Podcasts about Singapore

Your home insurance bill is not going up because of inflation. It is going up because of a risk that was mispriced for decades and is now coming due. Episode Sponsor Coalition for an Insurable Future Website: https://coalitionforaninsurablefuture.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Coalition-For-An-Insurable-Future/61584013622275/ What You'll Learn in This Episode Why home insurance is up 74% since 2008 and is not coming back down How one weather event turns into a coverage gap, an un-mortgageable home, and a collapsing property value Why insurance companies are not the villain here and who actually is What happens when state-backed insurance plans run out of money Why one in seven homeowners now has zero insurance coverage What every homeowner should do right now to reduce their exposure Why renters are not off the hook from this crisis either Start Here Join the community built to help you master your money, stay accountable, and reach financial freedom.

Google released Gemma 4 12B, a multimodal model that runs locally on 16GB devices. TSMC's CEO warned chip supply won't meet demand for years. Ramp raised $750M at $44B, and Anthropic says 80%+ of its merged code is now Claude-authored. Google releases Gemma 4 12B, an 11.95B-parameter unified, encoder-free open multimodal model that can run locally on devices with 16GB of VRAM or unified memory (VentureBeat) Public First: 26% of Americans support increased data center construction, the lowest share among 15 large countries, such as Brazil, Japan, the UK, and Canada (FT) Sam Altman and Dario Amodei are among the signatories on a public letter urging improved tracking of synthetic DNA that could be used in AI-developed bioweapons (Wired) TSMC CEO C.C. Wei says the company won't be able to fulfill the demand led by US customers even as more capacity comes online in the US over the next few years (Bloomberg) Corporate spending management platform Ramp raised $750M at a $44B valuation led by Iconiq, Singapore's GIC, and the OTPP, taking its total funding to $3B (Bloomberg) Anthropic details its progress toward recursive self-improvement, and its implications, and says 80%+ of the code merged into its codebase is authored by Claude (Anthropic) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

EPISODE DESCRIPTIONI sat down with Harvey Liu, co-founder of LeveX Exchange, to dig into what it really takes to build a crypto trading platform from the ground up. Harvey's journey is fascinating , from studying computer science in China, to getting his MBA at INSEAD, to becoming an early Bitcoin investor when BTC was around $100, to backing the founders of Huobi and OKCoin as a VC, and now building his own exchange in Singapore. We talk about why he designed LeveX around social trading, how features like multi-trade and KOL-driven tournaments set them apart from Binance and OKX, and the honest truth about what works and what doesn't in crypto marketing. Harvey also shares what he looks for as a VC when evaluating Web3 startups in a bear market , and why founders with failure experience often outlast the ones who only know wins. DISCLAIMERNothing mentioned in this podcast is investment advice and please do your own research. It would mean a lot if you can leave a review of this podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify and share this podcast with a friend. Be a guest on the podcast or contact us - https://www.web3pod.xyz/CONNECTLeveX Exchange: https://www.levex.comLeveX Twitter/X: https://x.com/levex Web3 with Sam Kamani: https://www.web3pod.xyzKEY POINTS WITH TIMESTAMPS• [00:01] Sam introduces Harvey Liu, co-founder of LeveX Exchange, and outlines the episode topics: building an exchange, growth, and VC lessons• [01:25] Harvey shares his background , computer science in China, five years at a Canadian internet company, MBA at INSEAD, then back to China for VC• [03:13] Harvey's first exposure to Bitcoin in 2013 as a VC, meeting the founders of Huobi and OKCoin, and buying BTC at around $100• [04:38] Moving to Singapore during COVID, joining a Singapore VC firm, and spotting the gap in social features on major trading platforms• [06:42] The founding idea behind LeveX: a platform built by traders, for traders, with a social layer that bigger exchanges lacked• [08:38] Who LeveX was designed for , seasoned traders, KOLs, and retail , and how user feedback shaped the product• [11:05] Gamification on the platform: quests, bonus milestones, KOL-run tournaments, and exclusive content areas for followers• [13:39] Current stats: over 400,000 registered users, focus on improving UX before aggressive marketing, and plans for Token 2049 Singapore• [15:35] User geography , mostly Europe and Asia, with Sam highlighting Southeast Asia (Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia) as a massive growth opportunity• [18:35] Harvey's VC framework for evaluating Web3 startups in a bear market: team track record including failures, revenue traction, real utility, and exit strategy• [22:49] The biggest challenge building LeveX: rebuilding trust post-FTX, and how proof of reserves, bug bounties, and penetration testing address that• [26:06] Growth experiments , what worked (deep KOL partnerships) and what didn't (expensive Google and Meta paid ads with low conversion)• [30:13] LeveX's standout feature: multi-trade, which lets traders open multiple simultaneous positions on the same trading pair at different prices, directions, and leverage levels• [33:12] Vision for the next two to three years: reach top 20 global trading platform, expand into prediction markets and AI tools, and time the next bull run right• [34:51] Harvey's ask: strategic marketing and branding partners to help with the next bull run, and an open invitation for listeners to try the platform

