Podcasts about Shoring

If you're in SF: Join us for the Claude Plays Pokemon hackathon this Sunday!If you're not: Fill out the 2025 State of AI Eng survey for $250 in Amazon cards!We are SO excited to share our conversation with Dharmesh Shah, co-founder of HubSpot and creator of Agent.ai.A particularly compelling concept we discussed is the idea of "hybrid teams" - the next evolution in workplace organization where human workers collaborate with AI agents as team members. Just as we previously saw hybrid teams emerge in terms of full-time vs. contract workers, or in-office vs. remote workers, Dharmesh predicts that the next frontier will be teams composed of both human and AI members. This raises interesting questions about team dynamics, trust, and how to effectively delegate tasks between human and AI team members.The discussion of business models in AI reveals an important distinction between Work as a Service (WaaS) and Results as a Service (RaaS), something Dharmesh has written extensively about. While RaaS has gained popularity, particularly in customer support applications where outcomes are easily measurable, Dharmesh argues that this model may be over-indexed. Not all AI applications have clearly definable outcomes or consistent economic value per transaction, making WaaS more appropriate in many cases. This insight is particularly relevant for businesses considering how to monetize AI capabilities.The technical challenges of implementing effective agent systems are also explored, particularly around memory and authentication. Shah emphasizes the importance of cross-agent memory sharing and the need for more granular control over data access. He envisions a future where users can selectively share parts of their data with different agents, similar to how OAuth works but with much finer control. This points to significant opportunities in developing infrastructure for secure and efficient agent-to-agent communication and data sharing.Other highlights from our conversation* The Evolution of AI-Powered Agents – Exploring how AI agents have evolved from simple chatbots to sophisticated multi-agent systems, and the role of MCPs in enabling that.* Hybrid Digital Teams and the Future of Work – How AI agents are becoming teammates rather than just tools, and what this means for business operations and knowledge work.* Memory in AI Agents – The importance of persistent memory in AI systems and how shared memory across agents could enhance collaboration and efficiency.* Business Models for AI Agents – Exploring the shift from software as a service (SaaS) to work as a service (WaaS) and results as a service (RaaS), and what this means for monetization.* The Role of Standards Like MCP – Why MCP has been widely adopted and how it enables agent collaboration, tool use, and discovery.* The Future of AI Code Generation and Software Engineering – How AI-assisted coding is changing the role of software engineers and what skills will matter most in the future.* Domain Investing and Efficient Markets – Dharmesh's approach to domain investing and how inefficiencies in digital asset markets create business opportunities.* The Philosophy of Saying No – Lessons from "Sorry, You Must Pass" and how prioritization leads to greater productivity and focus.Timestamps* 00:00 Introduction and Guest Welcome* 02:29 Dharmesh Shah's Journey into AI* 05:22 Defining AI Agents* 06:45 The Evolution and Future of AI Agents* 13:53 Graph Theory and Knowledge Representation* 20:02 Engineering Practices and Overengineering* 25:57 The Role of Junior Engineers in the AI Era* 28:20 Multi-Agent Systems and MCP Standards* 35:55 LinkedIn's Legal Battles and Data Scraping* 37:32 The Future of AI and Hybrid Teams* 39:19 Building Agent AI: A Professional Network for Agents* 40:43 Challenges and Innovations in Agent AI* 45:02 The Evolution of UI in AI Systems* 01:00:25 Business Models: Work as a Service vs. Results as a Service* 01:09:17 The Future Value of Engineers* 01:09:51 Exploring the Role of Agents* 01:10:28 The Importance of Memory in AI* 01:11:02 Challenges and Opportunities in AI Memory* 01:12:41 Selective Memory and Privacy Concerns* 01:13:27 The Evolution of AI Tools and Platforms* 01:18:23 Domain Names and AI Projects* 01:32:08 Balancing Work and Personal Life* 01:35:52 Final Thoughts and ReflectionsTranscriptAlessio [00:00:04]: Hey everyone, welcome back to the Latent Space podcast. This is Alessio, partner and CTO at Decibel Partners, and I'm joined by my co-host Swyx, founder of Small AI.swyx [00:00:12]: Hello, and today we're super excited to have Dharmesh Shah to join us. I guess your relevant title here is founder of Agent AI.Dharmesh [00:00:20]: Yeah, that's true for this. Yeah, creator of Agent.ai and co-founder of HubSpot.swyx [00:00:25]: Co-founder of HubSpot, which I followed for many years, I think 18 years now, gonna be 19 soon. And you caught, you know, people can catch up on your HubSpot story elsewhere. I should also thank Sean Puri, who I've chatted with back and forth, who's been, I guess, getting me in touch with your people. But also, I think like, just giving us a lot of context, because obviously, My First Million joined you guys, and they've been chatting with you guys a lot. So for the business side, we can talk about that, but I kind of wanted to engage your CTO, agent, engineer side of things. So how did you get agent religion?Dharmesh [00:01:00]: Let's see. So I've been working, I'll take like a half step back, a decade or so ago, even though actually more than that. So even before HubSpot, the company I was contemplating that I had named for was called Ingenisoft. And the idea behind Ingenisoft was a natural language interface to business software. Now realize this is 20 years ago, so that was a hard thing to do. But the actual use case that I had in mind was, you know, we had data sitting in business systems like a CRM or something like that. And my kind of what I thought clever at the time. Oh, what if we used email as the kind of interface to get to business software? And the motivation for using email is that it automatically works when you're offline. So imagine I'm getting on a plane or I'm on a plane. There was no internet on planes back then. It's like, oh, I'm going through business cards from an event I went to. I can just type things into an email just to have them all in the backlog. When it reconnects, it sends those emails to a processor that basically kind of parses effectively the commands and updates the software, sends you the file, whatever it is. And there was a handful of commands. I was a little bit ahead of the times in terms of what was actually possible. And I reattempted this natural language thing with a product called ChatSpot that I did back 20...swyx [00:02:12]: Yeah, this is your first post-ChatGPT project.Dharmesh [00:02:14]: I saw it come out. Yeah. And so I've always been kind of fascinated by this natural language interface to software. Because, you know, as software developers, myself included, we've always said, oh, we build intuitive, easy-to-use applications. And it's not intuitive at all, right? Because what we're doing is... We're taking the mental model that's in our head of what we're trying to accomplish with said piece of software and translating that into a series of touches and swipes and clicks and things like that. And there's nothing natural or intuitive about it. And so natural language interfaces, for the first time, you know, whatever the thought is you have in your head and expressed in whatever language that you normally use to talk to yourself in your head, you can just sort of emit that and have software do something. And I thought that was kind of a breakthrough, which it has been. And it's gone. So that's where I first started getting into the journey. I started because now it actually works, right? So once we got ChatGPT and you can take, even with a few-shot example, convert something into structured, even back in the ChatGP 3.5 days, it did a decent job in a few-shot example, convert something to structured text if you knew what kinds of intents you were going to have. And so that happened. And that ultimately became a HubSpot project. But then agents intrigued me because I'm like, okay, well, that's the next step here. So chat's great. Love Chat UX. But if we want to do something even more meaningful, it felt like the next kind of advancement is not this kind of, I'm chatting with some software in a kind of a synchronous back and forth model, is that software is going to do things for me in kind of a multi-step way to try and accomplish some goals. So, yeah, that's when I first got started. It's like, okay, what would that look like? Yeah. And I've been obsessed ever since, by the way.Alessio [00:03:55]: Which goes back to your first experience with it, which is like you're offline. Yeah. And you want to do a task. You don't need to do it right now. You just want to queue it up for somebody to do it for you. Yes. As you think about agents, like, let's start at the easy question, which is like, how do you define an agent? Maybe. You mean the hardest question in the universe? Is that what you mean?Dharmesh [00:04:12]: You said you have an irritating take. I do have an irritating take. I think, well, some number of people have been irritated, including within my own team. So I have a very broad definition for agents, which is it's AI-powered software that accomplishes a goal. Period. That's it. And what irritates people about it is like, well, that's so broad as to be completely non-useful. And I understand that. I understand the criticism. But in my mind, if you kind of fast forward months, I guess, in AI years, the implementation of it, and we're already starting to see this, and we'll talk about this, different kinds of agents, right? So I think in addition to having a usable definition, and I like yours, by the way, and we should talk more about that, that you just came out with, the classification of agents actually is also useful, which is, is it autonomous or non-autonomous? Does it have a deterministic workflow? Does it have a non-deterministic workflow? Is it working synchronously? Is it working asynchronously? Then you have the different kind of interaction modes. Is it a chat agent, kind of like a customer support agent would be? You're having this kind of back and forth. Is it a workflow agent that just does a discrete number of steps? So there's all these different flavors of agents. So if I were to draw it in a Venn diagram, I would draw a big circle that says, this is agents, and then I have a bunch of circles, some overlapping, because they're not mutually exclusive. And so I think that's what's interesting, and we're seeing development along a bunch of different paths, right? So if you look at the first implementation of agent frameworks, you look at Baby AGI and AutoGBT, I think it was, not Autogen, that's the Microsoft one. They were way ahead of their time because they assumed this level of reasoning and execution and planning capability that just did not exist, right? So it was an interesting thought experiment, which is what it was. Even the guy that, I'm an investor in Yohei's fund that did Baby AGI. It wasn't ready, but it was a sign of what was to come. And so the question then is, when is it ready? And so lots of people talk about the state of the art when it comes to agents. I'm a pragmatist, so I think of the state of the practical. It's like, okay, well, what can I actually build that has commercial value or solves actually some discrete problem with some baseline of repeatability or verifiability?swyx [00:06:22]: There was a lot, and very, very interesting. I'm not irritated by it at all. Okay. As you know, I take a... There's a lot of anthropological view or linguistics view. And in linguistics, you don't want to be prescriptive. You want to be descriptive. Yeah. So you're a goals guy. That's the key word in your thing. And other people have other definitions that might involve like delegated trust or non-deterministic work, LLM in the loop, all that stuff. The other thing I was thinking about, just the comment on Baby AGI, LGBT. Yeah. In that piece that you just read, I was able to go through our backlog and just kind of track the winter of agents and then the summer now. Yeah. And it's... We can tell the whole story as an oral history, just following that thread. And it's really just like, I think, I tried to explain the why now, right? Like I had, there's better models, of course. There's better tool use with like, they're just more reliable. Yep. Better tools with MCP and all that stuff. And I'm sure you have opinions on that too. Business model shift, which you like a lot. I just heard you talk about RAS with MFM guys. Yep. Cost is dropping a lot. Yep. Inference is getting faster. There's more model diversity. Yep. Yep. I think it's a subtle point. It means that like, you have different models with different perspectives. You don't get stuck in the basin of performance of a single model. Sure. You can just get out of it by just switching models. Yep. Multi-agent research and RL fine tuning. So I just wanted to let you respond to like any of that.Dharmesh [00:07:44]: Yeah. A couple of things. Connecting the dots on the kind of the definition side of it. So we'll get the irritation out of the way completely. I have one more, even more irritating leap on the agent definition thing. So here's the way I think about it. By the way, the kind of word agent, I looked it up, like the English dictionary definition. The old school agent, yeah. Is when you have someone or something that does something on your behalf, like a travel agent or a real estate agent acts on your behalf. It's like proxy, which is a nice kind of general definition. So the other direction I'm sort of headed, and it's going to tie back to tool calling and MCP and things like that, is if you, and I'm not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination, but we have these single-celled organisms, right? Like the simplest possible form of what one would call life. But it's still life. It just happens to be single-celled. And then you can combine cells and then cells become specialized over time. And you have much more sophisticated organisms, you know, kind of further down the spectrum. In my mind, at the most fundamental level, you can almost think of having atomic agents. What is the simplest possible thing that's an agent that can still be called an agent? What is the equivalent of a kind of single-celled organism? And the reason I think that's useful is right now we're headed down the road, which I think is very exciting around tool use, right? That says, okay, the LLMs now can be provided a set of tools that it calls to accomplish whatever it needs to accomplish in the kind of furtherance of whatever goal it's trying to get done. And I'm not overly bothered by it, but if you think about it, if you just squint a little bit and say, well, what if everything was an agent? And what if tools were actually just atomic agents? Because then it's turtles all the way down, right? Then it's like, oh, well, all that's really happening with tool use is that we have a network of agents that know about each other through something like an MMCP and can kind of decompose a particular problem and say, oh, I'm going to delegate this to this set of agents. And why do we need to draw this distinction between tools, which are functions most of the time? And an actual agent. And so I'm going to write this irritating LinkedIn post, you know, proposing this. It's like, okay. And I'm not suggesting we should call even functions, you know, call them agents. But there is a certain amount of elegance that happens when you say, oh, we can just reduce it down to one primitive, which is an agent that you can combine in complicated ways to kind of raise the level of abstraction and accomplish higher order goals. Anyway, that's my answer. I'd say that's a success. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk on agent definitions.Alessio [00:09:54]: How do you define the minimum viable agent? Do you already have a definition for, like, where you draw the line between a cell and an atom? Yeah.Dharmesh [00:10:02]: So in my mind, it has to, at some level, use AI in order for it to—otherwise, it's just software. It's like, you know, we don't need another word for that. And so that's probably where I draw the line. So then the question, you know, the counterargument would be, well, if that's true, then lots of tools themselves are actually not agents because they're just doing a database call or a REST API call or whatever it is they're doing. And that does not necessarily qualify them, which is a fair counterargument. And I accept that. It's like a good argument. I still like to think about—because we'll talk about multi-agent systems, because I think—so we've accepted, which I think is true, lots of people have said it, and you've hopefully combined some of those clips of really smart people saying this is the year of agents, and I completely agree, it is the year of agents. But then shortly after that, it's going to be the year of multi-agent systems or multi-agent networks. I think that's where it's going to be headed next year. Yeah.swyx [00:10:54]: Opening eyes already on that. Yeah. My quick philosophical engagement with you on this. I often think about kind of the other spectrum, the other end of the cell spectrum. So single cell is life, multi-cell is life, and you clump a bunch of cells together in a more complex organism, they become organs, like an eye and a liver or whatever. And then obviously we consider ourselves one life form. There's not like a lot of lives within me. I'm just one life. And now, obviously, I don't think people don't really like to anthropomorphize agents and AI. Yeah. But we are extending our consciousness and our brain and our functionality out into machines. I just saw you were a Bee. Yeah. Which is, you know, it's nice. I have a limitless pendant in my pocket.Dharmesh [00:11:37]: I got one of these boys. Yeah.swyx [00:11:39]: I'm testing it all out. You know, got to be early adopters. But like, we want to extend our personal memory into these things so that we can be good at the things that we're good at. And, you know, machines are good at it. Machines are there. So like, my definition of life is kind of like going outside of my own body now. I don't know if you've ever had like reflections on that. Like how yours. How our self is like actually being distributed outside of you. Yeah.Dharmesh [00:12:01]: I don't fancy myself a philosopher. But you went there. So yeah, I did go there. I'm fascinated by kind of graphs and graph theory and networks and have been for a long, long time. And to me, we're sort of all nodes in this kind of larger thing. It just so happens that we're looking at individual kind of life forms as they exist right now. But so the idea is when you put a podcast out there, there's these little kind of nodes you're putting out there of like, you know, conceptual ideas. Once again, you have varying kind of forms of those little nodes that are up there and are connected in varying and sundry ways. And so I just think of myself as being a node in a massive, massive network. And I'm producing more nodes as I put content or ideas. And, you know, you spend some portion of your life collecting dots, experiences, people, and some portion of your life then connecting dots from the ones that you've collected over time. And I found that really interesting things happen and you really can't know in advance how those dots are necessarily going to connect in the future. And that's, yeah. So that's my philosophical take. That's the, yes, exactly. Coming back.Alessio [00:13:04]: Yep. Do you like graph as an agent? Abstraction? That's been one of the hot topics with LandGraph and Pydantic and all that.Dharmesh [00:13:11]: I do. The thing I'm more interested in terms of use of graphs, and there's lots of work happening on that now, is graph data stores as an alternative in terms of knowledge stores and knowledge graphs. Yeah. Because, you know, so I've been in software now 30 plus years, right? So it's not 10,000 hours. It's like 100,000 hours that I've spent doing this stuff. And so I've grew up with, so back in the day, you know, I started on mainframes. There was a product called IMS from IBM, which is basically an index database, what we'd call like a key value store today. Then we've had relational databases, right? We have tables and columns and foreign key relationships. We all know that. We have document databases like MongoDB, which is sort of a nested structure keyed by a specific index. We have vector stores, vector embedding database. And graphs are interesting for a couple of reasons. One is, so it's not classically structured in a relational way. When you say structured database, to most people, they're thinking tables and columns and in relational database and set theory and all that. Graphs still have structure, but it's not the tables and columns structure. And you could wonder, and people have made this case, that they are a better representation of knowledge for LLMs and for AI generally than other things. So that's kind of thing number one conceptually, and that might be true, I think is possibly true. And the other thing that I really like about that in the context of, you know, I've been in the context of data stores for RAG is, you know, RAG, you say, oh, I have a million documents, I'm going to build the vector embeddings, I'm going to come back with the top X based on the semantic match, and that's fine. All that's very, very useful. But