—Corey: [unintelligible 00:12:29] world and all business users understand it. If people in Microsoft decided they were going to change Microsoft Excel interface, even a bit, they would revert the change before noon of the same day after an army of business users grabbed pitchforks and torches and marched on their headquarters. It's one of those things that is how the world runs; it is the world's most common IDE. And it's great, but I still think of databases through the lens of thinking about it as a spreadsheet as my default approach to things. I also think of databases as DNS, but that's neither here nor there.Steren: You know, if you have maybe 100 redirects, that's totally fine. And by the way, the beauty of Cloud Run in a spreadsheet, as you mentioned is that Cloud Run services run with a certain identity. And this identity, you can grant it permissions. And in that case, what I would recommend if you haven't done so yet, is to give an identity to your Cloud Run service that has the permission to read that particular spreadsheet. And how you do that you invite the email of the service account as a reader of your spreadsheet, and that's probably what you did.Corey: The click button to the workflow on Google Cloud automatically did that—Steren: Oh, wow.Corey: —and taught me how to do it. “Here's the thing that look at. The end.” It was a flawless user-onboarding experience.Steren: Very nicely done. But indeed, you know, there is this built-in security which is the principle of minimal permission, like each of your Cloud Run service should basically only be able to read and write to the backing resources that they should. And by default, we give you a service account which has a lot of permissions, but our recommendation is to narrow those permissions to basically only look at the cloud storage buckets that the service is supposed to look at. And the same for a spreadsheet.Corey: Yes, on some level, I feel like I'm going to write an analysis of my own security approach. It would be titled, “My God, It's Full Of Stars” as I look at the IAM policies of everything that I've configured. The idea of least privilege is great. What I like about this approach is that it made it easy to do it so I don't have to worry about it. At one point, I want to go back and wind up instrumenting it a bit further, just so I can wind up getting aggregate numbers of all right, how many times if someone visited this particular link? It'll be good to know.And I don't know… if I have to change permissions to do that yet, but that's okay. It's the best kind of problem: future Corey. So, we'll deal with that when the time comes. But across the board, this has just been a phenomenal experience and it's clear that when you were building Google Cloud Run, you understood the assignment. Because I was looking for people saying negative things about it and by and large, all of its seem to come from a perspective of, “Well, this isn't going to be the most cost-effective or best way to run something that is hyperscale, globe-spanning.”It's yes, that's the thing that Kubernetes was originally built to run and for some godforsaken reason people run their blog on it instead now. Okay. For something that is small, scales to zero, and has long periods where no one is visiting it, great, this is a terrific answer and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's clear that you understood who you were aiming at, and the migration strategy to something that is a bit more, I want to say robust, but let's be clear what I mean when I'm saying that if you want something that's a little bit more impressive on your SRE resume as you're trying a multi-year project to get hired by Google or pretend you got hired by Google, yeah, you can migrate to something else in a relatively straightforward way. But that this is up, running, and works without having to think about it, and that is no small thing.Steren: So, there are two things to say here. The first is yes, indeed, we know we have high developer satisfaction. You know, we measure this—in Google Cloud, you might have seen those small satisfaction surveys popping up sometimes on the user interface, and you know, we are above 90% satisfaction score. We hire third parties to help us understand how usable and what satisfaction score would users get out of Cloud Run, and we are constantly getting very, very good results, in absolute but also compared to the competition.Now, the other thing that you said is that, you know, Cloud Run is for small things, and here while it is definitely something that allows you to be productive, something that strives for simplicity, but it also scales a lot. And contrary to other systems, you do not have any pre-provisioning to make. So, we have done demos where we go from zero to 10,000 container instances in ten seconds because of the infrastructure on which Cloud Run runs, which is fully managed and multi-tenant, we can offer you this scale on demand. And many of our biggest customers have actually not switched to something like Kubernetes after starting with Cloud Run because they value the low maintenance, the no infrastructure management that Cloud Run brings them.So, we have like Ikea, ecobee… for example ecobee, you know, the smart thermostats are using Cloud Run to ingest events from the thermostat. I think Ikea is using Cloud Run more and more for more of their websites. You know, those companies scale, right? This is not, like, scale to zero hobby project. This is actually production e-commerce and connected smart objects production systems that have made the choice of being on a fully-managed platform in order to reduce their operational overhead.