In Singapore, the government encourages people to support good causes by donation-matching. It “tops up” donations to specific charities by contributing an equal amount or more. By effectively multiplying people’s contributions, it hopes to encourage them to become more involved in charitable giving. This two-pronged approach reminds me of how believers in Jesus are called to God’s standards of holiness in our discipleship journey. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul urges them “to work out [their] salvation” (2:12) and “press on” (3:12, 14). At the same time, he stresses that “it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose” (2:13). Believers in Jesus aren’t made right with God by good works or performance. But there is an idea of partnership in our spiritual growth. It requires heart and effort on our part; yet we do not do it by human strength. Having saved us by grace, God calls us to be holy—set apart for Him—and we respond in sincerity and gratitude. As we seek to obey and please Him, He enables and helps us to do so. He shows us when we go wrong (Philippians 3:15), gives us strength to resist temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13), and empowers us to do what’s right in His eyes (Ephesians 2:10).

Send us Fan MailAndrew Palmer is a long-time editor and columnist at The Economist, where he writes the widely read Bartleby column on work and life. He also hosts Boss Class, one of The Economist's most popular podcasts, whose most recent season explored generative AI in the workplace, a topic Andrew approached not just as a journalist, but as a self-described unsophisticated user determined to get smarter by doing.In this episode, Andrew draws on his reporting and interviews with leaders across industries to offer an outside-in view of where AI adoption actually stands, and why the gap between the hype and the reality is not a sign of failure, but of how complex change really is.In this conversation, we discuss:Why AI adoption faces three distinct barriers (behavioral, technical, and organizational) and why solving one without the others leaves productivity gains stranded.Why structural reskilling frameworks (like Denmark's flexicurity model and Singapore's voucher-based lifelong learning system) offer a more credible response to AI disruption than waiting for policy to catch up.Why Johnson & Johnson's "let a thousand flowers bloom" approach to AI experimentation produced a Pareto effect (15% of projects generating 85% of value) and what they changed as a result.How the AI productivity boom is real at the individual level but not yet showing up in aggregate data, and why Andrew believes that gap is a question of time, not technology.Why enlightened corporate leadership requires transparency about potential job disruption and a commitment to adjacent career planning rather than performative optimism.What work in 2036 might look like, and why Andrew's most unsettling prediction has nothing to do with jobs, and everything to do with privacy.Explore this conversation:00:00 Introduction to AI and the Future of Work episode 39101:14 AI fun fact: AI legislative speed versus technological advancement03:51 Meet Andrew Palmer The Economist Bartleby Column Boss Class06:14 Digital Doppelganger and AI Personality Traits07:57 AI Adoption Barriers Behavioral Technical and Organizational11:01 AI Impact at Work Startups vs Large Organizations14:15 Leadership Humility and AI Uncertainty in the Workplace17:41 AI Experimentation at Scale Lessons from Johnson and Johnson24:26 AI vs SaaS Productivity Data and the Speed of Adoption27:35 Balancing AI Automation with Human Meaning at Work31:26 AI Policy Reskilling and Lifelong Learning for the Future36:03 Work in 2036 AI Monitoring Privacy and Constant Surveillance38:47 Who Really Controls AI and What That Means for Workers44:08 Connect with Andrew Palmer and Boss Class The EconomistResources:Subscribe to the AI & The Future of Work NewsletterConnect with Andrew on LinkedInAI fun fact articleOn How Arvind Jain Is Shaping the Future of Enterprise Search Another episode mentioned in the interview: How we can take back control from Big Tech with Tom Wheeler, former FCC Chairman, CEO, VC, and author of Techlash. 