the reality is something gets lost in the chunking process and the, okay, well, those tend, you know, like, you don't really get the whole picture, so to speak, and maybe not even the right set of dimensions on the kind of broader picture. And it makes intuitive sense to me that if we did capture it properly in a graph form, that maybe that feeding into a RAG pipeline will actually yield better results for some use cases, I don't know, but yeah.Alessio [00:15:03]: And do you feel like at the core of it, there's this difference between imperative and declarative programs? Because if you think about HubSpot, it's like, you know, people and graph kind of goes hand in hand, you know, but I think maybe the software before was more like primary foreign key based relationship, versus now the models can traverse through the graph more easily.Dharmesh [00:15:22]: Yes. So I like that representation. There's something. It's just conceptually elegant about graphs and just from the representation of it, they're much more discoverable, you can kind of see it, there's observability to it, versus kind of embeddings, which you can't really do much with as a human. You know, once they're in there, you can't pull stuff back out. But yeah, I like that kind of idea of it. And the other thing that's kind of, because I love graphs, I've been long obsessed with PageRank from back in the early days. And, you know, one of the kind of simplest algorithms in terms of coming up, you know, with a phone, everyone's been exposed to PageRank. And the idea is that, and so I had this other idea for a project, not a company, and I have hundreds of these, called NodeRank, is to be able to take the idea of PageRank and apply it to an arbitrary graph that says, okay, I'm going to define what authority looks like and say, okay, well, that's interesting to me, because then if you say, I'm going to take my knowledge store, and maybe this person that contributed some number of chunks to the graph data store has more authority on this particular use case or prompt that's being submitted than this other one that may, or maybe this one was more. popular, or maybe this one has, whatever it is, there should be a way for us to kind of rank nodes in a graph and sort them in some, some useful way. Yeah.swyx [00:16:34]: So I think that's generally useful for, for anything. I think the, the problem, like, so even though at my conferences, GraphRag is super popular and people are getting knowledge, graph religion, and I will say like, it's getting space, getting traction in two areas, conversation memory, and then also just rag in general, like the, the, the document data. Yeah. It's like a source. Most ML practitioners would say that knowledge graph is kind of like a dirty word. The graph database, people get graph religion, everything's a graph, and then they, they go really hard into it and then they get a, they get a graph that is too complex to navigate. Yes. And so like the, the, the simple way to put it is like you at running HubSpot, you know, the power of graphs, the way that Google has pitched them for many years, but I don't suspect that HubSpot itself uses a knowledge graph. No. Yeah.Dharmesh [00:17:26]: So when is it over engineering? Basically? It's a great question. I don't know. So the question now, like in AI land, right, is the, do we necessarily need to understand? So right now, LLMs for, for the most part are somewhat black boxes, right? We sort of understand how the, you know, the algorithm itself works, but we really don't know what's going on in there and, and how things come out. So if a graph data store is able to produce the outcomes we want, it's like, here's a set of queries I want to be able to submit and then it comes out with useful content. Maybe the underlying data store is as opaque as a vector embeddings or something like that, but maybe it's fine. Maybe we don't necessarily need to understand it to get utility out of it. And so maybe if it's messy, that's okay. Um, that's, it's just another form of lossy compression. Uh, it's just lossy in a way that we just don't completely understand in terms of, because it's going to grow organically. Uh, and it's not structured. It's like, ah, we're just gonna throw a bunch of stuff in there. Let the, the equivalent of the embedding algorithm, whatever they called in graph land. Um, so the one with the best results wins. I think so. Yeah.swyx [00:18:26]: Or is this the practical side of me is like, yeah, it's, if it's useful, we don't necessarilyDharmesh [00:18:30]: need to understand it.swyx [00:18:30]: I have, I mean, I'm happy to push back as long as you want. Uh, it's not practical to evaluate like the 10 different options out there because it takes time. It takes people, it takes, you know, resources, right? Set. That's the first thing. Second thing is your evals are typically on small things and some things only work at scale. Yup. Like graphs. Yup.Dharmesh [00:18:46]: Yup. That's, yeah, no, that's fair. And I think this is one of the challenges in terms of implementation of graph databases is that the most common approach that I've seen developers do, I've done it myself, is that, oh, I've got a Postgres database or a MySQL or whatever. I can represent a graph with a very set of tables with a parent child thing or whatever. And that sort of gives me the ability, uh, why would I need anything more than that? And the answer is, well, if you don't need anything more than that, you don't need anything more than that. But there's a high chance that you're sort of missing out on the actual value that, uh, the graph representation gives you. Which is the ability to traverse the graph, uh, efficiently in ways that kind of going through the, uh, traversal in a relational database form, even though structurally you have the data, practically you're not gonna be able to pull it out in, in useful ways. Uh, so you wouldn't like represent a social graph, uh, in, in using that kind of relational table model. It just wouldn't scale. It wouldn't work.swyx [00:19:36]: Uh, yeah. Uh, I think we want to move on to MCP. Yeah. But I just want to, like, just engineering advice. Yeah. Uh, obviously you've, you've, you've run, uh, you've, you've had to do a lot of projects and run a lot of teams. Do you have a general rule for over-engineering or, you know, engineering ahead of time? You know, like, because people, we know premature engineering is the root of all evil. Yep. But also sometimes you just have to. Yep. When do you do it? Yes.Dharmesh [00:19:59]: It's a great question. This is, uh, a question as old as time almost, which is what's the right and wrong levels of abstraction. That's effectively what, uh, we're answering when we're trying to do engineering. I tend to be a pragmatist, right? So here's the thing. Um, lots of times doing something the right way. Yeah. It's like a marginal increased cost in those cases. Just do it the right way. And this is what makes a, uh, a great engineer or a good engineer better than, uh, a not so great one. It's like, okay, all things being equal. If it's going to take you, you know, roughly close to constant time anyway, might as well do it the right way. Like, so do things well, then the question is, okay, well, am I building a framework as the reusable library? To what degree, uh, what am I anticipating in terms of what's going to need to change in this thing? Uh, you know, along what dimension? And then I think like a business person in some ways, like what's the return on calories, right? So, uh, and you look at, um, energy, the expected value of it's like, okay, here are the five possible things that could happen, uh, try to assign probabilities like, okay, well, if there's a 50% chance that we're going to go down this particular path at some day, like, or one of these five things is going to happen and it costs you 10% more to engineer for that. It's basically, it's something that yields a kind of interest compounding value. Um, as you get closer to the time of, of needing that versus having to take on debt, which is when you under engineer it, you're taking on debt. You're going to have to pay off when you do get to that eventuality where something happens. One thing as a pragmatist, uh, so I would rather under engineer something than over engineer it. If I were going to err on the side of something, and here's the reason is that when you under engineer it, uh, yes, you take on tech debt, uh, but the interest rate is relatively known and payoff is very, very possible, right? Which is, oh, I took a shortcut here as a result of which now this thing that should have taken me a week is now going to take me four weeks. Fine. But if that particular thing that you thought might happen, never actually, you never have that use case transpire or just doesn't, it's like, well, you just save yourself time, right? And that has value because you were able to do other things instead of, uh, kind of slightly over-engineering it away, over-engineering it. But there's no perfect answers in art form in terms of, uh, and yeah, we'll, we'll bring kind of this layers of abstraction back on the code generation conversation, which we'll, uh, I think I have later on, butAlessio [00:22:05]: I was going to ask, we can just jump ahead quickly. Yeah. Like, as you think about vibe coding and all that, how does the. Yeah. Percentage of potential usefulness change when I feel like we over-engineering a lot of times it's like the investment in syntax, it's less about the investment in like arc exacting. Yep. Yeah. How does that change your calculus?Dharmesh [00:22:22]: A couple of things, right? One is, um, so, you know, going back to that kind of ROI or a return on calories, kind of calculus or heuristic you think through, it's like, okay, well, what is it going to cost me to put this layer of abstraction above the code that I'm writing now, uh, in anticipating kind of future needs. If the cost of fixing, uh, or doing under engineering right now. Uh, we'll trend towards zero that says, okay, well, I don't have to get it right right now because even if I get it wrong, I'll run the thing for six hours instead of 60 minutes or whatever. It doesn't really matter, right? Like, because that's going to trend towards zero to be able, the ability to refactor a code. Um, and because we're going to not that long from now, we're going to have, you know, large code bases be able to exist, uh, you know, as, as context, uh, for a code generation or a code refactoring, uh, model. So I think it's going to make it, uh, make the case for under engineering, uh, even stronger. Which is why I take on that cost. You just pay the interest when you get there, it's not, um, just go on with your life vibe coded and, uh, come back when you need to. Yeah.Alessio [00:23:18]: Sometimes I feel like there's no decision-making in some things like, uh, today I built a autosave for like our internal notes platform and I literally just ask them cursor. Can you add autosave? Yeah. I don't know if it's over under engineer. Yep. I just vibe coded it. Yep. And I feel like at some point we're going to get to the point where the models kindDharmesh [00:23:36]: of decide where the right line is, but this is where the, like the, in my mind, the danger is, right? So there's two sides to this. One is the cost of kind of development and coding and things like that stuff that, you know, we talk about. But then like in your example, you know, one of the risks that we have is that because adding a feature, uh, like a save or whatever the feature might be to a product as that price tends towards zero, are we going to be less discriminant about what features we add as a result of making more product products more complicated, which has a negative impact on the user and navigate negative impact on the business. Um, and so that's the thing I worry about if it starts to become too easy, are we going to be. Too promiscuous in our, uh, kind of extension, adding product extensions and things like that. It's like, ah, why not add X, Y, Z or whatever back then it was like, oh, we only have so many engineering hours or story points or however you measure things. Uh, that least kept us in check a little bit. Yeah.Alessio [00:24:22]: And then over engineering, you're like, yeah, it's kind of like you're putting that on yourself. Yeah. Like now it's like the models don't understand that if they add too much complexity, it's going to come back to bite them later. Yep. So they just do whatever they want to do. Yeah. And I'm curious where in the workflow that's going to be, where it's like, Hey, this is like the amount of complexity and over-engineering you can do before you got to ask me if we should actually do it versus like do something else.Dharmesh [00:24:45]: So you know, we've already, let's like, we're leaving this, uh, in the code generation world, this kind of compressed, um, cycle time. Right. It's like, okay, we went from auto-complete, uh, in the GitHub co-pilot to like, oh, finish this particular thing and hit tab to a, oh, I sort of know your file or whatever. I can write out a full function to you to now I can like hold a bunch of the context in my head. Uh, so we can do app generation, which we have now with lovable and bolt and repletage. Yeah. Association and other things. So then the question is, okay, well, where does it naturally go from here? So we're going to generate products. Make sense. We might be able to generate platforms as though I want a platform for ERP that does this, whatever. And that includes the API's includes the product and the UI, and all the things that make for a platform. There's no nothing that says we would stop like, okay, can you generate an entire software company someday? Right. Uh, with the platform and the monetization and the go-to-market and the whatever. And you know, that that's interesting to me in terms of, uh, you know, what, when you take it to almost ludicrous levels. of abstract.swyx [00:25:39]: It's like, okay, turn it to 11. You mentioned vibe coding, so I have to, this is a blog post I haven't written, but I'm kind of exploring it. Is the junior engineer dead?Dharmesh [00:25:49]: I don't think so. I think what will happen is that the junior engineer will be able to, if all they're bringing to the table is the fact that they are a junior engineer, then yes, they're likely dead. But hopefully if they can communicate with carbon-based life forms, they can interact with product, if they're willing to talk to customers, they can take their kind of basic understanding of engineering and how kind of software works. I think that has value. So I have a 14-year-old right now who's taking Python programming class, and some people ask me, it's like, why is he learning coding? And my answer is, is because it's not about the syntax, it's not about the coding. What he's learning is like the fundamental thing of like how things work. And there's value in that. I think there's going to be timeless value in systems thinking and abstractions and what that means. And whether functions manifested as math, which he's going to get exposed to regardless, or there are some core primitives to the universe, I think, that the more you understand them, those are what I would kind of think of as like really large dots in your life that will have a higher gravitational pull and value to them that you'll then be able to. So I want him to collect those dots, and he's not resisting. So it's like, okay, while he's still listening to me, I'm going to have him do things that I think will be useful.swyx [00:26:59]: You know, part of one of the pitches that I evaluated for AI engineer is a term. And the term is that maybe the traditional interview path or career path of software engineer goes away, which is because what's the point of lead code? Yeah. And, you know, it actually matters more that you know how to work with AI and to implement the things that you want. Yep.Dharmesh [00:27:16]: That's one of the like interesting things that's happened with generative AI. You know, you go from machine learning and the models and just that underlying form, which is like true engineering, right? Like the actual, what I call real engineering. I don't think of myself as a real engineer, actually. I'm a developer. But now with generative AI. We call it AI and it's obviously got its roots in machine learning, but it just feels like fundamentally different to me. Like you have the vibe. It's like, okay, well, this is just a whole different approach to software development to so many different things. And so I'm wondering now, it's like an AI engineer is like, if you were like to draw the Venn diagram, it's interesting because the cross between like AI things, generative AI and what the tools are capable of, what the models do, and this whole new kind of body of knowledge that we're still building out, it's still very young, intersected with kind of classic engineering, software engineering. Yeah.swyx [00:28:04]: I just described the overlap as it separates out eventually until it's its own thing, but it's starting out as a software. Yeah.Alessio [00:28:11]: That makes sense. So to close the vibe coding loop, the other big hype now is MCPs. Obviously, I would say Cloud Desktop and Cursor are like the two main drivers of MCP usage. I would say my favorite is the Sentry MCP. I can pull in errors and then you can just put the context in Cursor. How do you think about that abstraction layer? Does it feel... Does it feel almost too magical in a way? Do you think it's like you get enough? Because you don't really see how the server itself is then kind of like repackaging theDharmesh [00:28:41]: information for you? I think MCP as a standard is one of the better things that's happened in the world of AI because a standard needed to exist and absent a standard, there was a set of things that just weren't possible. Now, we can argue whether it's the best possible manifestation of a standard or not. Does it do too much? Does it do too little? I get that, but it's just simple enough to both be useful and unobtrusive. It's understandable and adoptable by mere mortals, right? It's not overly complicated. You know, a reasonable engineer can put a stand up an MCP server relatively easily. The thing that has me excited about it is like, so I'm a big believer in multi-agent systems. And so that's going back to our kind of this idea of an atomic agent. So imagine the MCP server, like obviously it calls tools, but the way I think about it, so I'm working on my current passion project is agent.ai. And we'll talk more about that in a little bit. More about the, I think we should, because I think it's interesting not to promote the project at all, but there's some interesting ideas in there. One of which is around, we're going to need a mechanism for, if agents are going to collaborate and be able to delegate, there's going to need to be some form of discovery and we're going to need some standard way. It's like, okay, well, I just need to know what this thing over here is capable of. We're going to need a registry, which Anthropic's working on. I'm sure others will and have been doing directories of, and there's going to be a standard around that too. How do you build out a directory of MCP servers? I think that's going to unlock so many things just because, and we're already starting to see it. So I think MCP or something like it is going to be the next major unlock because it allows systems that don't know about each other, don't need to, it's that kind of decoupling of like Sentry and whatever tools someone else was building. And it's not just about, you know, Cloud Desktop or things like, even on the client side, I think we're going to see very interesting consumers of MCP, MCP clients versus just the chat body kind of things. Like, you know, Cloud Desktop and Cursor and things like that. But yeah, I'm very excited about MCP in that general direction.swyx [00:30:39]: I think the typical cynical developer take, it's like, we have OpenAPI. Yeah. What's the new thing? I don't know if you have a, do you have a quick MCP versus everything else? Yeah.Dharmesh [00:30:49]: So it's, so I like OpenAPI, right? So just a descriptive thing. It's OpenAPI. OpenAPI. Yes, that's what I meant. So it's basically a self-documenting thing. We can do machine-generated, lots of things from that output. It's a structured definition of an API. I get that, love it. But MCPs sort of are kind of use case specific. They're perfect for exactly what we're trying to use them for around LLMs in terms of discovery. It's like, okay, I don't necessarily need to know kind of all this detail. And so right now we have, we'll talk more about like MCP server implementations, but We will? I think, I don't know. Maybe we won't. At least it's in my head. It's like a back processor. But I do think MCP adds value above OpenAPI. It's, yeah, just because it solves this particular thing. And if we had come to the world, which we have, like, it's like, hey, we already have OpenAPI. It's like, if that were good enough for the universe, the universe would have adopted it already. There's a reason why MCP is taking office because marginally adds something that was missing before and doesn't go too far. And so that's why the kind of rate of adoption, you folks have written about this and talked about it. Yeah, why MCP won. Yeah. And it won because the universe decided that this was useful and maybe it gets supplanted by something else. Yeah. And maybe we discover, oh, maybe OpenAPI was good enough the whole time. I doubt that.swyx [00:32:09]: The meta lesson, this is, I mean, he's an investor in DevTools companies. I work in developer