[midroll 00:17:54]Corey: Let me be clear. When I say scale—I think we might be talking past each other on a small point here. When I say scale, I'm talking less about oh tens or hundreds of thousands of containers running concurrently. I'm talking in a more complicated way of, okay, now we have a whole bunch of different microservices talking to one another and affinity as far as location to each other for data transfer reasons. And as you start beginning to service discovery style areas of things, where we build a really complicated applications because we hired engineers and failed to properly supervise them, and that type of convoluted complex architecture.That's where it feels like Cloud Run increasingly, as you move in that direction, starts to look a little bit less like the tool of choice. Which is fine, I want to be clear on that point. The sense that I've gotten of it is a great way to get started, it's a great way to continue running a thing you don't have to think about because you have a day job that isn't infrastructure management. And it is clear to—as your needs change—to either remain with the service or pivot to a very close service without a whole lot of retooling, which is key. There's not much of a lock-in story to this, which I love.Steren: That was one of the key principles when we started to design Cloud Run was, you know, we realized the industry had agreed that the container image was the standard for the deployment artifact of software. And so, we just made the early choice of focusing on deploying containers. Of course, we are helping users build those containers, you know, we have things called build packs, we can continuously deploy from GitHub, but at the end of the day, the thing that gets auto-scaled on Cloud Run is a container. And that enables portability.As you said. You can literally run the same container, nothing proprietary in it, I want to be clear. Like, you're just listening on a port for some incoming requests. Those requests can be HTTP requests, events, you know, we have products that can push events to Cloud Run like Eventarc or Pub/Sub. And this same container, you can run it on your local machine, you can run it on Kubernetes, you can run it on another cloud. You're not locked in, in terms of API of the compute.We even went even above and beyond by having the Cloud Run API looks like a Kubernetes API. I think that was an extra effort that we made. I'm not sure people care that much, but if you look at the Cloud Run API, it is actually exactly looking like Kubernetes, Even if there is no Kubernetes at all under the hood; we just made it for portability. Because we wanted to address this concern of serverless which was lock-in. Like, when you use a Function as a Service product, you are worried that the architecture that you are going to develop around this product is going to be only working in this particular cloud provider, and you're not in control of the language, the version that this provider has decided to offer you, you're not in control of more of the complexity that can come as you want to scan this code, as you want to move this code between staging and production or test this code.So, containers are really helping with that. So, I think we made the right choice of this new artifact that to build Cloud Run around the container artifact. And you know, at the time when we launched, it was a little bit controversial because back in the day, you know, 2018, 2019, serverless really meant Functions as a Service. So, when we launched, we little bit redefined serverless. And we basically said serverless containers. Which at the time were two worlds that in the same sentence were incompatible. Like, many people, including internally, had concerns around—Corey: Oh, the serverless versus container war was a big thing for a while. Everyone was on a different side of that divide. It's… containers are effectively increasingly—and I know, I'll get email for this, and I don't even slightly care, they're a packaging format—Steren: Exactly.Corey: —where it solves the problem of how do I build this thing to deploy on Debian instances? And Ubuntu instances, and other instances, God forbid, Windows somewhere, you throw a container over the wall. The end. Its DevOps is about breaking down the walls between Dev and Ops. That's why containers are here to make them silos that don't have to talk to each other.Steren: A container image is a glorified zip file. Literally. You have a set of layers with files in them, and basically, we decided to adopt that artifact standard, but not the perceived complexity that existed at the time around containers. And so, we basically merged containers with serverless to make something as easy to use as a Function as a Service product but with the power of bringing your own container. And today, we are seeing—you mentioned, what kind of architecture would you use Cloud Run for?So, I would say now there are three big buckets. The obvious one is anything that is a website or an API, serving public internet traffic, like your URL redirect service, right? This is, you have an API, takes a request and returns a response. It can be a REST API, GraphQL API. We recently added support for WebSockets, which is pretty unique for a service offering to support natively WebSockets.So, what I mean natively is, my client can open a socket connection—a bi-directional socket connection—with a given instance, for up to one hour. This is pretty unique for something that is as fully managed as Cloud Run.Corey: Right. As we're recording this, we are just coming off of Google I/O, and there were a number of announcements around Cloud Run that were touching it because of, you know, strange marketing issues. I only found out that Google I/O was a thing and featured cloud stuff via Twitter at the time it was happening. What did you folks release around Cloud Run?Steren: Good question, actually. Part of the Google I/O Developer keynote, I pitched a story around how Cloud Run helps developers, and the I/O team liked the story, so we decided to include that story as part of the live developer keynote. So, on stage, we announced Cloud Run jobs. So now, I talked to you about Cloud Run services, which can be used to expose an API, but also to do, like, private microservice-to-microservice communication—because cloud services don't have to be public—and in that case, we support GRPC and, you know, a very strong security mechanism where only Service A can invoke Service B, for example, but Cloud Run jobs are about non-request-driven containers. So, today—I mean, before Google I/O a few days ago, the only requirement that we imposed on your