Protests outside the Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, continued on May 30. Multiple arrests have been made throughout the protests, and concerns are growing over violence directed at federal officers.Secretary of War Pete Hegseth warned that China must not dominate the Indo-Pacific region. Speaking at a defense summit in Singapore, Hegseth also emphasized U.S. commitment to regional security as concerns grow over China's increasing military buildup in the region.

The Shangri-la forum is Asia's largest annual defence conference. Politicians, military and industry figures are all in attendance.AI giant Anthropic is valued at more than its rival Open AI.And Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin rocket self-combusts spectacularly on the launch pad in Florida.

Asia security concerns take centre stage at Shangri-La Dialogue as the region’s premier defence forum gets under way in Singapore. Plus: US-Iran latest, a check-in with the Utopian Hours conference and ‘What We Learned’.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

On this week's Defense & Aerospace Report Washington Roundtable, Dr. Patrick Cronin of the Hudson Institute think tank, former DoD Europe chief Jim Townsend of the Center for a New American Security, and former Pentagon Comptroller Dr. Dov Zakheim of the Center for Strategic and International Studies join Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian to discuss prospect of a US-Iran ceasefire deal after both sides exchange fire; Israel ramps up strikes on Hezbollah in South Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza; Russia pounds Ukraine, warning foreigners to leave Kyiv lest they be targeted as a Russian drone overshoots Ukraine to hit an apartment building in Romania; Moscow ramping up of threats and intimidation against the Baltics as America shifts its force posture in Europe and reduce capabilities devoted to NATO; Ukraine's decision to buy Saab's Gripen fighter as Stockholm opts for French frigates and Canada buys Swedish radar planes; what to expect from the International Institute for Strategic Studies' 24th annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore; South Korea's decision to pursue nuclear attack submarines; the Quad — America, Australia, India and Japan — launches its first security organization, the Indo-Pacific Maritime Surveillance Cooperation Initiative; and the latest rift between the Israel and the UN.

First, we speak to The Indian Express' Sohini Ghosh about the Delhi Gymkhana Club eviction row, why the Centre has asked one of Delhi's oldest elite institutions to vacate its Lutyens' premises, and how a parallel rent dispute has complicated the standoff.Next, we talk to The Indian Express' Jayprakash Naidu about the worsening drinking water crisis in Riwa village near Raipur, where residents continue to struggle for water despite the promises of the Jal Jeevan Mission. (15:40)And in the end, we look at the latest chapter in the collapse of Byju's, after founder Byju Raveendran was sentenced to six months in jail by a Singapore court over non-compliance with disclosure orders. (21:55)Hosted by Ichha SharmaProduced and written by Shashank Bhargava and Ichha SharmaEdited and mixed by Suresh Pawar

So, the fifth month of 2026 is complete - and it was another one dominated by the impacts of the US/Israel war in Iran/Lebanon. This week, Gary and Hannah recap May's top 8 travel takeaways from across ASEAN and beyond with stopovers in Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and Cambodia, plus China, India and the UK. En route, we discuss flight route cuts across South East Asia, China, Japan and South Korea, and look at whether plans for an ASEAN reserve stockpile of crude oil would ease future jet fuel shocks. Meanwhile, visitor arrivals slowed in key markets and cratered in Cambodia and currency values fell sharply in Indonesia and Thailand. On a brighter note, carriers in Singapore and Malaysia are seeing growth on routes with Australia and Europe. Plus, we assess the surge of Indian tourists to Vietnam, and address the potential benefits of Xiaohongshu's impressive tourism tie-up in Singapore .