experience at DevRel in DevTools companies. Yep. Everyone wants to own the standard. Yeah. I'm sure you guys have tried to launch your own standards. Actually, it's Houseplant known for a standard, you know, obviously inbound marketing. But is there a standard or protocol that you ever tried to push? No.Dharmesh [00:32:30]: And there's a reason for this. Yeah. Is that? And I don't mean, need to mean, speak for the people of HubSpot, but I personally. You kind of do. I'm not smart enough. That's not the, like, I think I have a. You're smart. Not enough for that. I'm much better off understanding the standards that are out there. And I'm more on the composability side. Let's, like, take the pieces of technology that exist out there, combine them in creative, unique ways. And I like to consume standards. I don't like to, and that's not that I don't like to create them. I just don't think I have the, both the raw wattage or the credibility. It's like, okay, well, who the heck is Dharmesh, and why should we adopt a standard he created?swyx [00:33:07]: Yeah, I mean, there are people who don't monetize standards, like OpenTelemetry is a big standard, and LightStep never capitalized on that.Dharmesh [00:33:15]: So, okay, so if I were to do a standard, there's two things that have been in my head in the past. I was one around, a very, very basic one around, I don't even have the domain, I have a domain for everything, for open marketing. Because the issue we had in HubSpot grew up in the marketing space. There we go. There was no standard around data formats and things like that. It doesn't go anywhere. But the other one, and I did not mean to go here, but I'm going to go here. It's called OpenGraph. I know the term was already taken, but it hasn't been used for like 15 years now for its original purpose. But what I think should exist in the world is right now, our information, all of us, nodes are in the social graph at Meta or the professional graph at LinkedIn. Both of which are actually relatively closed in actually very annoying ways. Like very, very closed, right? Especially LinkedIn. Especially LinkedIn. I personally believe that if it's my data, and if I would get utility out of it being open, I should be able to make my data open or publish it in whatever forms that I choose, as long as I have control over it as opt-in. So the idea is around OpenGraph that says, here's a standard, here's a way to publish it. I should be able to go to OpenGraph.org slash Dharmesh dot JSON and get it back. And it's like, here's your stuff, right? And I can choose along the way and people can write to it and I can prove. And there can be an entire system. And if I were to do that, I would do it as a... Like a public benefit, non-profit-y kind of thing, as this is a contribution to society. I wouldn't try to commercialize that. Have you looked at AdProto? What's that? AdProto.swyx [00:34:43]: It's the protocol behind Blue Sky. Okay. My good friend, Dan Abramov, who was the face of React for many, many years, now works there. And he actually did a talk that I can send you, which basically kind of tries to articulate what you just said. But he does, he loves doing these like really great analogies, which I think you'll like. Like, you know, a lot of our data is behind a handle, behind a domain. Yep. So he's like, all right, what if we flip that? What if it was like our handle and then the domain? Yep. So, and that's really like your data should belong to you. Yep. And I should not have to wait 30 days for my Twitter data to export. Yep.Dharmesh [00:35:19]: you should be able to at least be able to automate it or do like, yes, I should be able to plug it into an agentic thing. Yeah. Yes. I think we're... Because so much of our data is... Locked up. I think the trick here isn't that standard. It is getting the normies to care.swyx [00:35:37]: Yeah. Because normies don't care.Dharmesh [00:35:38]: That's true. But building on that, normies don't care. So, you know, privacy is a really hot topic and an easy word to use, but it's not a binary thing. Like there are use cases where, and we make these choices all the time, that I will trade, not all privacy, but I will trade some privacy for some productivity gain or some benefit to me that says, oh, I don't care about that particular data being online if it gives me this in return, or I don't mind sharing this information with this company.Alessio [00:36:02]: If I'm getting, you know, this in return, but that sort of should be my option. I think now with computer use, you can actually automate some of the exports. Yes. Like something we've been doing internally is like everybody exports their LinkedIn connections. Yep. And then internally, we kind of merge them together to see how we can connect our companies to customers or things like that.Dharmesh [00:36:21]: And not to pick on LinkedIn, but since we're talking about it, but they feel strongly enough on the, you know, do not take LinkedIn data that they will block even browser use kind of things or whatever. They go to great, great lengths, even to see patterns of usage. And it says, oh, there's no way you could have, you know, gotten that particular thing or whatever without, and it's, so it's, there's...swyx [00:36:42]: Wasn't there a Supreme Court case that they lost? Yeah.Dharmesh [00:36:45]: So the one they lost was around someone that was scraping public data that was on the public internet. And that particular company had not signed any terms of service or whatever. It's like, oh, I'm just taking data that's on, there was no, and so that's why they won. But now, you know, the question is around, can LinkedIn... I think they can. Like, when you use, as a user, you use LinkedIn, you are signing up for their terms of service. And if they say, well, this kind of use of your LinkedIn account that violates our terms of service, they can shut your account down, right? They can. And they, yeah, so, you know, we don't need to make this a discussion. By the way, I love the company, don't get me wrong. I'm an avid user of the product. You know, I've got... Yeah, I mean, you've got over a million followers on LinkedIn, I think. Yeah, I do. And I've known people there for a long, long time, right? And I have lots of respect. And I understand even where the mindset originally came from of this kind of members-first approach to, you know, a privacy-first. I sort of get that. But sometimes you sort of have to wonder, it's like, okay, well, that was 15, 20 years ago. There's likely some controlled ways to expose some data on some member's behalf and not just completely be a binary. It's like, no, thou shalt not have the data.swyx [00:37:54]: Well, just pay for sales navigator.Alessio [00:37:57]: Before we move to the next layer of instruction, anything else on MCP you mentioned? Let's move back and then I'll tie it back to MCPs.Dharmesh [00:38:05]: So I think the... Open this with agent. Okay, so I'll start with... Here's my kind of running thesis, is that as AI and agents evolve, which they're doing very, very quickly, we're going to look at them more and more. I don't like to anthropomorphize. We'll talk about why this is not that. Less as just like raw tools and more like teammates. They'll still be software. They should self-disclose as being software. I'm totally cool with that. But I think what's going to happen is that in the same way you might collaborate with a team member on Slack or Teams or whatever you use, you can imagine a series of agents that do specific things just like a team member might do, that you can delegate things to. You can collaborate. You can say, hey, can you take a look at this? Can you proofread that? Can you try this? You can... Whatever it happens to be. So I think it is... I will go so far as to say it's inevitable that we're going to have hybrid teams someday. And what I mean by hybrid teams... So back in the day, hybrid teams were, oh, well, you have some full-time employees and some contractors. Then it was like hybrid teams are some people that are in the office and some that are remote. That's the kind of form of hybrid. The next form of hybrid is like the carbon-based life forms and agents and AI and some form of software. So let's say we temporarily stipulate that I'm right about that over some time horizon that eventually we're going to have these kind of digitally hybrid teams. So if that's true, then the question you sort of ask yourself is that then what needs to exist in order for us to get the full value of that new model? It's like, okay, well... You sort of need to... It's like, okay, well, how do I... If I'm building a digital team, like, how do I... Just in the same way, if I'm interviewing for an engineer or a designer or a PM, whatever, it's like, well, that's why we have professional networks, right? It's like, oh, they have a presence on likely LinkedIn. I can go through that semi-structured, structured form, and I can see the experience of whatever, you know, self-disclosed. But, okay, well, agents are going to need that someday. And so I'm like, okay, well, this seems like a thread that's worth pulling on. That says, okay. So I... So agent.ai is out there. And it's LinkedIn for agents. It's LinkedIn for agents. It's a professional network for agents. And the more I pull on that thread, it's like, okay, well, if that's true, like, what happens, right? It's like, oh, well, they have a profile just like anyone else, just like a human would. It's going to be a graph underneath, just like a professional network would be. It's just that... And you can have its, you know, connections and follows, and agents should be able to post. That's maybe how they do release notes. Like, oh, I have this new version. Whatever they decide to post, it should just be able to... Behave as a node on the network of a professional network. As it turns out, the more I think about that and pull on that thread, the more and more things, like, start to make sense to me. So it may be more than just a pure professional network. So my original thought was, okay, well, it's a professional network and agents as they exist out there, which I think there's going to be more and more of, will kind of exist on this network and have the profile. But then, and this is always dangerous, I'm like, okay, I want to see a world where thousands of agents are out there in order for the... Because those digital employees, the digital workers don't exist yet in any meaningful way. And so then I'm like, oh, can I make that easier for, like... And so I have, as one does, it's like, oh, I'll build a low-code platform for building agents. How hard could that be, right? Like, very hard, as it turns out. But it's been fun. So now, agent.ai has 1.3 million users. 3,000 people have actually, you know, built some variation of an agent, sometimes just for their own personal productivity. About 1,000 of which have been published. And the reason this comes back to MCP for me, so imagine that and other networks, since I know agent.ai. So right now, we have an MCP server for agent.ai that exposes all the internally built agents that we have that do, like, super useful things. Like, you know, I have access to a Twitter API that I can subsidize the cost. And I can say, you know, if you're looking to build something for social media, these kinds of things, with a single API key, and it's all completely free right now, I'm funding it. That's a useful way for it to work. And then we have a developer to say, oh, I have this idea. I don't have to worry about open AI. I don't have to worry about, now, you know, this particular model is better. It has access to all the models with one key. And we proxy it kind of behind the scenes. And then expose it. So then we get this kind of community effect, right? That says, oh, well, someone else may have built an agent to do X. Like, I have an agent right now that I built for myself to do domain valuation for website domains because I'm obsessed with domains, right? And, like, there's no efficient market for domains. There's no Zillow for domains right now that tells you, oh, here are what houses in your neighborhood sold for. It's like, well, why doesn't that exist? We should be able to solve that problem. And, yes, you're still guessing. Fine. There should be some simple heuristic. So I built that. It's like, okay, well, let me go look for past transactions. You say, okay, I'm going to type in agent.ai, agent.com, whatever domain. What's it actually worth? I'm looking at buying it. It can go and say, oh, which is what it does. It's like, I'm going to go look at are there any published domain transactions recently that are similar, either use the same word, same top-level domain, whatever it is. And it comes back with an approximate value, and it comes back with its kind of rationale for why it picked the value and comparable transactions. Oh, by the way, this domain sold for published. Okay. So that agent now, let's say, existed on the web, on agent.ai. Then imagine someone else says, oh, you know, I want to build a brand-building agent for startups and entrepreneurs to come up with names for their startup. Like a common problem, every startup is like, ah, I don't know what to call it. And so they type in five random words that kind of define whatever their startup is. And you can do all manner of things, one of which is like, oh, well, I need to find the domain for it. What are possible choices? Now it's like, okay, well, it would be nice to know if there's an aftermarket price for it, if it's listed for sale. Awesome. Then imagine calling this valuation agent. It's like, okay, well, I want to find where the arbitrage is, where the agent valuation tool says this thing is worth $25,000. It's listed on GoDaddy for $5,000. It's close enough. Let's go do that. Right? And that's a kind of composition use case that in my future state. Thousands of agents on the network, all discoverable through something like MCP. And then you as a developer of agents have access to all these kind of Lego building blocks based on what you're trying to solve. Then you blend in orchestration, which is getting better and better with the reasoning models now. Just describe the problem that you have. Now, the next layer that we're all contending with is that how many tools can you actually give an LLM before the LLM breaks? That number used to be like 15 or 20 before you kind of started to vary dramatically. And so that's the thing I'm thinking about now. It's like, okay, if I want to... If I want to expose 1,000 of these agents to a given LLM, obviously I can't give it all 1,000. Is there some intermediate layer that says, based on your prompt, I'm going to make a best guess at which agents might be able to be helpful for this particular thing? Yeah.Alessio [00:44:37]: Yeah, like RAG for tools. Yep. I did build the Latent Space Researcher on agent.ai. Okay. Nice. Yeah, that seems like, you know, then there's going to be a Latent Space Scheduler. And then once I schedule a research, you know, and you build all of these things. By the way, my apologies for the user experience. You realize I'm an engineer. It's pretty good.swyx [00:44:56]: I think it's a normie-friendly thing. Yeah. That's your magic. HubSpot does the same thing.Alessio [00:45:01]: Yeah, just to like quickly run through it. You can basically create all these different steps. And these steps are like, you know, static versus like variable-driven things. How did you decide between this kind of like low-code-ish versus doing, you know, low-code with code backend versus like not exposing that at all? Any fun design decisions? Yeah. And this is, I think...Dharmesh [00:45:22]: I think lots of people are likely sitting in exactly my position right now, coming through the choosing between deterministic. Like if you're like in a business or building, you know, some sort of agentic thing, do you decide to do a deterministic thing? Or do you go non-deterministic and just let the alum handle it, right, with the reasoning models? The original idea and the reason I took the low-code stepwise, a very deterministic approach. A, the reasoning models did not exist at that time. That's thing number one. Thing number two is if you can get... If you know in your head... If you know in your head what the actual steps are to accomplish whatever goal, why would you leave that to chance? There's no upside. There's literally no upside. Just tell me, like, what steps do you need executed? So right now what I'm playing with... So one thing we haven't talked about yet, and people don't talk about UI and agents. Right now, the primary interaction model... Or they don't talk enough about it. I know some people have. But it's like, okay, so we're used to the chatbot back and forth. Fine. I get that. But I think we're going to move to a blend of... Some of those things are going to be synchronous as they are now. But some are going to be... Some are going to be async. It's just going to put it in a queue, just like... And this goes back to my... Man, I talk fast. But I have this... I only have one other speed. It's even faster. So imagine it's like if you're working... So back to my, oh, we're going to have these hybrid digital teams. Like, you would not go to a co-worker and say, I'm going to ask you to do this thing, and then sit there and wait for them to go do it. Like, that's not how the world works. So it's nice to be able to just, like, hand something off to someone. It's like, okay, well, maybe I expect a response in an hour or a day or something like that.Dharmesh [00:46:52]: In terms of when things need to happen. So the UI around agents. So if you look at the output of agent.ai agents right now, they are the simplest possible manifestation of a UI, right? That says, oh, we have inputs of, like, four different types. Like, we've got a dropdown, we've got multi-select, all the things. It's like back in HTML, the original HTML 1.0 days, right? Like, you're the smallest possible set of primitives for a UI. And it just says, okay, because we need to collect some information from the user, and then we go do steps and do things. And generate some output in HTML or markup are the two primary examples. So the thing I've been asking myself, if I keep going down that path. So people ask me, I get requests all the time. It's like, oh, can you make the UI sort of boring? I need to be able to do this, right? And if I keep pulling on that, it's like, okay, well, now I've built an entire UI builder thing. Where does this end? And so I think the right answer, and this is what I'm going to be backcoding once I get done here, is around injecting a code generation UI generation into, the agent.ai flow, right? As a builder, you're like, okay, I'm going to describe the thing that I want, much like you would do in a vibe coding world. But instead of generating the entire app, it's going to generate the UI that exists at some point in either that deterministic flow or something like that. It says, oh, here's the thing I'm trying to do. Go generate the UI for me. And I can go through some iterations. And what I think of it as a, so it's like, I'm going to generate the code, generate the code, tweak it, go through this kind of prompt style, like we do with vibe coding now. And at some point, I'm going to be happy with it. And I'm going to hit save. And that's going to become the action in that particular step. It's like a caching of the generated code that I can then, like incur any inference time costs. It's just the actual code at that point.Alessio [00:48:29]: Yeah, I invested in a company called E2B, which does code sandbox. And they powered the LM arena web arena. So it's basically the, just like you do LMS, like text to text, they do the same for like UI generation. So if you're asking a model, how do you do it? But yeah, I think that's kind of where.Dharmesh [00:48:45]: That's the thing I'm really fascinated by. So the early LLM, you know, we're understandably, but laughably bad at simple arithmetic, right? That's the thing like my wife, Normies would ask us, like, you call this AI, like it can't, my son would be like, it's just stupid. It can't even do like simple arithmetic. And then like we've discovered over time that, and there's a reason for this, right? It's like, it's a large, there's, you know, the word language is in there for a reason in terms of what it's been trained on. It's not meant to do math, but now it's like, okay, well, the fact that it has access to a Python interpreter that I can actually call at runtime, that solves an entire body of problems that it wasn't trained to do. And it's basically a form of delegation. And so the thought that's kind of rattling around in my head is that that's great. So it's, it's like took the arithmetic problem and took it first. Now, like anything that's solvable through a relatively concrete Python program, it's able to do a bunch of things that I couldn't do before. Can we get to the same place with UI? I don't know what the future of UI looks like in a agentic AI world, but maybe let the LLM handle it, but not in the classic sense. Maybe it generates it on the fly, or maybe we go through some iterations and hit cache or something like that. So it's a little bit more predictable. Uh, I don't know, but yeah.Alessio [00:49:48]: And especially when is the human supposed to intervene? So, especially if you're composing them, most of them should not have a UI because then they're just web hooking to somewhere else. I just want to touch back. I don't know if you have more comments on this.swyx [00:50:01]: I was just going to ask when you, you said you got, you're going to go back to code. What