container image was that it started to listen for requests, or events, or GRPC—Corey: Web requests—Steren: Exactly—Corey: It speaks [unintelligible 00:24:35] you want as long as it's HTTP. Yes.Steren: That was the only requirement we asked you to have on your container image. And now we've changed that. Now, if you have a container that basically starts and executes to completion, you can deploy it on a Cloud Run job. So, you will use Cloud Run jobs for, like, daily batch jobs. And you have the same infrastructure, so on-demand, you can go from zero to, I think for now, the maximum is a hundred tasks in parallel, for—of course, you can run many tasks in sequence, but in parallel, you can go from zero to a hundred, right away to run your daily batch job, daily admin job, data processing.But this is more in the batch mode than in streaming mode. If you would like to use a more, like, streaming data processing, than a Cloud Run service would still be the best fit because you can literally push events to it, and it will auto-scale to handle any number of events that it receives.Corey: Do you find that the majority of customers are using Cloud Run for one-off jobs that barely will get more than a single container, like my thing, or do you find that they're doing massively parallel jobs? Where's the lion's share of developer and customer interest?Steren: It's both actually. We have both individual developers, small startups—which really value the scale to zero and pay per use model of Cloud Run. Your URL redirect service probably is staying below the free tier, and there are many, many, many users in your case. But at the same time, we have big, big, big customers who value the on-demand scalability of Cloud Run. And for these customers, of course, they will probably very likely not scale to zero, but they value the fact that—you know, we have a media company who uses Cloud Run for TV streaming, and when there is a soccer game somewhere in the world, they have a big spike of usage of requests coming in to their Cloud Run service, and here they can trust the rapid scaling of Cloud Run so they don't have to pre-provision things in advance to be able to serve that sudden traffic spike.But for those customers, Cloud Run is priced in a way so that if you know that you're going to consume a lot of Cloud Run CPU and memory, you can purchase Committed Use Discounts, which will lower your bill overall because you know you are going to spend one dollar per hour on Cloud Run, well purchase a Committed Use Discount because you will only spend 83 cents instead of one dollar. And also, Cloud Run and comes with two pricing model, one which is the default, which is the request-based pricing model, which is basically you only have CPU allocated to your container instances if you are processing at least one request. But as a consequence of that, you are not paying outside of the processing of those requests. Those containers might stay up for you, one, ready to receive new requests, but you're not paying for them. And so, that is—you know, your URL redirect service is probably in that mode where yes when you haven't used it for a while, it will scale down to zero, but if you send one request to it, it will serve that request and then it will stay up for a while until it decides to scale down. But you the user only pays when you are processing these specific requests, a little bit like a Function as a Service product.Corey: Scales to zero is one of the fundamental tenets of serverless that I think that companies calling something serverless, but it always charges you per hour anyway. Yeah, that doesn't work. Storage, let's be clear, is a separate matter entirely. I'm talking about compute. Even if your workflow doesn't scale down to zero ever as a workload, that's fine, but if the workload does, you don't get to keep charging me for it.Steren: Exactly. And so, in that other mode where you decide to always have CPU allocated to your Cloud Run container instances, then you pay for the entire lifecycle of this container instances. You still benefit from the auto-scaling of Cloud Run, but you will pay for the lifecycle and in that case, the price points are lower because you pay for a longer period of time. But that's more the price model that those bigger customers will take because at their scale, they basically always receive requests, so they already to pay always, basically.Corey: I really want to thank you for taking the time to chat with me. Before you go, one last question that we'll be using as a teaser for the next episode that we record together. It seems like this is a full-time job being the product manager on Cloud Run, but no Google, contrary to popular opinion, does in fact, still support 20% projects. What's yours?Steren: So, I've been looking to work on Cloud Run since it was a prototype, and you know, for a long time, we've been iterating privately on Cloud Run, launching it, seeing it grow, seeing it adopted, it's great. It's my full-time job. But on Fridays, I still find the time to have a 20% project, which also had quite a bit of impact. And I work on some sustainability efforts for Google Cloud. And notably, we've released two things last year.The first one is that we are sharing some carbon characteristics of Google Cloud regions. So, if you have seen those small leaves in the Cloud Console next to the regions that are emitting the less carbon, that's something that I helped bring to life. And the second one, which is something quite big, is we are helping customers report and reduce their gross carbon emissions of their Google Cloud usage by providing an out of the box reporting tool called Google Cloud Carbon Footprint. So, that's something that I was able to bootstrap with a team a little bit on the side of my Cloud Run project, but I was very glad to see it launched by our CEO at the last Cloud Next Conference. And now it is a fully-funded project, so we are very glad that we are able to help our customers better meet their sustainability goals themselves.Corey: And we will be talking about it significantly on the next episode. We're giving a teaser, not telling the whole story.Steren: [laugh].Corey: I really want to thank you for being as generous with your time as you are. If people want to learn more, where can they find you?Steren: Well, if they want to learn more about Cloud Run, we talked about how simple was that name. It was obviously not simple to find this simple name, but the domain is https://cloud.run.Corey: We will also accept snark.cloud/run, I will take credit for that service, too.Steren: [laugh]. Exactly.Corey: There we are.Steren: And then, people can find me on Twitter at @steren, S-T-E-R-E-N. I'll be happy—I'm always happy to help developers get started or answer questions about Cloud Run. And, yeah, thank you for having me. As I said, you successfully deployed something in just a few minutes to Cloud Run. I would encourage the audience to—Corey: In spite of myself. I know, I'm as surprised as anyone.Steren: [laugh].Corey: The only snag I really hit was the fact that I was riding shotgun when we picked up my daughter from school and went through a dead zone. It's like, why is this thing not loading in the Google Cloud Console? Yeah, fix the cell network in my area, please.Steren: I'm impressed that you did all of that from an iPad. But yeah, to the audience give Cloud Run the try. You can really get started connecting your GitHub repository or deploy your favorite container image. And we've worked very hard to ensure that usability was here, and we know we have pretty strong usability scores. Because that was a lot of work to simplicity, and product excellence and developer experience is a lot of work to get right, and we are very proud of what we've achieved with Cloud Run and proud to see that the developer community has been very supportive and likes this product.Corey: I'm a big fan of what you've built. And well, of course, it links to all of that in the show notes. I just want to thank you again for being so generous with your time. And thanks again for building something that I think in many ways showcases the best of what Google Cloud has to offer.Steren: Thanks for the invite.Corey: We'll talk again soon. Steren Giannini is a senior product manager at Google Cloud, on Cloud Run. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice. If it's on YouTube, put the thumbs up and the subscribe buttons as well, but in the event that you hated it also include an angry comment explaining why your 20% project is being a shithead on the internet.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

The Shaykh discusses with great detail different spiritual states Allah Most High enters upon His close servants. Each state manifesting a different expression of devotion towards Him. Some find themselves in a state of complete awe and reverence. Others are filled with an intense love and eagerness, whilst others feel in their hearts an overwhelming feeling of comfort, contentment and certainty. These examples highlight the main message of the aphorism: any form of righteousness coming from the servant is ultimately due to the sublime grace of Allah Most High.

Not flourishing is what drove her to study positive psychology.  Positive psychology - what an amazing concept, huh? It's more about figuring out how things can go right. From depression to positive psychology, my guest this week, Louisa Jewell, has been teaching people about well-being since she discovered it, and is even running organizations to empower people with this knowledge so they can be and feel better. She simply wanted to figure out how to help herself and others, and then discovered a way. I say "simply". But of course, it's more like deciding, then figuring it out.  It could take weeks or months. But once you decide to figure it out, you're usually pretty clear on what to do next. She stays peaceful, happy and content along the way with exercise, meditation, and many other well-being practices. And she never stops growing. Louisa even became a better speaker by learning stand up comedy. As she likes to describe herself, she's the drop in the pond; someone who shares information and spreads ideas to help people change their lives for the better. A few other tips from this episode: Define your own success Run your own race Learn your craft, then craft your job If you are shining, you're going to help more people Finally, a great tip Louisa offers when interacting with any person, at any time, is to ask yourself: how can I love this person? How beautiful is that question, huh? More about Louisa: Jewell is the Founder and President of the Canadian Positive Psychology Association and holds a master's degree in Applied Positive Psychology (MAPP) from the University of Pennsylvania. Louisa is the host of The Awesome Project, a new Audible Originals Podcast series, appears regularly on CBC radio as a well-being expert and has been featured extensively in other media including Forbes, Fast Company and Oprah Magazine.  She is a featured expert in several documentaries including The Science of Happiness and Mental Health in the City and her best-selling book Wire Your Brain for Confidence: The Science of Conquering Self-Doubt was named in the top 100 Best Psychology Books of All Time by Book Authority.   https://louisajewell.com/ To get her free e-book: The Rumination Cure  https://louisajewell.com/rumination-cure/ To get a free chapter of her book:  https://louisajewell.com/author/ And check out my bestselling book: Peace, Possibilities, and Perspective: 8 Secrets to Serenity and Satisfaction in Your Life and Career https://2possibilityandbeyond.com/my-book

Stay tuned for daily classes!

Публикую версию моего кавера, который вошёл в ротацию Юмор Фм (Москве)!

The essence of faith is being satisfied with all that God is for us in Jesus. Faith embraces God — not just his promised gifts — as our treasure.

It is so satisfying when we create a plan and set a goal and follow it through to completion. We feel accomplished and proud that we stayed focused and committed. When you take intentional action every day it will take less effort to follow through. You can have this in every area of our lives. There is no limit to how many intentions you have. Start with one and then add when you are ready.