This show has been flagged as Clean by the host. In our sample game we look at playing as Austria and aiming for a Diplomatic Victory. And our focus is on puppeting Citty-States, but be I misunderstood and instead of making a Diplomatic Victory easier, it makes it harder. I still managed to get my Diplomatic Victory, but a Science or Domination Victory would definitely have been easier in this scenario. Playing Civilization V, Part 12 A Diplomatic Victory Strategy Civilization V introduced a new Victory type and I thought it might be fun to try this strategy for a sample game to see broadly how this would work. I decided I would play as Austria on Prince level, which means that all players are equal and no one is favored. For my map I chose Fractal, Map Size = Standard, Game speed = Standard. My only Advanced Option was Quick Combat, because I didn't need to see that drawn out, particularly since I plan to avoid combat as much as necessary. My leader is Maria Theresa, and her Austria has a unique ability called Diplomatic Marriage. This allows us to either Annex or Puppet any city-state that has been allied to us for 5 turns with the proper expenditure of Gold. My plan was to use this to Puppet the city-states to control their votes for the Diplomatic Victory, but that was a misunderstanding. I actually implemented one of the hardest ways to win a Diplomatic Victory. But that is what I did. Now to get them to ally with me the most effective way to do this is with cash and lots of it, and of course even more cash to actually effect to Puppeting of them. So my overriding objective in this game is to amass a large Treasury. But of course I cannot ignore my military either, since a weak military invites attacks form greedy neighbors. And I may need to “liberate” the occasional city-state if another player conquers them. Austria also has a Unique Unit, the Hussar, which replaces the Cavalry unit. It can move after attacking, has a flanking bonus, and has one extra movement. And the Unique Building is the Coffee House, which increases the generation of Great People in the city by 25%. So you can expect me to build these in every city as well. With that in mind, I started the game and settled in place, I had Mountains nearby, but also Sheep and Silver within my city, so some useful resources. I immediately started to produce a Scout as my first unit, and sent my Warrior out to explore. In the very early stage I focus on exploring the surrounding area and finding any Goody Huts, i.e. Ruins. My initial city site is not exactly ideal, as it is all hilly with Jungle nearby. After building my two Scouts, my next priority was to build a Worker unit to increase the productivity of my city. And for my first social policy I unlocked Tradition. When I got my second policy I picked Oligarchy, and plan to complete all of the Tradition tree. I cleared out a Barbarian encampment, and then discovered my first City-state, Vilnius. Then I needed to clear out another Barbarian encampment that was blocking me from finishing my exploration. Meanwhile I am focusing on getting techs for sailing the ocean blue, because that is how I plan to get trade routes, discover City-states I can puppet, and so on. Because money is key to my strategy I made a beeline for Currency in the my Science research. And while headed there I completed the Tradition tree. When I can get there I will work on the Commerce tree to maximize my cash, but until then the Patronage tree will let me improve my City-state relations, which is important for improving my relationships with City-states. After all, you need to be allies with them for 5 turns before you can puppet them. I now have three cities, and can probably squeeze out a few more, which should be sufficient to my needs. At Turn 141 I have 6 cities, which is all I will build in this game. I now have the technology to build Workshops, which are the first productivity boosters available, so I set all my cities to building them. For Research my immediate object was to get to Compass so I could build the Galleass, which would let me do more ocean exploration. But to go into deep Ocean I will need to go further to get Astronomy, which will let me build the Caravel which can enter deep ocean. Once I got that I switched to Banking, not just for the money, but as a prerequisite to building the Forbidden Palace, which grants two additional delegates in the World Congress/United Nations. When I get Banking I'll go back to Astronomy, and then Navigation, to advance my seagoing capabilities. By Turn 216 I had gotten Banking and started on the Forbidden Palace. And by luck, just as I got started I got a Great Engineer. I am holding him in reserve in case I need to hurry production, since Great Engineers are the only way to do that in Civ 5. I also picked up Astronomy, which will let me build Caravels to explore the whole ocean. My next research priority will be Gunpowder since it is time to beef up my defenses. At Turn 240 my Caravels started to come out, and I found several new City-States. And since my Treasury is healthy (I started with 6,000 gold, and I'm bringing in 100 each turn), I began the process of puppeting the City-states. Puppeting City-states as Austria Let's look at this in detail since it is important. The requirements are 2 things: Be allied with the City-state for 5 consecutive turns Have the cash needed. This amount is not too much early on, but it rises over time. So, how do you become allies with a City-state? There are a number of things you can do to improve your relationship. You can take on a quest that a City-state has published, which can be things like “Find another Natural Wonder” or “Create a Great Admiral”. These quests pop up continuously throughout the game, and you are free to ignore them, but fulfilling one will improve your relationship. Trade will also improve your relationship, so in this game all of my Trade routes were made with City-states. If you are in a position to have a successful war, you can find a former City-state that was conquered by one of the other Empires, liberate it, and then it will be your ally for the rest of the game. Giving them presents is how I usually do it, though. You can give them units or money. If your purpose is to get allies, money works best. But I do gift units in 2 circumstances. First, if I have obsolete units, giving them away might be better then deleting them. Second, if a City-state is under attack by another Empire. Gifting them units might help them hold out and make life difficult for a rival. The place where all of this is done is the City-state screen which opens up when you click on the bar above the City-state, which is where you handle all of your relationships. At the top of this screen you see your current status, which more often than not will be Neutral, which is how all City-state relationships start out. But you can get them angry by, for instance, moving a unit of your into their territory. If you only do it once, and give them time to get over it, they will go back to Neutral. You can also improve the relationship by pledging to protect them, but be careful. If they get attacked and you do not try to protect them, they will get very angry. Giving a gift opens a pop-up to say what kind of gift: 250 gold, 500 gold, 1000 gold, or a Unit. Note that a Unit is only worth 5 influence points, while 250 Gold is worth 20, so as I said Money is more powerful if your aim is to improve your status with them. So at Turn 242 I found the City-state of Singapore, and it appears that I was the first Empire to find them. So I immediately pledged to protect them. My Influence with them was 20, which is Neutral. We just met, and that is where things stand on first meeting. The be Friends you need to get to 30, and to be allies you need to get to 60. When I clicked Next Turn, I got a Quest from Singapore. They were worried about a Barbarian Encampment nearby, and if I cleared it out I would get additional influence with them. In this case, though, I let that go by. I want to move more quickly, and Singapore is across the Ocean from me. My influence with them at this point was 21, so only a modest increase. But I have 6038 Gold in my Treasury, and I am bringing in 102 per turn. So let's see what a gift of 500 Gold will do. It brings me to 65 influence, so we are now Allies. But when I mouse-over Singapore, the pop-up window reminds me that my Influence will decrease by 1.12 per turn. For an Empire other than Austria this would mean a regular infusion of cash to keep up your status. And I have won Diplomatic victories with other Empires by saving up a lot of cash and dumping it on City-states just before the United Nations vote. But for Austria you have special ability called Diplomatic Marriage that lets you turn the City-state into a Puppet, and that is permanent. But it also presents some obstacles as we will see. We are allies now, but my influence will drop by 1 each turn, and I might lose my allyship before I can puppet them. But I can gift a unit and get another 5, and I happen to have a very obsolete Warrior unit that will serve the purpose. However, it takes three turns for the Unit to arrive, so I lose few more points. At Turn 247 I can now use the diplomatic Marriage option to make a puppet of Singapore. Prior to doing this I was fourth in score with 604, while the leader had 729. My Happiness Level was +25, and I now had 5833 Gold in my Treasury. Then I made Singapore a puppet, and now I am third in the game with a score of 664. My Treasury has fallen to 5258, which means it cost me 575 Gold. But most significant is that my Happiness fell from +25 to +9, which is a huge loss. I have enough gold to puppet 4-5 more City-states at this time but if I did I would have rebellions breaking out and my Empire would eventually collapse. This is the obstacle that Austria has to face. We need to promote Happiness before we go much further with making puppets. Civ is always a game of balances. Links https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/City-state_(Civ5) https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Austrian_(Civ5) https://www.palain.com/gaming/civilization-v/playing-civilization-v-part-12/ Provide feedback on this episode.