Preview: Colleague Liz Peek comments on on-shoring manufacturing is newly practical because of AI. More. 1958

From this week's Moneyweek Magazine …Two rumours have been swirling around the gold markets for many years. Some have called them conspiracy theories. Others note that conspiracy theories often prove true. What's the difference between conspiracy and truth? About 30 years.The first is that China has far more gold than it says it does. We actually now know this to be true. The other is that America has far less than the 8,133 tonnes of gold it says it possesses.This rumour has been doing the rounds since 1971, when Peter Beter, a lawyer and financial adviser to former president John F. Kennedy, said he had been informed that gold in Fort Knox had been removed. He went on to write a best-selling book about it: The Conspiracy Against the Dollar.The problem is a total lack of transparency on the part of the US authorities, something that according to current US president Donald Trump, and the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, will not be the case for much longer.Roosevelt triggers a boomBut to understand this situation we need to go back in time, all the way to 1933, when US president Franklin D. Roosevelt famously devalued the US dollar and revalued gold upwards by 70%, from $20 an ounce (oz) to $35/oz, in order to bolster growth. US gold reserves would increase to unprecedented levels in the next 15 years.Some of the gold came from US citizens. It was now illegal for them to own gold and they had to hand any they owned over to the authorities. Some came from the fact that the government then bought all US mined supply (the upwards revaluation of gold triggered a mining boom) and any gold imported to the US assay office. The US even began buying gold on foreign markets to protect the new higher price.Thus US official holdings in 1939 on the eve of World War II totalled 15,679 tonnes. They would only increase. With Nazi invasions, European nations sent all the gold they could across the Atlantic, either for safekeeping or to buy essential supplies; 1949 saw the high watermark of US gold holdings – 22,000 tonnes, as much as half of all the gold ever mined.In July 1944, with it clear that the Allies were going to win the war, representatives from the 44 Allied nations met at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods for the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference to design a new system of money for the new world order.International accounts would be settled in dollars, and those dollars were convertible to gold at $35/oz. Countries had to maintain exchange rates within 1% of the US dollar. In effect, the US was on a gold standard, and the rest of the world was on a dollar standard.The system relied on the integrity of the US dollar to work, and that integrity was in question, even before the end of the war. The June 1945 Federal Reserve Act reduced required gold reserves for notes outstanding from 40% to 25%, and against deposits from 35% to 25%. Between 1944 and 1954, because of increased supply, the dollar lost a third of its purchasing power, though the $35 Bretton Woods price remained.“Six major European countries,along with the UK, co-ordinated sales to suppress the gold price”US government spending was soaring, and it began running balance of payments deficits – made worse by the costs of foreign aid, America's new welfare systems and maintaining a military presence in Europe and Asia. Gold began leaving the US. By 1965 reserves had fallen by 9,500 tonnes, down 40% from the 1949 peak.Successive US administrations tried to stop the outflow, without success. Dwight D. Eisenhower banned Americans from buying gold overseas, Kennedy imposed the “equalisation tax” on foreign investments, and Lyndon B. Johnson discouraged Americans from travelling altogether. “We may need to forgo the pleasures of Europe for a while,” he said.Fears that the dollar would devalue following the election (won by Kennedy) sent the gold price in London to $40/oz. The Bank of England, in collusion with the Federal Reserve, began increasing gold sales to keep the price down.Thus did the London gold pool begin, with the addition of six major European nations the following year (Belgium, France, the Netherlands, West Germany, Italy and Switzerland), which co-ordinated sales to suppress, or “stabilise”, to use their word, the gold price and defuse unwanted, upward market pressure.But the pool struggled against growing demand. In 1965, an ounce of gold was still $35, but the purchasing power of the dollar had decreased by 57% from 1945, while gold reserves had also fallen sharply. The culprit was the costs of the US government, in particular the Vietnam War and president Johnson's enormous welfare spending.If you are buying gold to protect yourself in these uncertain times - and you should if you do not already own some - as always I recommend The Pure Gold Company. Pricing is competitive, quality of service is high. They deliver to the UK, the US, Canada and Europe or you can store your gold with them. More here.Bretton Woods under pressureWith inflation rising at home and international confidence in the dollar waning, these programmes were not just costly – they undermined Bretton Woods. Non-American nations felt aggrieved that they had to produce $100 worth of goods and services to get a $100 bill, when the US could just print one. French finance minister Valéry Giscard d'Estaing called it “America's exorbitant privilege”.President de Gaulle, meanwhile, had had enough. He ignored the pool to turn all French dollars and sterling balances into gold. The French even sent battleships to New York to collect their gold. De Gaulle became the target of several assassination attempts – coincidence, I'm sure. There were rather more US dollars in the world than there was gold to back them, he felt, and he was right.By 1967, US foreign liabilities were $36bn, but it only had $12bn in gold reserves – a third of what was needed to back the dollar. West Germany, Spain and Switzerland began demanding gold for their dollars. Even the British, with sterling going through one of its quadrennial collapses, asked the Americans to prepare $3bn worth of Fort Knox gold for withdrawal. Private gold demand was overwhelming.“The floor of the Bank of England's weighing room collapsed under the weight of all the bullion”In November 1967, the British government devalued the pound by 14%, from $2.80 to $2.40, in order to “achieve a substantial surplus on the balance of payments consistent with economic growth and full employment”.In that month, the London market saw greater bullion demand than it would typically see in nine: as much as 100 tonnes per day. To stem demand they banned forward buying, leverage and the purchase of gold with credit. The pool still lost 1,400 tonnes that year, more than a whole year's mined supply.Selling pressure on the US dollar only increased when the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese People's Army of Vietnam launched the first of a series of surprise attacks on US armed forces in South Vietnam in January 1968.Desperate to prop up the system, US military aircraft flew tonne after tonne of gold to RAF Lakenheath from where it was trucked in military convoys to the back entrance of the Bank of England: at one point the floor of the Bank of England's weighing room collapsed under the weight of all the gold.You really should subscribe to this amazing publication.Shoring up the systemIn the four days between 11 March and 14 March 1968, some 780 tonnes were sold to market. The effort to protect the price was deemed hopeless. On 15 March, UK chancellor Roy Jenkins declared a bank holiday, and the gold market was closed for a fortnight, “at the request of the United States”.Zurich also closed. Paris stayed open with gold trading at a 25% premium. All in all, the final 15 months saw over 3,000 tonnes sold to market to protect that $35 price. The pool had lost more than an eighth of its reserves.Two days later, in the rushed-through Washington Agreement, governors of the central banks in the gold pool declared there would be one fixed gold marketfor official government transactions at $35/oz and another, free-market, price for private transactions. Not for the last time, central bankers were living in a world of their own.Gold is one thing. Gold standards are another. They tend not to last, particularly bogus ones such as this one, under which citizens themselves did not handle gold. Keynes called them barbarous – ironic, perhaps, given that he was one of the architects of this one.In August 1971, president Nixon took the US off the gold standard, a “temporary” measure that remains more than 50 years later. For the first time in history, gold – Switzerland aside – played no part in the global monetary system.Of course it was the fault of the speculators. It always is. “I have directed the secretary of the Treasury to take the action necessary to defend the dollar against the speculators,” Nixon said, deflecting responsibility, and “to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold”.High time for a US gold auditThe US keeps its gold in four places: at Fort Knox, Kentucky (roughly 56% of its 8,133 tonnes); at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (8%); and the remaining 36% at the mints in Denver and West Point. There has not been a proper public audit of this gold since 1953. There have been internal audits, especially between 1974 and 1986, but these were not transparent.There are many people, among them gold experts, who do not believe the gold is there. The US spent it trying to suppress the gold price in the 1960s, theysay. But in this new age of American transparency, both Trump and Musk have repeatedly pledged that this gold will be audited.There is talk of it being done on a livestream. Trump has even suggested the gold has been stolen. “We're actually going to Fort Knox to see if the gold is there,” he said, “because maybe somebody stole the gold. Tonnes of gold.”They've been making such light of it, one has to assume they know the gold is there. Musk was laughing about the conspiracies on podcasts, and he even posted a picture of a Fort Knox starter kit: a brick and some gold spray. I can't see how they would be joking if there were any serious doubts.Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, has said quite categorically that the gold is there. The last audit was in September 2024, he said in a recent Bloomberg interview, before looking down the camera and assuring the US people that “all the gold is present and accounted for”. But this would only have been an internal audit, and it would not have been a full audit.According to the US Mint, “the only gold removed has been very small quantities used to test the purity of gold during regularly scheduled audits”. No other gold has been transferred to or from the depository “for many years”. How long is many years, though? As far back as the 1960s?It's quite astonishing just how secretive the whole thing is. They opened the vaults for a congressional delegation and certain members of the press to view the gold in 1974. There were rumours swirling about then too. “We've never done this before and we'll probably never do it again,” said the then director of the US Mint Mary Brooks.“The gold commonly confiscated under Roosevelt contained some copper, and is not pure enough for sale”Then in 2017, during Trump's first administration, Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell were invited to view the gold. “The gold was there,” Mnuchin said. He is “sure” nobody's moved it. There are “serious security protocols in place”. But there are more than 4,000 tonnes in Fort Knox. A tonne would be about the size of a medium to large suitcase. Did he see all 4,000 of them?The other big issue is the purity of the gold. What is there might not all be of good delivery quality, meaning it would not be readily accepted in international bullion markets. If much of the gold is the bullion Roosevelt confiscated in the 1930s, it will be in the form of “coinmelt”: melted down coins.The commonly confiscated coins, such as the $20 double eagle, were only 90% pure and mixed with copper to make them harder. When melted down, they were not always properly refined to modern standards, while the bars they were melted into weighed 320-330 ounces, not the 400 oz bars of good delivery standard today. In practice, this means Fort Knox gold would not be accepted without additional processing.But, until a proper audit takes place, this is all speculation, albeit reasoned speculation. We don't know the full facts. The reasons given for not conducting a full audit are flimsy: we don't need to, it would be too much of an undertaking. Please!If the US gold turns out not to be there, then the gold price goes up – potentially a lot. If it is there, it's business as usual.For now, I'd say the markets are behaving as though it is business as usual. They are climbing, and every dip is being bought, largely, it seems, by central banks (especially in Asia), who are diversifying their holdings and de-dollarising. But this audit cannot come quickly enough.Large volumes of physical gold - over 1,000 tonnes by some counts - have recently been transferred from London to New York. One theory is that was the gold was transferred in anticipation of tariffs. Another is that it was the US buying ahead of its audit. We will soon find out.Finally, I would just like to debunk one theory doing the rounds. US gold is currently marked to market at $42/oz. After the audit, those 8,133 tonnes – assuming they are there and of good delivery quality – could be marked to market at current prices, meaning a significant uplift in the value of holdings.The theory doing the rounds is that Treasury ecretary Bessent will use some of the upwards revaluation to monetise the balance sheet – not unlike how Roosevelt did in 1933 – to create funds for, among other things, the strategic bitcoin reserve. But Bessent has quite clearly stated that is not his intention.This article first appeared in Moneyweek Magazine. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