Embrace mortality to live with intention. Explore the history of Memento Mori, the Grim Reaper, Liberace's legacy, and why facing death changes everything. https://bit.ly/434ASy3Memento Mori. What Does it Really Mean?You are going to die. What if remembering that is the key to actually living well? Most of us don't spend much time thinking about death. But when we do, something interesting happens: we start to see what matters. This week, Marianne and Charlie kick off a brand-new series exploring the humanities and the art of dying. From the lavish life and hidden cause of death of Liberace to the driving funk of The Rolling Stones' "Dancing with Mr. D," we explore how history, art, and myth use mortality not to create fear, but to bring ultimate clarity to life. Tune in, grab Liberace's recipe for Singapore and Malaysian Satay, and learn how to carpe the heck out of your diem.Timestamps:00:00 - Intro: How Can Awareness of Death Change Our Life?03:18 - Recipe-Liberace's Singapore and Malasian Satay Appetizer04:32 - Liberace's Obituary10:23 - The Meaning of Memento Mori13:45 - The Origin of the Grim Reaper16:50 - The Guides of Souls: Psychopomps and Charon's Boat19:57 - "Dancing with Mr D" - Rolling Stones22:24 - Outro - Carpe the Heck Out of Your Diem!#MementoMori #EmbraceMortality #LiveWithIntention #CarpeDiem #DeathPositive #GrimReaper #EveryoneDies #PodcastLife #Liberace #RollingStones #EndofLife #DeathAwareness #GriefEducation #ArtOfDying #HistoryOfDeath Related Episodes:S3E43: How Accepting Death Can Improve Your Life – If you want to dive deeper into how breaking the culture of silence directly transforms your day-to-day choices, this episode is the perfect next step.S4E10: How to turn Aging into a Superpower – Discover how embracing your mortality strips away the trivial noise of daily life, leaving room for a vivid, beautiful, and highly intentional perspective on the time we have left.S7E04: An App That Predicts Your Death Date: Would You Want to Know? – If you want a modern, high-tech twist on memento mori, this episode explores what happens when we give death a digital face instead of a historical one. It looks at how a real-time countdown clock can either trigger data anxiety or act as the ultimate motivator to choose better, live deeper, and actively reclaim your time.Support the showConnect with Us: Email our Host: mail@every1dies.org  Website: https://every1dies.org: Find show notes, links and expanded resources Follow Us: Facebook | Instagram | YouTube  

Tech salaries trends to watch Irish tech roles now command salaries that compete with – and often exceed – those in other key global economies and tech markets, reinforcing the country's position as a top-tier destination for skilled professionals, according to the latest Hays Tech Talent Explorer. While much of the global conversation around Artificial Intelligence has focused on job displacement, the research highlights how AI is instead reshaping tech roles. Routine and administrative tasks are becoming increasingly automated, allowing professionals to focus on complex, high-impact work. In Ireland, this shift is contributing to continued salary growth as demand rises for professionals who combine technical expertise with critical thinking, creativity, and decision-making skills. Ireland's Growing Global Competitiveness The research benchmarks Ireland against other key international markets, focusing on salaries in each economy across a range of tech roles. Ireland maintains a significant pay advantage in several key roles, such as Data Engineers and Solutions Architects. When compared to markets like the UK and Germany, Ireland performs strongly, with overall tech salaries in those countries trailing by 17% and 19% respectively. While the United States remains the global leader in compensation – with average tech salaries reaching approximately €108,387 compared to €81,338 in Ireland – the data reveals a tightening gap in specialised fields such as Data Scientists. The findings suggest Ireland offers employers access to highly skilled technical talent at a more sustainable cost base. Furthermore, salary benchmarks in Ireland remain closely aligned with major global markets like Australia and Singapore, while contractor day rates rival major hubs including Luxembourg and Hong Kong, reflecting the country's strategic importance as a centre for global tech operations. Despite broader economic uncertainty, Irish tech wages continue to be driven by sustained demand for advanced, future-ready skill sets rather than AI-led disruption. Senior Managing Director for Hays Ireland, Barney Ely, said: "Ireland is no longer just a European branch office for major tech companies, it is now a primary engine of global tech innovation. We are seeing a shift where AI is enabling tech professionals to move away from routine tasks and towards work that is more strategic and globally impactful. "We've recently seen layoffs at major players across the tech industry, but the continued strength of salaries demonstrates the resilience of the Irish market. "For talent, Ireland offers a landscape where technical skills are met with high-value rewards. For employers, the challenge is no longer just finding people – it's partnering with experts who can navigate an increasingly AI-enhanced environment." See more breaking stories here.