From this week's Moneyweek Magazine …Two rumours have been swirling around the gold markets for many years. Some have called them conspiracy theories. Others note that conspiracy theories often prove true. What's the difference between conspiracy and truth? About 30 years.The first is that China has far more gold than it says it does. We actually now know this to be true. The other is that America has far less than the 8,133 tonnes of gold it says it possesses.This rumour has been doing the rounds since 1971, when Peter Beter, a lawyer and financial adviser to former president John F. Kennedy, said he had been informed that gold in Fort Knox had been removed. He went on to write a best-selling book about it: The Conspiracy Against the Dollar.The problem is a total lack of transparency on the part of the US authorities, something that according to current US president Donald Trump, and the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, will not be the case for much longer.Roosevelt triggers a boomBut to understand this situation we need to go back in time, all the way to 1933, when US president Franklin D. Roosevelt famously devalued the US dollar and revalued gold upwards by 70%, from $20 an ounce (oz) to $35/oz, in order to bolster growth. US gold reserves would increase to unprecedented levels in the next 15 years.Some of the gold came from US citizens. It was now illegal for them to own gold and they had to hand any they owned over to the authorities. Some came from the fact that the government then bought all US mined supply (the upwards revaluation of gold triggered a mining boom) and any gold imported to the US assay office. The US even began buying gold on foreign markets to protect the new higher price.Thus US official holdings in 1939 on the eve of World War II totalled 15,679 tonnes. They would only increase. With Nazi invasions, European nations sent all the gold they could across the Atlantic, either for safekeeping or to buy essential supplies; 1949 saw the high watermark of US gold holdings – 22,000 tonnes, as much as half of all the gold ever mined.In July 1944, with it clear that the Allies were going to win the war, representatives from the 44 Allied nations met at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods for the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference to design a new system of money for the new world order.International accounts would be settled in dollars, and those dollars were convertible to gold at $35/oz. Countries had to maintain exchange rates within 1% of the US dollar. In effect, the US was on a gold standard, and the rest of the world was on a dollar standard.The system relied on the integrity of the US dollar to work, and that integrity was in question, even before the end of the war. The June 1945 Federal Reserve Act reduced required gold reserves for notes outstanding from 40% to 25%, and against deposits from 35% to 25%. Between 1944 and 1954, because of increased supply, the dollar lost a third of its purchasing power, though the $35 Bretton Woods price remained.“Six major European countries,along with the UK, co-ordinated sales to suppress the gold price”US government spending was soaring, and it began running balance of payments deficits – made worse by the costs of foreign aid, America's new welfare systems and maintaining a military presence in Europe and Asia. Gold began leaving the US. By 1965 reserves had fallen by 9,500 tonnes, down 40% from the 1949 peak.Successive US administrations tried to stop the outflow, without success. Dwight D. Eisenhower banned Americans from buying gold overseas, Kennedy imposed the “equalisation tax” on foreign investments, and Lyndon B. Johnson discouraged Americans from travelling altogether. “We may need to forgo the pleasures of Europe for a while,” he said.Fears that the dollar would devalue following the election (won by Kennedy) sent the gold price in London to $40/oz. The Bank of England, in collusion with the Federal Reserve, began increasing gold sales to keep the price down.Thus did the London gold pool begin, with the addition of six major European nations the following year (Belgium, France, the Netherlands, West Germany, Italy and Switzerland), which co-ordinated sales to suppress, or “stabilise”, to use their word, the gold price and defuse unwanted, upward market pressure.But the pool struggled against growing demand. In 1965, an ounce of gold was still $35, but the purchasing power of the dollar had decreased by 57% from 1945, while gold reserves had also fallen sharply. The culprit was the costs of the US government, in particular the Vietnam War and president Johnson's enormous welfare spending.If you are buying gold to protect yourself in these uncertain times - and you should if you do not already own some - as always I recommend The Pure Gold Company. Pricing is competitive, quality of service is high. They deliver to the UK, the US, Canada and Europe or you can store your gold with them. More here.Bretton Woods under pressureWith inflation rising at home and international confidence in the dollar waning, these programmes were not just costly – they undermined Bretton Woods. Non-American nations felt aggrieved that they had to produce $100 worth of goods and services to get a $100 bill, when the US could just print one. French finance minister Valéry Giscard d'Estaing called it “America's exorbitant privilege”.President de Gaulle, meanwhile, had had enough. He ignored the pool to turn all French dollars and sterling balances into gold. The French even sent battleships to New York to collect their gold. De Gaulle became the target of several assassination attempts – coincidence, I'm sure. There were rather more US dollars in the world than there was gold to back them, he felt, and he was right.By 1967, US foreign liabilities were $36bn, but it only had $12bn in gold reserves – a third of what was needed to back the dollar. West Germany, Spain and Switzerland began demanding gold for their dollars. Even the British, with sterling going through one of its quadrennial collapses, asked the Americans to prepare $3bn worth of Fort Knox gold for withdrawal. Private gold demand was overwhelming.“The floor of the Bank of England's weighing room collapsed under the weight of all the bullion”In November 1967, the British government devalued the pound by 14%, from $2.80 to $2.40, in order to “achieve a substantial surplus on the balance of payments consistent with economic growth and full employment”.In that month, the London market saw greater bullion demand than it would typically see in nine: as much as 100 tonnes per day. To stem demand they banned forward buying, leverage and the purchase of gold with credit. The pool still lost 1,400 tonnes that year, more than a whole year's mined supply.Selling pressure on the US dollar only increased when the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese People's Army of Vietnam launched the first of a series of surprise attacks on US armed forces in South Vietnam in January 1968.Desperate to prop up the system, US military aircraft flew tonne after tonne of gold to RAF Lakenheath from where it was trucked in military convoys to the back entrance of the Bank of England: at one point the floor of the Bank of England's weighing room collapsed under the weight of all the gold.You really should subscribe to this amazing publication.Shoring up the systemIn the four days between 11 March and 14 March 1968, some 780 tonnes were sold to market. The effort to protect the price was deemed hopeless. On 15 March, UK chancellor Roy Jenkins declared a bank holiday, and the gold market was closed for a fortnight, “at the request of the United States”.Zurich also closed. Paris stayed open with gold trading at a 25% premium. All in all, the final 15 months saw over 3,000 tonnes sold to market to protect that $35 price. The pool had lost more than an eighth of its reserves.Two days later, in the rushed-through Washington Agreement, governors of the central banks in the gold pool declared there would be one fixed gold marketfor official government transactions at $35/oz and another, free-market, price for private transactions. Not for the last time, central bankers were living in a world of their own.Gold is one thing. Gold standards are another. They tend not to last, particularly bogus ones such as this one, under which citizens themselves did not handle gold. Keynes called them barbarous – ironic, perhaps, given that he was one of the architects of this one.In August 1971, president Nixon took the US off the gold standard, a “temporary” measure that remains more than 50 years later. For the first time in history, gold – Switzerland aside – played no part in the global monetary system.Of course it was the fault of the speculators. It always is. “I have directed the secretary of the Treasury to take the action necessary to defend the dollar against the speculators,” Nixon said, deflecting responsibility, and “to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold”.High time for a US gold auditThe US keeps its gold in four places: at Fort Knox, Kentucky (roughly 56% of its 8,133 tonnes); at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (8%); and the remaining 36% at the mints in Denver and West Point. There has not been a proper public audit of this gold since 1953. There have been internal audits, especially between 1974 and 1986, but these were not transparent.There are many people, among them gold experts, who do not believe the gold is there. The US spent it trying to suppress the gold price in the 1960s, theysay. But in this new age of American transparency, both Trump and Musk have repeatedly pledged that this gold will be audited.There is talk of it being done on a livestream. Trump has even suggested the gold has been stolen. “We're actually going to Fort Knox to see if the gold is there,” he said, “because maybe somebody stole the gold. Tonnes of gold.”They've been making such light of it, one has to assume they know the gold is there. Musk was laughing about the conspiracies on podcasts, and he even posted a picture of a Fort Knox starter kit: a brick and some gold spray. I can't see how they would be joking if there were any serious doubts.Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, has said quite categorically that the gold is there. The last audit was in September 2024, he said in a recent Bloomberg interview, before looking down the camera and assuring the US people that “all the gold is present and accounted for”. But this would only have been an internal audit, and it would not have been a full audit.According to the US Mint, “the only gold removed has been very small quantities used to test the purity of gold during regularly scheduled audits”. No other gold has been transferred to or from the depository “for many years”. How long is many years, though? As far back as the 1960s?It's quite astonishing just how secretive the whole thing is. They opened the vaults for a congressional delegation and certain members of the press to view the gold in 1974. There were rumours swirling about then too. “We've never done this before and we'll probably never do it again,” said the then director of the US Mint Mary Brooks.“The gold commonly confiscated under Roosevelt contained some copper, and is not pure enough for sale”Then in 2017, during Trump's first administration, Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell were invited to view the gold. “The gold was there,” Mnuchin said. He is “sure” nobody's moved it. There are “serious security protocols in place”. But there are more than 4,000 tonnes in Fort Knox. A tonne would be about the size of a medium to large suitcase. Did he see all 4,000 of them?The other big issue is the purity of the gold. What is there might not all be of good delivery quality, meaning it would not be readily accepted in international bullion markets. If much of the gold is the bullion Roosevelt confiscated in the 1930s, it will be in the form of “coinmelt”: melted down coins.The commonly confiscated coins, such as the $20 double eagle, were only 90% pure and mixed with copper to make them harder. When melted down, they were not always properly refined to modern standards, while the bars they were melted into weighed 320-330 ounces, not the 400 oz bars of good delivery standard today. In practice, this means Fort Knox gold would not be accepted without additional processing.But, until a proper audit takes place, this is all speculation, albeit reasoned speculation. We don't know the full facts. The reasons given for not conducting a full audit are flimsy: we don't need to, it would be too much of an undertaking. Please!If the US gold turns out not to be there, then the gold price goes up – potentially a lot. If it is there, it's business as usual.For now, I'd say the markets are behaving as though it is business as usual. They are climbing, and every dip is being bought, largely, it seems, by central banks (especially in Asia), who are diversifying their holdings and de-dollarising. But this audit cannot come quickly enough.Large volumes of physical gold - over 1,000 tonnes by some counts - have recently been transferred from London to New York. One theory is that was the gold was transferred in anticipation of tariffs. Another is that it was the US buying ahead of its audit. We will soon find out.Finally, I would just like to debunk one theory doing the rounds. US gold is currently marked to market at $42/oz. After the audit, those 8,133 tonnes – assuming they are there and of good delivery quality – could be marked to market at current prices, meaning a significant uplift in the value of holdings.The theory doing the rounds is that Treasury ecretary Bessent will use some of the upwards revaluation to monetise the balance sheet – not unlike how Roosevelt did in 1933 – to create funds for, among other things, the strategic bitcoin reserve. But Bessent has quite clearly stated that is not his intention.This article first appeared in Moneyweek Magazine. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

In this episode we talk:- The march - The coach's aura- Johnny Shore

Drafted two more teams in the 2025 Big Board contest on Underdog with a $250k top prize and discussed all of the latest ADP movement after the Deebo Samuel trade and the NFL Combine Watch stream here⁠⁠.⁠☕ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Become a "Best Ball Value Hound" Youtube member⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to get access to Best Ball After Dark interviews and unlock the #☕bestball-breakfast channel in the Deposit Kingdom Discord where I'll tip when I'm joining drafts.

On today's show we are taking a look at the near-shoring trend and how it has maybe been upended in the past couple of weeks since the inauguration of the new President.  On the minds of most business leaders in manufacturing are some important questions. If the global landscape has changed, where should you establish manufacturing capacity geographically?  The globalization of the past few decades has proven to be a geopolitical failure. The assumption was that if economies were sufficiently intertwined, that it would be a protracted period of world peace and collaboration.  We now have fractured geopolitical alliances. ---------------- **Real Estate Espresso Podcast:** Spotify: [The Real Estate Espresso Podcast](https://open.spotify.com/show/3GvtwRmTq4r3es8cbw8jW0?si=c75ea506a6694ef1)   iTunes: [The Real Estate Espresso Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-real-estate-espresso-podcast/id1340482613)   Website: [www.victorjm.com](http://www.victorjm.com)   LinkedIn: [Victor Menasce](http://www.linkedin.com/in/vmenasce)   YouTube: [The Real Estate Espresso Podcast](http://www.youtube.com/@victorjmenasce6734)   Facebook: [www.facebook.com/realestateespresso](http://www.facebook.com/realestateespresso)   Email: [podcast@victorjm.com](mailto:podcast@victorjm.com)  **Y Street Capital:** Website: [www.ystreetcapital.com](http://www.ystreetcapital.com)   Facebook: [www.facebook.com/YStreetCapital](https://www.facebook.com/YStreetCapital)   Instagram: [@ystreetcapital](http://www.instagram.com/ystreetcapital)  

Daniel talks about the key features of the most recent Indian Budget, and its investment implications. Speaker:   - Daniel Lam, Head of Equity Strategy, Standard Chartered Bank For more of our latest market insights, visit Market views on-the-go or subscribe to Standard Chartered Wealth Insights on YouTube. 

In today's meditation, we were shown the mountain ranges and a healing that was taking place shoring up the energies of particular mountains. We watched as an old healing woman worked with the energies of the mountains and the guides for these mountains. Reinforcement was brought in from the angelic, and Galactic realm to stabilize the energies within the mountain ranges, fending off earthquakes and land movement. And Enlightened World Network, we are seeing a lot of attention given to supporting planet Earth at this time. What if your guides for the guided meditation had no idea where Spirit was going to be leading them? Join Dr. Ruth Anderson and Teri Angel as they explore a spirit-inspired and spirit-led meditation. Enjoy the journey with them as they open their hearts, minds, and awareness to whatever the learning might be. Join us in this alternate form of meditation. What message is waiting for you? Nope, this is not your Mama's meditation. Teri Angel is an International Peace Ambassador and the founder of the nonprofit corporation, Angelspeakers Inc. Teri is an angel messenger, spiritual coach and teacher, and energy healer. She has been communicating with angels her entire life. Teri is currently on a Peace On Earth Tour, spreading the message of peace throughout the country. She can be reached at https://www.angelspeakers.com Dr. Ruth Anderson, the founder of Enlightened World Network, is a Reverend of the Church of Inner Light. She is an author, producer, and a conduit for the Spiritual Divinity sharing their teachings in an authentic and open matter. Her desire is for others to know oneness with the spiritual divinity, Divine Mother, and the archangels and to know divine love as she has been able to experience it. Enlightened World Network is your guide to inspirational online programs about the spiritual divinity, angels, energy work, chakras, past lives, or soul. Learn about spiritually transformative authors, musicians and healers. From motivational learning to inner guidance, you will find the best program for you. Enlightened World Network is now available on Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, Podbean, Spotify, and Amazon Music. Check out EWN's website featuring over 200 spirit-inspired lightworkers specializing in meditation, energy work and angel channeling https://www.enlightenedworld.online Please consider donating to support the work of the EWN- https://www.paypal.me/EnlightenedWorld. Enjoy inspirational and educational shows at http://www.youtube.com/c/EnlightenedWorldNetwork To sign up for a newsletter to stay up on EWN programs and events, sign up here:https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/FBoFQef/web Link to EWN's disclaimer: https://enlightenedworld.online/disclaimer/ #Guidedmeditation #spiritualjourney #ArchangelMichael #everydaymeditations #powerfulmeditations

Canada has pledged to spend more on economic development and security of the Arctic, but it has some catching up to do as climate change, technology and changing global geopolitics begin to transform the region. A look at Canada's sovereignty in the region, which is important for future national security and resource development plans, on tonight's The Agenda. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