In this episode of the world's wackiest news… Find out why people in China are arguing over one of their favourite foods – dumplings – yes, we're talking about the dim sum debate. Staying in Asia, we have a report on the futuristic cafés in South Korea where food and drink are only half the attraction. And how would you like a piece of Parisian history? Well, a chunk of France's Eiffel Tower is being auctioned, or sold, off. Find out which bit and for how much. And just to make you feel warm and fuzzy about the world – we have two Kindness Corner stories – one featuring some heroic school kids in the US and a runaway bus. Finally, a silly and pretty gross prank that lands a French teenager in serious trouble in Singapore – you gotta listen to the end to find out why this is THE LAST STRAW!

In this episode, we speak with Conor Madigan, founder and CEO of Aether Fuels, a climate technology company converting abundant waste carbon into low-cost sustainable fuels for aviation and ocean shipping. Madigan is one of the few founders approaching the SAF cost problem from an engineering-first, problem-first standpoint.He discusses:A problem-first approach to company building: Why Madigan began with a blank sheet of paper in 2020, fixed on the problem before choosing a technology, and only then exclusively licensed foundational technology from Chicago-area research institute GTI Energy.Moving beyond the HEFA feedstock ceiling: Why today's dominant SAF process, which converts waste fats, oils and greases, cannot keep pace with projected SAF demand demand as mandates tighten towards 2030.A contrarian bet against cheap hydrogen: Why Aether chose in 2022 to prioritise biogas, biomass and industrial off-gases over CO2-and-hydrogen e-fuels, judging that optimistic hydrogen price forecasts were unlikely to hold.The Aether Aurora technology: How tri-conversion merges two reaction steps into one reactor, how an electrified reactor lifts yield, and how novel catalysts cut the cost of fuel upgrading, all aimed at the capital cost that makes waste-fed plants expensive.Why Singapore won Project Beacon: How a fast-moving partnership with Aster, predictable government policy and ties to Temasek made Singapore the site of Aether's first commercial plant, and what other countries can learn from the model.Discipline on offtakes and the real scaling bottleneck: Why Aether has resisted investor pressure to sign speculative offtake agreements, and why Madigan sees project development and financing, not chemistry, as the constraint on scaling SAF.If you LOVED this episode, you'll also love the conversation we had with Synhelion's Founder and CEO Philipp Furler who unpacked how the Swiss technology company is working to scale synthetic fuels by tackling some of the fundamental cost and infrastructure barriers facing SAF today. Check it out here.Learn more about the innovators who are navigating the industry's challenges to make sustainable aviation a reality, in our new book ‘Sustainability in the Air: Volume 2'. Click here to learn more.Feel free to reach out via email to podcast@simpliflying.com. For more content on sustainable aviation, visit our website green.simpliflying.com and join the movement. It's about time.Links & More: Aether Fuels Aster and Aether Fuels partner on the first next-generation commercial SAF plant in Singapore RTI supports Aether Fuels in scaling sustainable aviation fuel Singapore Airlines Group and Aether Fuels sign MoU for sustainable aviation fuelAster and Aether Fuels Partner on the First Next-Generation Commercial Sustainable Aviation Fuel Plant in Singapore 