En México, dentro de la población subocupada, 328,971 personas están en condición de búsqueda de trabajo adicional, indican cifras del Inegi del segundo trimestre de 2024. De acuerdo con KPMG, estamos transitando por el strategic shoring, es decir, el cambio en la huella geográfica de una cadena de suministro global, producto del traslado de ciertos eslabones de la producción hacia determinadas ubicaciones en las Américas. Capítulos 00:00 - Introducción 00:32 - La población subocupada en México 02:18 - Causas: Pobreza laboral y metas financieras 03:12 - ¿Qué es el strategic shoring? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Title:Trust and Rethink What's Possible (ft. Lisa Mendenhall Johnson | SVP Sales | EideCom)Bio:As SVP of Sales at EideCom, Lisa works with her clients to craft engaging and memorable event experiences through the art forms of audio/visual production and creative media. Her clients span Fortune 500, private sector, and non-profit with audiences of 200-20,000+. Lisa's true passion is making a difference in her clients' lives and being a connector of people. Opening Quote:“So many companies are fully remote or a lot of their employees only see each other, you know, once or twice a year at a sales kickoff or an annual meeting. So I think events are even more integral to a company's culture and to the growth of a business and morale than they ever have been.”Summary:In this episode of No More Bad Events, Scott interviews Lisa Mendenhall Johnson about all things related to event production.  Things like logistics planning, technical elements, design, content management, and execution.  Those, of course, are the nuts and bolts. Shoring all of that up is creativity and, most significantly, trust.Scott and Lisa touch on the critical role of trust in vendor-client relationships, the challenges of balancing client expectations with budget constraints, and the importance of having a dedicated and knowledgeable team.Lisa emphasizes the importance of engaging the production team early in the planning stages to ensure seamless execution and optimal audience experience. They also discuss the impact of recent trends, like VR for pre-visualizing events and the use of AI in stage design.The latter is a prime example of always rethinking what's possible, the principle on which her company, Eidecom, stands. And the way Lisa tells it, the team at Eidecom sincerely believes that every event is an opportunity to create something new and inspiring.Lisa also discloses some fun and entertaining anecdotes about overcoming last-minute challenges, such as technical glitches and power outages during major events.The conversation goes full circle and once again lands on the topic of trust—the cornerstone of successful event production. Lisa shares how earning client trust transforms events from good to unforgettable. It's not just about mics and lights; it's about relationships and reliability.HIRE THEM TO SPEAK:Follow Lisa Mendenhall Johnson: Connect with Lisa Mendenhall JohnsonFollow Scott Bloom: eSpeakers BioFollow eSpeakers: eSpeakers MarketplaceABOUT NO MORE BAD EVENTS:Brought to you by eSpeakers and hosted by professional emcee, host, and keynote speaker Scott Bloom, No More Bad Events is where you'll hear from some of the top names in the event and speaking industry about what goes on behind the scenes at the world's most perfectly executed conferences, meetings, and more. Get ready to learn the secrets and strategies to help anyone in the event industry reach their goal of putting on nothing less than world-class events. Learn more at: nomorebadevents.comABOUT THE HOST:A veteran comedian and television personality who has built a reputation as the go-to choice for business humor, Scott has hosted hundreds of events over two decades for big and small organizations alike. Scott has also hosted his own weekly VH1 series and recently co-hosted a national simulcast of the Grammy Awards from the Palace Theater.As the son of a successful salesman, he was exposed to the principles of building a business at an early age. As a comedian, Scott cut his teeth at renowned improv and comedy clubs. And as a self-taught student of psychology, he's explored what makes people tick and has written a book (albeit a farce) on how to get through life. He's uniquely positioned to deliver significant notes on connecting people and making business seriously funny. And who doesn't like to laugh? Learn more about Scott: scottbloomconnects.comPRODUCED BY eSpeakers:When the perfect speaker is in front of the right audience, a kind of magic happens where organizations and individuals improve in substantial, long-term ways. eSpeakers exists to make this happen more often. eSpeakers is where the speaking industry does business on the web. Speakers, speaker managers, associations, and bureaus use our tools to organize, promote and grow successful businesses. Event organizers think of eSpeakers first when they want to hire speakers for their meetings or events.The eSpeakers Marketplace technology lets us and our partner directories help meeting professionals worldwide connect directly with speakers for great engagements. Thousands of successful speakers, trainers, and coaches use eSpeakers to build their businesses and manage their calendars. Thousands of event organizers use our directories every day to find and hire speakers. Our tools are built for speakers, by speakers, to do things that only purpose-built systems can.Learn more at: eSpeakers.comSHOW CREDITS:Scott Bloom: Host | scottbloomconnects.comJoe Heaps: eSpeakers | jheaps@eSpeakers.com 

Shoring up housing and education in the bush will be key to keeping up with increasing demand. A Regional Australia Institute survey shows close to 40% of capital city residents are considering moving to the regions. Rural editor Emily Minney caught up with chief executive Liz Ritchie to hear more about why policy makers need to be looking to the future.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shoring up Weaknesses “Shoring” is the process of temporarily supporting a building, vessel, structure, or trench with shores (props) when in danger of collapse or during repairs or alterations. Shoring comes from shore, a timber or metal prop. Shoring may be vertical, angled, or horizontal.  5 Lessons we can take from 2 Chronicles 32:1-8 Consult with trusted advisors - friends, pastors, counselors, fellow Kingdom writers - for wisdom and understanding moving forward. King Hezekiah showed humility by asking for help. Cut off anything that might fuel or refresh our enemy and allow him to prolong his attack. Sin is an obvious thing to cut off. Perhaps we also need to consider cutting off toxic people in our lives. Cut off the flow of toxic news or other social media that the enemy might utilize to create anxiety. Healing of the broken places in our lives. Shoring up those weaknesses to prevent the enemy from constantly zeroing in on those vulnerable areas. Perhaps forming a small prayer team could be a form of constructing a “second wall” outside the first. Manufacturing large numbers of weapons and shields could represent reading, meditating, and memorizing God's Word daily. Listening to godly teachings that help sharpen us. Reminding ourselves and others that we have a power far greater on our side. (2 Kings 6:15-17) Notice that Hezekiah was proactive in doing the things he could while also looking to the Lord for ultimate protection over his enemies.   Resources: If you're ready to take a step of faith and finally finish your book we have a few ways we can help you.  1. Free Writing Week Challenge: Create a Writing Habit in 15-Minutes a Day Even if you feel overwhelmed or stuck in procrastination, sitting down to write for just 15 minutes a day is the best way to finally reach your writing goals. Most writers think they need hours of uninterrupted time to make progress in their writing. However, in this free challenge, we will show you how much you can accomplish in just 15 minutes of focused writing. Click here to create a consistent writing habit this week.   2. Book Writing Lab Workshop - Map Out Your Book in Just 90 Minutes If over the last year, you've struggled to get your book written, this workshop is for you. Choose your book topic, write an outline, and create a writing plan in just 90-minutes! Finally, feel confident that you will actually finish your book. Get started now for just $27 3. Want More Support? Join Christian Book Academy Most writers stay stuck and never finish their first draft. Inside Christian Book Academy, we help you partner with God to write your book so you can become a published author. Finally, ditch your self-doubt and take a step of faith so you can finish your book. Join Christian Book Academy (coupon code PODCAST) Get 50% off your first month by using the coupon code PODCAST at checkout.  

Regardless of who wins the 2024 presidential election, Virginia's agribusinesses – think food, fiber and fuel – are expecting things to change. Brad Kutner looked into that uncertainty. 

The port strike that was successfully avoided, for now, has reminded US companies just how fragile the global supply chain can be. And years after the global pandemic and growing geopolitical tensions, the ways companies source and ship critical goods and material has been changed forever. In this episode of the podcast we speak with Mary Rollman, US Supply Chain Leader at KPMG LLP, about how the threatened US port strike was just one of many risks that has everyone rethinking the future of the global supply chain. Read the new KPMG report The Proximity Premium (https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2024/strategically-reshaping-supply-chains-in-the-americas.html) Join FEI (https://www.financialexecutives.org/Become-a-Member.aspx) Special Guest: Mary Rollman.

Welcome to Season 8 of The Climate Conversation podcast! Many of us are returning from trips to the coast, where breezy beaches provided a respite from the brutal summer heat. But these coastal areas are important for more than just the occasional vacation. Wetlands and estuaries, which connect inland rivers to the open ocean, are critical ecosystems for climate adaptation and carbon sequestration. In this episode, co-hosts Dan and Alison—alongside EESI Policy Director Anna McGinn—talk about coastal restoration with Daniel Hayden, president and CEO of Restore America's Estuaries.   Show notes: 2024 Coastal and Estuarine Summit: https://web.cvent.com/event/110611bc-78c6-43ad-b053-a9afd2a4263a/summary  The Mississippi River: https://www.eesi.org/briefings/view/101024rivers  Building a Stronger Chesapeake Bay with EPA: https://www.eesi.org/podcasts/view/7.7-building-a-stronger-chesapeake-bay-with-epa  A Resilient Future for Coastal Communities: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/a-resilient-future-for-coastal-communities  Celebrating Two Years of Coastal Resilience Solutions at EESI: https://www.eesi.org/podcasts/view/4.4-celebrating-two-years-of-coastal-resilience-solutions-at-eesi  What Is the Future for New Jersey's Coastal Marshes? https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/qa-what-is-the-future-for-new-jerseys-coastal-marshes 

The Senate recently received testimony from the bipartisan co-chairs of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, who were tasked with creating a report to Congress with recommendations needed to adapt our National Defense Strategy to current threats. In this episode, hear the testimony about that completed report during which they discuss preparations for a possible world war and the need for more American kids to fight and die in it. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes The Report Jane Harman et al. July 2024. Senate Committee on Armed Services. Jane Harman: Warmonger Open Secrets. October 10, 2002. Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. September 14, 2001. GovTrack. Iridium Communications April 2, 2024. wallmine. GuruFocus Research. March 8, 2024. Yahoo Finance. December 29, 2023. Market Screener. Bing. Iridium. Iridium. Iridium. Retrieved from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine version archived November 11, 2022. Axis of Aggression or Axis of Resistance? Angela Skujins. June 8, 2024. euronews. Nikita Smagin. June 15, 2023. Carnegie Politika. Defense Innovation Unit Defense Innovation Unit. Military Service Kristy N. Kamarck. December 13, 2016. Congressional Research Service. Christopher Hitchens. October 3, 2007. Vanity Fair. Mark Daily. Feb. 14, 2007. Los Angeles Times. Israel-Palestine Shay Fogelman. August 16, 2024. Haaretz. Steven Scheer and Ali Sawafta. August 14, 2024. Reuters. July 2, 2024. Al Mayadeen English. Steve Crawshaw. January 26, 2024. The Guardian. Patreon August 12, 2024. Patreon. C-SPAN Fundraiser C-SPAN. Bills: NDAA 2025 Audio Sources July 30, 2024 Senate Committee on Armed Services Witnesses: Jane M. Harman, Chair, Commission on the National Defense Strategy Eric S. Edelman, Vice Chair, Commission on the National Defense Strategy Clips 26:20 Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS): The document details the way in which the 2022 National Defense Strategy and Assessment, completed just two years ago, did not adequately account for the threat of simultaneous and increasingly coordinated military action by our four primary adversaries. A group which I have come to call the Axis of Aggressors. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS): I appreciate the Commission's recommendation that national security spending must return to late Cold War levels — a goal which matches my plan to spend 5%, eventually, of GDP on defense. That level of investment would be temporary. It would be a down-payment on the rebuilding of our national defense tools for a generation. Tools that have sharpened can reduce the risk that our adversaries will use military force against US interests. 33:10 Jane Harman: The threats to US national security and our interests are greater than any time since World War II, and more complex than any threats during the Cold War. 34:00 Jane Harman: Sadly, we think, and I'm sure you agree, that the public has no idea how great the threats are and is not mobilized to meet them. Public support is critical to implement the changes we need to make. Leaders on both sides of the aisle and across government need to make the case to the public and get their support. Eric Edelman: There is potential for near-term war and a potential that we might lose such a conflict. The partnership that's emerged among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea is a major strategic shift that we have not completely accounted for in our defense planning. It makes each of those countries potentially stronger militarily, economically, and diplomatically, and potentially can weaken the tools we have at our disposal to deal with them. And it makes it more likely that a future conflict, for instance, in the Indo-Pacific, would expand across other theaters and that we would find ourselves in a global war that is on the scale of the Second World War. Eric Edelman: The 2022 NDS identified China as the pacing challenge. We found that China is, in many ways, outpacing the US. While we still have the strongest military in the world with the farthest global reach, when we get to a thousand miles of China's shore, we start to lose our military dominance and could find ourselves on the losing end of a conflict. China's cyber capabilities, space assets, growing strategic forces, and fully modernized conventional forces are designed to keep us from engaging in the Taiwan Strait or the South or East China seas. China, as has been testified to before Congress, has infiltrated our critical infrastructure networks to prevent or deter US action by contesting our logistics, disrupting American power and water, and otherwise removing the sanctuary of the homeland that we have long enjoyed. 38:00 Eric Edelman: For its part, Russia has reconstituted its own defense industrial base after its invasion of Ukraine much more rapidly than people anticipated. Vladimir Putin seeks to reassert Russia as a great power and is happy to destabilize the world in order to do so. 38:15 Eric Edelman: Our report describes the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, and terrorism as well. Clearly, Iran and North Korea both feel emboldened by the current environment, and terrorism remains a potent threat fueled by the proliferation of technology. As the DNI has said, the current war in the Middle East is likely to have a generational impact on terrorism. 39:20 Jane Harman: First finding: DoD cannot and should not provide for the national defense by itself. The NDS calls for an integrated deterrence that is not reflected in practice today. A truly all elements of national power approach is required to coordinate and leverage resources across DoD, the rest of the Executive branch, the private sector, civil society, and US allies and partners. We agree with the NDS on the importance of allies, and we commend the administration for expanding and strengthening NATO and building up relationships and capabilities across Asia. We also point out ways for the United States to be better partners ourselves, including by maintaining a more stable presence globally and in key organizations like NATO. We call for reducing barriers to intelligence sharing, joint production, and military exports so we can better support and prepare to fight with our closest allies. 40:25 Jane Harman: Second recommendation is fundamental shifts in threats and technology require fundamental change in how DoD functions. This is particularly true of how DoD works with the tech sector, where most of our innovation happens. We say that DoD is operating at the speed of bureaucracy when the threat is approaching wartime urgency. DoD structure is optimized for research and development for exquisite, irreplaceable platforms when the future is autonomy, AI and large numbers of cheaper and attritable systems. I know this because I represented the Aerospace Center of Los Angeles in Congress for so many years, where exquisite, irreplaceable satellite platforms were built. And now we know that there is a plethora of commercial platforms that can do many of the same things and offer redundancy. DoD programs like Replicator and the Defense Innovation Unit and the Office of Strategic Capital are great, but they're essentially efforts to work around the larger Pentagon system. 42:00 Eric Edelman: Mr. Wicker, you raised the issue of the foresizing construct in your opening statement, and we, as you noted, found that it is inadequate. I mean, it was written actually before the invasion of Ukraine and before the emergence of this tightening alliance between Russia and China. And we propose that the force needs to be sized, the joint force, in conjunction with US allies and partners, to defend the homeland, but simultaneously be able to deal with threats in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East. These are not all the same fights, so different elements of the force would be required in different parts of the globe, but US global responsibilities require a global military response as well as a diplomatic and economic one. 43:20 Eric Edelman: The DoD workforce and the all-volunteer force provide us with a kind of unmatched advantage, but recruiting failures have shrunk the force and have raised serious questions about the sustainability of the all-volunteer force in peacetime, let alone if we had to mobilize for a major conflict or a protracted conflict. 44:30 Jane Harman: Additionally, we think that Congress should revoke the 2023 spending caps and provide real growth — I know Senator Wicker loves this one — for fiscal year 2025 defense and non-defense national security spending that, at a bare minimum, falls within the range recommended by the 2018 NDS Commission. That range was never achieved. Subsequent budgets will require spending that puts defense and other components of national security, other components jointly across government and the tech sector and partners and allies, on a glide path to support efforts commensurate with the US national efforts seen during the Cold War. Jane Harman: We agree on a unanimous basis that the national debt is its own national security challenge. If we want to approach Cold War levels of spending, we need to increase resources and reform entitlement spending. 45:40 Jane Harman: During the Cold War, top marginal income tax rates were above 70% and corporate tax rates averaged 50%. We don't call for those numbers, but we are calling for an increase in resources and point out that interest on the debt is higher than our total top line of defense spending. 49:55 Jane Harman: The notion of public service isn't new as you know, Mr. Chairman, it's been around for years. It was around when I served in Congress, and Congress did not act on any of the proposals that I saw. It is still a way to get all of the public, at the proper age, engaged in understanding the requirements of citizenship. A lot of our young people have no earthly idea, sadly, because they have no civic education, what our government really is and what are the ways to serve. And surely one of the most honorable ways to serve is as a member of the military, you did it, and other members of this committee have done this. And I think that is the way to revive a kind of sense of coherence and patriotism that we are lacking right now. Eric Edelman: We have not really, as a society, talked about the need for national mobilization, but if the worst were to happen and some of the worst scenarios we discuss in our report were to come to pass and were we to face a global conflict, it would require mobilization on the scale of what we did as a nation during World War II. And we haven't done that in a long time. We haven't thought about that in a long time. There are a lot of elements to it, including stockpiling strategic materials, but being able to rapidly bring people into the military, et cetera, I just don't think we are prepared to do it. I think we have to have a national discussion about this, and I think it goes hand in hand with the earlier discussion you had with my colleague about public service and serving the nation. 52:05 Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI): We had in World War II, two years, essentially from September 1st, 1939 to December 7th, 1941, to prepare. And I doubt we'll have two years to prepare in this environment. Eric Edelman: President Putin, in some ways, has done us a bit of a favor by having invaded Ukraine and exposed, as a result, some of the limitations of US defense industrial production, and shown that it's grossly inadequate to provide the equipment, technology, and munitions that the US military and our allies and partners need today, let alone given the demands of a potential future conflict, which might be even more taxing. Jane Harman: I remember being a member of the Defense Policy Board when Jim Mattis was Secretary of Defense, and his piece of advice to us was, let's do everything we can to keep Russia and China apart. Well, oops, that has not happened. And there is this close friendship and collaboration between them. You asked how is it manifested? Well, we see it most at the moment in Ukraine, where Russia was the aggressor violating international law and invading Ukraine, and China is a huge help to Russia in evading our sanctions by buying Russian gas and by its efforts to ship into China material for the war. And then you add in, as you mentioned, Iran and North Korea, which are suppliers of drones and other lethal material to Russia. And this unholy alliance, or I think you call it Alliance of Aggression, is extremely dangerous. Let's remember that both North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran is at breakout for nuclear weapons, and the other two countries are nuclear countries. And where this goes is, it seems to me, terrifying. And that is, again, why we need to leverage all elements of national power to make sure we deter these countries from acting against us. Eric Edelman: Ukraine offered to give up, and I was involved in some of the diplomacy of this back in the nineties, the nuclear weapons that were left on its territory after the end of the Soviet Union. As a result of that, Ukraine gave them up, but in exchange for assurances from the United States, Russia, Great Britain and France, that its territorial integrity would be recognized along the borderlines that existed before the 2014 seizure of Crimea by Putin, which was a violation of those undertakings. If our assurances in the non-proliferation realm in this instance are shown to be hollow, it will raise questions in the minds of all of our allies about the assurances we've given them, our extended deterrent assurances, whether it's for our allies in Europe, part of our multilateral NATO alliance, or our bilateral allies in East Asia, or our partners, parts of special relationships we've developed in Middle East with Israel, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt and others. So the whole fabric, frankly, of the international order is at risk here, depending on the outcome in Ukraine. And to your point, if Putin is successful in Ukraine, the lesson that Xi Jinping is likely to draw is that he too can be successful in Taiwan or in the East China Sea or the South China Sea. Eric Edelman: Nuclear deterrence, Senator Fisher, is the fundamental on which everything else is built in terms of our national security. It's operating every day. It's not visible to American citizens, but the fact of our nuclear deterrent force, all three legs of the triad being available is the most powerful deterrent that we have to conflict. It's not sufficient, but it is the absolute basis, and we really, I think, agreed with the conclusion our colleagues on the Strategic Posture Commission reached, which is that we have to move forward with alacrity on all the elements of modernization of the nuclear triad. That's the GBSD Sentinel Program, that is the B-21, that is the Ohio replacement class. All of those things have to be accomplished and there are problems. One of the reasons we highlighted education is that some of the problems that GBSD are running into have to do with lack of skilled workers to be able to pour the kind of special reinforced concrete that you need for the new silos for missiles, the new control systems for missiles. We lack welders in the submarine industrial base, as Senator Wicker knows well. So there's a lot that has to be done across the board in order to move forward with nuclear modernization, but it is absolutely fundamental to our ability to deter aggression against our allies and of course against the homeland. Eric Edelman: The force right now is too small, and so we have to grow the force, and that's in the face of the recruiting challenges that we've highlighted in the report that the Army in particular, but also the Navy and the Air Force have faced. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): And I'm going to interrupt you. Please. Why is it too small? Can you explain in this setting the threats that we are facing when we look at the adversaries that we face and how that has changed over the last decade? Eric Edelman: It's too small, in part because the Department was sizing itself for one conflict. But if you have to be present in three theaters, as we are now, we've got conflicts in two theaters now, if we have a third conflict in the third theater, it's going to require a lot more forces. People talk, for instance, about the Indo-Pacific being largely a Navy and Air Force fight. That's correct, but the logistics that support the Navy and the Air Force will largely be manned by the Army. And so we have to have an Army that is sufficiently large that it can operate in all of these places, potentially simultaneously, because honestly, it is very hard to imagine today a conflict in the Indo-Pacific that doesn't become a global conflict very quickly. Someone asked earlier in the hearing about cooperation between Russia and China. The last time I testified before this committee was two years ago about the so-called "Three Body Problem," Russia and China being both nuclear peers of the United States. And one of the criticisms that was leveled at my colleague, Frank Miller and me, was that, well, there's no evidence that Russia and China are collaborating in the nuclear area. Well, we just saw them flying strategic bombers together up near Alaska, so I don't know what more evidence you want that they're beginning to collaborate in that strategic area. Eric Edelman: If we got into some kind of conflict in the Indo-Pacific, whether it be over Taiwan or the South China Sea or East China Sea, what might Russia do? One thing that comes to mind is take advantage of the separatist movement in Moldova to move on Moldova, a country that's trying to move closer to the European Union and to the West, which would then precipitate additional conflict in Europe, or take advantage of the ethnic Russian speaking minorities in the Baltic states, say Latvia, to initiate a conflict there. How would we manage that? When you raise that question with Department [of Defense] leaders, they basically say, well, that — to go back to the chairman's point earlier — well that would be sort of like World War II or would require national mobilization, and that's correct, but we haven't really taken the next steps to really focus on what that and what a protracted conflict would actually look like. We're optimized to fight very short wars. 1:21:00 Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD): There are five different domains in which our country will be attacked in the future. Air, land, and sea, most people would understand, but space and cyberspace are the new domains, which will precede any attack on the first three. Jane Harman: On cyber, it's a huge threat and I don't think we minimize it in any way. One of the things we might anticipate, for example, is if China decides to annex Taiwan, or whatever euphemism they might use, they might engage in a major cyber attack here first, for which we are under-prepared, a cyber attack of our infrastructure. When I was in Congress, I represented the Port of Los Angeles, which with the Port of Long Beach is the largest container port complex in the country. 50% of our container traffic enters and exits through those ports. There are cranes on the port to move the cargo, and those cranes have Chinese technology. So guess what? Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD): All of which are subject to the possibilities of cyber attack. Jane Harman: Absolutely. We should anticipate that our ports could go down. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD): Throughout our entire society, we find that to be the case though. Jane Harman: I'm agreeing with you and this is devastating. Does the American public understand this? No. Jane Harman: You also mentioned space. Again, something I know something about, since I used to call my district the aerospace center of the universe, where most of our intelligence satellites were made. We are more dependent on space as a country and more vulnerable in space because of that dependency than any other country. Shoring up space, which is one of the threats we address, is absolutely crucial. And it's not just military space, but commercial space. You talked about communication. A lot of how we communicate is through commercial space and think how inconvenienced the public would be if all of a sudden their little devices, which we're all dependent on, didn't work. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL): What's hurting us too is a lot of our government schools, I call 'em government schools because I went in thousands of them while I was coaching, recruiting, and the problem we have is hate that's being taught in a lot of our government schools, towards our country. Why would any young man or woman want to fight for a country that they don't believe in, that they're being taught to hate? It's absolutely amazing to me the direction this country is going. So is there any agreement there, Representative Harman? Jane Harman: There is agreement there. I think hate on both sides is totally destructive. I think the absence of civics education and the absence of institutions that help people understand what patriotism means. We had a conversation about national service, which might be a way to get all of our youth back together. I mean, this country sadly, is in a point where many people say our biggest enemy is us fighting each other. 1:33:35 Jane Harman: One of the problems is the kind of deployments the military does every two years. Moving somewhere where in many cases the spouse works and having to change his or her job every two years is very burdensome. It's also hard on kids, and so that could change. 1:36:20 Eric Edelman: The BRICS was actually kind of an invention of Goldman Sachs. It's not really a serious military organization. Jane Harman: But I think that Congress is somewhat complicit in the way the budget process doesn't work, and this insistence on requirements and oversight rather than on what is the problem set we are solving for, which is how the tech sector thinks. I've been making a comment about DIU, the Defense Innovation Unit, that was set up by the late Secretary Ash Carter, that maybe we should outsource the Pentagon to DIU, which is ably headed by someone named Doug Beck, who had 11 years experience in the private sector, because they know how to think about this. I couldn't agree with you more. The budget of DIU is $1 billion out of $850 billion. Doug Beck says he can leverage that. Sen. Angus King (I-ME): It's technologies that win wars, new technology, right? Jane Harman: I'm in violent agreement with you. He says he can leverage that into $50 billion of commercial investment, but that's still a pittance compared to the kind of change we need to undergo. Not just at the Pentagon, but at the Pentagon lashed up with other government agencies, with the tech sector, and with partners and allies. That is our point about all elements of national power, which will win the next war. 1:42:55 Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR): Ambassador Edelman, you spoke with Senator Fischer about the multiple theater force construct. Basically the kind of threats we're planning for, and there's a time when this nation planned to fight two major wars at a time, and I think now we're down to a force that can fight one conflict and protect our homeland, and hopefully scare bad guys everywhere else around the world and not starting war. Is that right? Eric Edelman: That is correct. That's what the 2022 NDS describes. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR): So that's what our national Defense Strategy says. Is the current force even capable of doing that, in your opinion? Putting aside what it should be capable of doing, which I'll come to momentarily. Can it even do that? Eric Edelman: I think there are very serious questions about whether the force in being could actually execute the strategy. Jane Harman: The word pivot probably should be retired. I don't think we can leave anywhere. I think we have to have an understanding of the threats against us, not just against regions, everywhere. The whole idea of this multiple force construct is flexibility and having an adequate deterrence so we don't engage in more wars. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): In your report you talked about the current force structure that we have, and I think you had identified that the Marines are only ones meeting that. We agree with that. What you failed to do is basically identify why we have not, or why you all did not, take up women being in selective service or joining selective service, because women make up 74% of the healthcare and education industry, 52% of financial activities. They're a tremendously strong force. And there's a lot of women I don't want to go up against. I can tell you that in so many ways. I guess my question is simple. Does the commission support women registering for selective service? Jane Harman: Well, I'll speak for myself. I do. I think that women are, a majority of our population, a majority of the talent pool, many of the most talented women serve on this committee. So yes, they should be. We should be. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): I'll make it clear that what we talked about does not require women to participate in military draft. Jane Harman: I understand. It's registering. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): Yeah, registering, that's all. Jane Harman: And my answer to that is yes. Eric Edelman: Our view was that you have to be able to deter and potentially defeat adversaries in all three of the main theaters that we have been engaged in since the end of the Second World War, and which we repeatedly engaged in. I mean, there's been no shortage of efforts to try and extricate the United States from the Middle East. The last NDS in 2018 said we should be willing to run risk in the Middle East. I think on October 7th we got a sense, and then again on April 13th, of what running additional risk means in the Middle East. So it's our view that we have to be able to manage to do all of those things. Eric Edelman: The homeland, if there's a conflict, is not going to be a sanctuary anymore. And the first attacks will likely be in the cyber domain, and they will be incredibly disabling for our society, but also for the department. But getting all of the agencies of government that would have a role in all this, because it goes beyond just DoD, it goes beyond just DHS, I mean, it goes to the Department of Transportation, it goes to Commerce. I mean, it's an unbelievably complex issue. And we're only now wrapping our minds around it and it needs a lot more work and attention from the department. Jane Harman: The public is essentially clueless about the massive cyber attacks that could be launched any day by our adversaries, not just nation states, but rogue actors as well. Music by Editing Production Assistance

Are manufacturers engaged in a mass exodus from China? And if so, where are they going?

North Island kaka are at risk and South Island kaka are vulnerable - but there are specialist breeding programmes aimed at boosting the native parrot populations. 

Throughout the Western Hemisphere ports play a critical role in fostering economic growth, and serving as gateways through which the region engages a world that is eager for it to play a greater role in global value chains. At the same time, the region's ports have made headlines for their role in the burgeoning trans-oceanic trade in illicit narcotics, gold, timber, and wildlife, while port cities consistently rank as some of the most violent locales in Latin America and the Caribbean. In this episode, Christopher Hernandez-Roy sits down with Douglas Farah, President of IBI Consultants. Together, they discuss the growing relevance of ports for criminal organizations to move illicit goods across oceans and national borders, as well as best practices for addressing these challenges. They also delve into China's growing role into the Western Hemisphere's port infrastructure and the potential vulnerabilities this may pose for the region. 

En este episodio de Proyecto 1954, Enrique se sumerge en el complejo mundo de la relación económica entre México y Estados Unidos, dejando de lado por un momento temas de seguridad y migración para enfocarse en el comercio y la economía. Acompañado por Emilio Cadena, CEO de Prodensa y presidente de la U.S. Mexico Foundation, exploran el estado actual del near-shoring y cómo México se ha consolidado como un pilar en las cadenas de valor de manufactura en Norteamérica. Temas Destacados: · Near-shoring y su Evolución: Emilio comparte su perspectiva sobre la moda del near-shoring y su impacto real en la economía mexicana y estadounidense. · Retos y Oportunidades: Discuten los fenómenos que están moldeando el near-shoring, desde la escasez de talento en EE. UU. hasta el resurgimiento de fábricas en México. · Ecosistema Industrial: Analizan la importancia de un ecosistema robusto, incluyendo la infraestructura energética, logística y de telecomunicaciones. · Innovación y Desarrollo: El papel crucial de la ciencia, la investigación y el desarrollo en mantener y potenciar la competitividad de México en la industria manufacturera. · Política Pública y Regionalización: La necesidad de políticas públicas efectivas y la cooperación binacional para fortalecer la posición de México en el escenario global. No te pierdas este episodio donde Emilio Cadena nos ofrece una visión profunda y detallada de dónde estamos parados y qué debemos hacer para seguir avanzando en este dinámico entorno económico.

On July 9-11, Washington will host the leaders of NATO's 32 member states for a special anniversary summit, celebrating 75 years since the Alliance's founding. But the NATO heads of state and government are unlikely to spend much time reminiscing. Their agenda will be full, spanning from Ukraine, Russia, wars in the Middle East, China, terrorism, cyber threats, NATO enlargement, boosting Allied capabilities, freedom of navigation around the world, nuclear deterrence, and more. On the eve of the Washington Summit, Iulia-Sabina Joja (Director, MEI's Black Sea Program) and Emiliano Alessandri (Non-resident scholar, MEI) join host Matthew Czekaj to discuss security in the wider Black Sea region, and NATO's policy toward the Middle East and Africa.

In this week's episode of “The Top Line,” Fierce Pharma's Zoey Becker sits down with Bobby Sheng, the CEO of Bora Pharmaceuticals, to discuss the concept of “friend-shoring” in drug manufacturing. "Friend-shoring" involves conducting manufacturing processes in countries considered friendly or allied. Sheng discusses the criteria for deeming a country “friendly” and explores whether this strategy could help address drug supply shortages. To learn more about the topics in this episode: Bora plants its flag in the US with $210M acquisition of generics manufacturer Upsher-Smith Emergent, pivoting away from CDMO business, sells Baltimore plant to acquisitive Bora for $30M See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on Ep #104 I'm Curious About...On-Shoring to Blended Shoring & Everything in Between: Contact Center Operations Set-up Options w/Michael Ferrari, Chief Client Officer - Avantive Solutions

The globalization of the food system has opened up new markets for American grown products, but it also has decreased domestic manufacturing.

The 2024 NFL season has officially begun and there a lot of new Panthers walking around Bank of America Stadium! This week on the Happy Half Hour, Darin Gantt and Kassidy Hill react to the signing of Jadeveon Clowney, previews how the defensive line could look, detail what practices look like this time of the year, and so much more!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“All worldly activities are as immaterial as chaff.” So said the Tibetan teacher Tsongkapa. Having explored the Eight Worldly Winds, and their effects upon us; having examined our response and looked at suggestions for ways of working, is there some overarching approach we could adopt? In short, what have we learned, and how can we put it into practice? Excerpted from the talk The Worldly Winds 4: It's All About Me! by Taranita given at Bristol Buddhist Centre, 2017. *** Subscribe to our Dharmabytes podcast:  On Apple Podcasts | On Spotify | On Google Podcasts Bite-sized inspiration three times every week. Subscribe to our Free Buddhist Audio podcast:  On Apple Podcasts | On Spotify | On Google Podcasts A full, curated, quality Dharma talk, every week. 3,000,000 downloads and counting! Subscribe using these RSS feeds or search for Free Buddhist Audio or Dharmabytes in your favourite podcast service! Help us keep FBA Podcasts free for everyone: donate now! Follow Free Buddhist Audio: YouTube  |  Instagram  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Soundcloud  

We find Paul in prison waiting to learn whether he will live or die. His circumstances are dire. Here is his explanation of his circumstances. “ Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that what has happened to me has served to advance the gospel.” Phil.1:12 In this sentence we see Paul’ entire purpose for living, preaching the good news about Jesus. Notice how he is interpreting his present dire circumstances through the lens of his purpose. He is not interpreting his purpose through the lens of his circumstances e.g. “If only I weren’t in prison, I would be accomplishing so much more preaching!” “As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear.” Phil. 13-14 Rather than focusing on the loss of his platform for preaching, he focuses on the effect on his Christian brothers and sisters of his stand for the gospel in prison. Paul is not living for “his ministry” he is living for the ministry of spreading the good news about Jesus. His purpose is not his ministry, it is the ministry. “It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.” Phil. 1:15-17 Notice that Paul is not trying to ignore the trouble that he is in or the effect it has had on his ministry. He acknowledges that there are preachers of Jesus trying to take advantage of his trouble to advance their own selfish, insincere ministries. The fact is, they are taking advantage of his troubles. What they are doing is ungodly and unrighteous! How would you feel in Paul’s circumstances? How Paul reacts is not how I would react. I would be writing letters to all “my churches” commanding them to throw the bums out! I would be pleading my case! Shoring up “my ministry” and trying to protect “my leadership” for later when I am set free. Paul doesn’t worry about “his ministry” because his purpose is the spread of the gospel, not on his personal fulfillment as a preacher. He is not about his career. “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” Phil. 1:18 By focusing on his purpose (the gospel being preached) Paul can now say one of the most powerful and helpful phrases in the English language, “So What!” “What does it matter?” All that matters to Paul is that his purpose is accomplished one way or another. And this brings us to the relationship between purpose and happiness, “And because of this I rejoice.” Happiness is the by-product of Godly Purpose. Questions: 1. Do you have a purpose that is bigger than your happiness or pleasure? 2. Do you need a new purpose? 3. If so, where will you find it?

Join Albino Sanchez and Zorina Dimitrova in a thought-provoking conversation on the dynamic landscape of AI. In this episode, we delve into critical topics such as near-shoring, AI changes, and companies' readiness for AI adoption. Albino's extensive experience in General Management and Operations brings a unique perspective, offering insights into leading teams through change and shaping organizational cultures. Our conversation provides practical perspectives for aspiring leaders and those navigating change in the context of AI. Tune in to "Decoding AI: A Conversation with Albino Sanchez and Zorina Dimitrova" for a concise exploration of current AI trends, offering real-world insights and expertise for anyone looking to navigate the evolving business landscape.Contact Albino Sanchez at https://www.ahaimpact.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon Taylor, Head of Organizational Effectiveness at Gap, joined us on The Modern People Leader.  He shared the three steps to building a high performance culture, the three things all leaders need to do really well, and the commonalities that he's noticed among the top performing companies. ---- This episode was brought to you by Leapsome. Explore their intelligent HR platform here. ---- Pre-order his book Build Smart: A Blueprint for Building a High-Performing Organization ---- Timestamps: (1:55) Good news stories (7:50) Chasing his childhood dream of moving to America (11:29) What you do in Organizational Effectiveness (13:12) Why we should be jealous Simon gets to work for the Gap (14:30) Culture change is the number two priority for Global HR leaders right now (18:43) The conflation between values and culture (22:17) The 3 steps to building a high performance culture (27:35) Shoring up sponsorship for culture initiatives with your leaders first (33:30) His experience writing his first book (35:03) Commonalities among the top performing companies  (37:52) The three things all leaders need to do really well (49:04) How Simon identified his playbook for building a high performance organization (50:37) The four pillars of building and managing a high performance organization (53:46) Biohacking (1:03:40) Rapid fire questions (1:07:44) Build Smart: A blueprint for building a high performing organization ----

#Taiwan: #PRC: After the Election, Re-shoring the manufacturing floors from the Mainland. Stephen Yates, chair of the America First Policy Institute's China Policy Initiative.@GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-lawmakers-arrive-taiwan-post-election-show-support-2024-01-23/ 1890 Hong Kong

In this episode, podcast host Diego Footer talks about ways to shore up the farm income.  Make farming easier with the Paperpot Transplanter and Other Small Farm Equipment at https://www.paperpot.co/ Follow PaperpotCo on IG https://instagram.com/paperpotco Podcasts by Diego Footer: Microgreens: https://apple.co/2m1QXmW Vegetable Farming: https://apple.co/2lCuv3m Livestock Farming: https://apple.co/2m75EVG Large Scale Farming: https://apple.co/2kxj39i Small Farm Tools https://www.paperpot.co/

On todays episode of #WithSONAR Luke Falasca and Kyle Taylor will discuss reshoring and near shoring of US goods and how it will impact the US freight market. We will be joined by VP of Transportation at Kenco, Dave Keisling to give us his thoughts on the matter. Follow the #WithSONAR Podcast Other FreightWaves Shows Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Shoring up leaky boundaries (boundary work in general!) is essential to living with freedom, wholeness, and joy and walking out our core values. There are three clear cues in my body and life that I have one or more leaky boundaries that need attending to. These cues are: resentment, persistent anxiety, and avoidance.SHOW NOTESIn this episode I share 15 examples of leaky boundaries from my life, 7 common reasons midlife women struggle to articulate/communicate/honour healthy boundaries for themselves, the difference between a boundary with self and a boundary involving another person, and what a leaky boundary is and is NOT.LINKS/REFERENCESHow to Build Brave and Flexible Boundaries With Yourself First | (alifeinprogress.ca)Reclaim Your Voice: How To Set Healthy Boundaries | (alifeinprogress.ca)Are Boundaries Selfish? Boundaries Are Actually Compassionate: This Is Why | A Life In ProgressThe Simple But Uncommon Boundary Tip You've Likely Never Considered + A Circle of Impact Exercise | A Life In ProgressBrave Boundaries Workshop, Part 1 | A Life In ProgressBrave Midlife Boundaries Workshop, Part 2 | A Life In ProgressThe Four Tendencies Quiz | Gretchen RubinBook your 1:1 client space for 2024Find Krista on FB: A Life in Progress and also Rebranding Middle Age. Find her on IG.

“When did we decide we couldn't make stuff anymore?” asks this week's guest, Meriel Chamberlin, the textile technologist behind Full Circle Fibres, an Australian startup producing “paddock to product” garments on-shore.We know that the fashion industry's climate impacts are significant, and that most of it comes down to the textile production stage. So how can we do things differently, close to home? Who needs to come together to make that happen, to share expertise, innovate, and also to fund it? How might fibre production tread more lightly on the land? Protect, or even enhance, biodiversity? These are some of the big questions driving the initiatives we're talking about on this week's show.We've often covered the trouble with factories on this podcast; issues around garment worker injustice and unfair conditions. Very important stuff! But we hardly ever hear about the excellent factories. This is an Episode about the opportunities to make fashion more sustainable at the factory level, and the skills and capabilities that already exist. That might mean some re-shoring, but it's also an encouragement to value what's already in our backyards.Reports of the end of textile manufacturing in so-called consuming countries are exaggerated. We've still got it! Albeit on a smaller scale than when our parents were young. Wherever in the world you are listening, Meriel wants you to look around and recognise what you already have in terms of local skills, manufacturing & R&D capacity. Australia, for example, produces some of the world's best fibre, and there are still production facilities domestically for most stages of the supply chain. Find a gap? Might be worth working to close it.Full Circle Fibres is a recipient of the Country Road Climate Fund. Discover here.Check out the shownotes on wardrobecrisis.comCan you help us spread the word about Series 9? Wardrobe Crisis is an independent production. We don't believe in barriers to entry and are determined to keep this content free.If you value it, please help by sharing your favourite Episodes, and rating and reviewing us in Apple. Thank you!Find Clare on Instagram @mrspress Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jacksonville Jaguars Getting Healthy In The Right Place as DL Dawuane Smoot might go, and Davon Hamilton is getting closer. Shoring up a strength is one way to increase your clutch on the AFC South. Listen:Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors!BetterHelpThis episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Make your brain your friend, with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com/LOCKEDON today to get 10% off your first month. birddogsGo to birddogs.com/LOCKEDONNFL or enter promo code LOCKEDONNFL for a water bottle with any order. You won't want to take your birddogs off we promise you. PrizePicksGo to PrizePicks.com/lockedonnfl and use code lockedonnfl for a first deposit match up to $100!GametimeDownload the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDONNFL for $20 off your first purchase. Last minute tickets. Lowest Price. Guaranteed.eBay MotorsFor parts that fit, head to eBay Motors and look for the green check. Stay in the game with eBay Guaranteed Fit at eBayMotos.com. Let's ride. eBay Guaranteed Fit only available to US customers. Eligible items only. Exclusions apply.LinkedInLinkedIn Jobs helps you find the qualified candidates you want to talk to, faster. Post your job for free at LinkedIn.com/LOCKEDONNFL. Terms and conditions apply.FanDuelMake Every Moment More. Right now, NEW customers can bet FIVE DOLLARS and get TWO HUNDRED in BONUS BETS – GUARANTEED. Visit FanDuel.com/LOCKEDON to get started.FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jacksonville Jaguars Getting Healthy In The Right Place as DL Dawuane Smoot might go, and Davon Hamilton is getting closer. Shoring up a strength is one way to increase your clutch on the AFC South. Listen: Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors! BetterHelp This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Make your brain your friend, with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com/LOCKEDON today to get 10% off your first month.  birddogs Go to birddogs.com/LOCKEDONNFL or enter promo code LOCKEDONNFL for a water bottle with any order. You won't want to take your birddogs off we promise you.  PrizePicks Go to PrizePicks.com/lockedonnfl and use code lockedonnfl for a first deposit match up to $100! Gametime Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDONNFL for $20 off your first purchase. Last minute tickets. Lowest Price. Guaranteed. eBay Motors For parts that fit, head to eBay Motors and look for the green check. Stay in the game with eBay Guaranteed Fit at eBayMotos.com. Let's ride. eBay Guaranteed Fit only available to US customers. Eligible items only. Exclusions apply. LinkedIn LinkedIn Jobs helps you find the qualified candidates you want to talk to, faster. Post your job for free at LinkedIn.com/LOCKEDONNFL. Terms and conditions apply. FanDuel Make Every Moment More. Right now, NEW customers can bet FIVE DOLLARS and get TWO HUNDRED in BONUS BETS – GUARANTEED. Visit FanDuel.com/LOCKEDON to get started. FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We react to Jerry Dipoto saying that if they can't get guys to hit high spin pitches, they'll find guys who can. We also discuss his comments on people wanting to see more anger and fire from the coaches and players. Then, Brock tells a story of training mistakes he made and asks should the M's focus on their strengths or shore up their weaknesses when it comes to fixing offense? Plus, Justin and Salk have a Ranked themed around the M's hitting a new low.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We react to Jerry Dipoto saying that if they can't get guys to hit high spin pitches, they'll find guys who can. We also discuss his comments on people wanting to see more anger and fire from the coaches and players. Then, Brock tells a story of training mistakes he made and asks should the M's focus on their strengths or shore up their weaknesses when it comes to fixing offense? Plus, Justin and Salk have a Ranked themed around the M's hitting a new low.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on the show, next-generation energy innovators Bill David and Serena Cussen challenged us to think about the future of clean energy storage. They spoke to Emily Kwong at the 2023 annual meeting for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington D.C.

Jelani Cobb, dean of Columbia Journalism School, author, and staff writer at The New Yorker, Jodie Ginsberg, president of the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Annette Gordon-Reed, Harvard University professor and the author of The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family and On Juneteenth (Liveright, 2021), talk about the 2-day conference for journalists, teachers, and policy makers called Faultlines: Democracy that seeks to shore up one of the bulwarks of democracy -- the free press.

Today we've got Breaking Point's Saagar Enjeti in the Flagrant studio. Saagar talks about Joe Rogan's new Mothership Comedy Club in Austin, how women are now out earning men, Donald Trump's saga with Stormy “horse-face” Daniels and how negativity in the press might be destroying American patriotism. INDULGE! 00:00 Start 00:13 Saagar's beautiful gnashers + T c** shots + Natty or not 08:03 Jonah Hill really saving the Jews + we still playing Ye's music 09:47 American dream is down big + 1998 was peak for US 15:01 Brokies can't afford gold diggers + Politics has rotted patriotism 20:01 Negativy drives curiosity + division drives voting 22:10 Cultural apathy + comedy is free + men are very lonely 26:06 Women out earn men + Saagar is the cleverest Indian 33:27 Young people are pole smokers but having less sex 37:52 Early days of dating apps were meat markets 39:44 Settling down age is older + Bubble quizzing 45:01 Internet has created cultural homogeneity 48:11 Universities are well endowed + generational college attendance 51:12 Coastal elites are disgusted with the rest + antiestablishment comedy 55:15 I've been to Austin more!!! 57:00 Joe Rogan's Mothership comedy club + Austin might BE new comedy scene 01:11:12 Comedy world is treasonous + Joe Rogan really is unique 01:12:34 Saagar was right to move away from mainstream 01:16:23 Most disappointing - networks asks the exact same questions 01:22:40 Saagar's coverage has impact + celebrating good parts of US 01:29:47 Poverty - migrant labor in Gulf states + Mumbai Beach Toilet + Cambodia killing fields 01:34:05 There are right reasons to be patriotic about America 01:38:14 Civil War - the South are too scared of the North 01:41:44 Agent provocateurs at January 6th + BLM riots 01:45:13 Entrapment - ISIS, Gretchen Whitmer and informants allowed to keep wildin' 01:49:41 9/11 blessed the agencies' cashapps + Agency incompetence 01:51:15 Donald Trump Stormy Daniels horse face saga is a red herring 01:56:02 Dems want to run off against Donald Trump 01:58:01 Joe Biden has made us all happier + Trump anti-vote 02:03:40 Tech bubble bursting + not all layoffs mean the same 02:05:05 Shoring up the banks but they play with our money risk free 02:11:56 We believe Transwomen here + cross-dressers teaching kids to read 02:22:40 Christian teachers preaching Creationism + "wrong until they're right" 02:25:13 Andrew attends real, underground Church + Christian music gets Andrew in the feels 02:29:56 Andrew got got + tithing a lot + loopholes in Judaism and Islam 02:33:12 Christianity ain't all bad + Gay uncles protected the tribe 02:36:29 History is just the triumph of the cucks + alpha wolf was a hoax 02:39:47 L.I. wife blesses husband's gf + cuck shed + cucks are in control 02:42:11 Childhood trauma creates monsters 02:44:17 Historical psychos couldn't survive + Catholics HATE + bribing White God