Value: After Hours is a podcast about value investing, Fintwit, and all things finance and investment by investors Tobias Carlisle, and Jake Taylor. We are live every Tuesday at 1.30pm E / 10.30am P.────────────────────── ⁠VALUE OPTIONS LETTER⁠ Three to five curated ideas every week — cash-secured puts, covered calls, and spreads on businesses we'd want to own at strikes we'd be willing to pay. Every trade includes the business thesis in plain English, the fair-value estimate and its key assumptions, the specific option trade with target premium, and the pre-identified exit criteria.Every idea reviewed and approved by an analyst before it hits your inbox.⁠valueoptionsletter.com/subscribe⁠──────────────────────See our latest episodes at https://acquirersmultiple.com/podcastAbout Jake Jake's Twitter: https://twitter.com/farnamjake1Jake's book: The Rebel Allocator https://amzn.to/2sgip3lABOUT THE PODCASTHi, I'm Tobias Carlisle. I launched The Acquirers Podcast to discuss the process of finding undervalued stocks, deep value investing, hedge funds, activism, buyouts, and special situations.We uncover the tactics and strategies for finding good investments, managing risk, dealing with bad luck, and maximizing success.SEE LATEST EPISODEShttps://acquirersmultiple.com/podcast/SEE OUR FREE DEEP VALUE STOCK SCREENER https://acquirersmultiple.com/screener/FOLLOW TOBIASWebsite: https://acquirersmultiple.com/Firm: https://acquirersfunds.com/ Twitter: ttps://twitter.com/GreenbackdLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tobycarlisleFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/tobiascarlisleInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/tobias_carlisleABOUT TOBIAS CARLISLETobias Carlisle is the founder of The Acquirer's Multiple®, and Acquirers Funds®. He is best known as the author of the #1 new release in Amazon's Business and Finance The Acquirer's Multiple: How the Billionaire Contrarians of Deep Value Beat the Market, the Amazon best-sellers Deep Value: Why Activists Investors and Other Contrarians Battle for Control of Losing Corporations (2014) (https://amzn.to/2VwvAGF), Quantitative Value: A Practitioner's Guide to Automating Intelligent Investment and Eliminating Behavioral Errors (2012) (https://amzn.to/2SDDxrN), and Concentrated Investing: Strategies of the World's Greatest Concentrated Value Investors (2016) (https://amzn.to/2SEEjVn). He has extensive experience in investment management, business valuation, public company corporate governance, and corporate law.Prior to founding the forerunner to Acquirers Funds in 2010, Tobias was an analyst at an activist hedge fund, general counsel of a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, and a corporate advisory lawyer. As a lawyer specializing in mergers and acquisitions he has advised on transactions across a variety of industries in the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Australia, Singapore, Bermuda, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Guam. He is a graduate of the University of Queensland in Australia with degrees in Law (2001) and Business (Management) (1999).

Alexandria has been the source of invention, innovation, and beauty for millennia — capturing the imagination of Napoleon, the Prophet Muhammad and, of course, Alexander the Great. He envisioned a place that thrived on cultural, intellectual, economic, political and religious exchange. IDEAS examines the big ideas of this port city in Egypt with Islam Issa, author of Alexandria: The City That Changed the World.Part three in our ongoing series about how port cities shaped the world as we know it.Listen to Part Two: How port cities of Elmina shaped the worldListen to Part One: How port cities like Singapore shaped the world

Stijn Schmitz welcomes Adrian Day to the show. Adrian Day is CEO of Adrian Day Asset Management & Manager of EuroPacific Gold Fund. Day sees the recent weakness in oil as a potential buying opportunity, particularly if a peace deal triggers a further short-term drop. He argues that beyond temporary disruptions, the underlying supply picture is bullish because oil has been chronically underinvested for years. With US shale production peaking and no clear new major source of global supply to meet consistent demand growth, he views a sustained move above $150 per barrel as a plausible base case. He is waiting for exaggerated drops in oil stocks to build positions, favoring companies with strong balance sheets. Broadening the discussion to the wider commodity complex, Day notes that resource stocks are near 100-year lows relative to the equity market. He identifies a long-term cycle shift where foreign markets are beginning to outperform the US after 15 years of underperformance, a trend he expects to continue for years. This rotation out of large-cap US tech into international value creates opportunities in deeply undervalued markets like the UK, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Regarding precious metals, Day believes gold and gold stocks currently offer the best risk/reward. Central bank and institutional buying remains price-agnostic and robust, driven by a strategic desire to diversify away from the dollar. While short-term interest rate narratives have held back some buyers, he argues that an eventual peace deal would allow rate cuts, which is very positive for gold. Valuations across royalty companies and mid-tier producers are historically attractive on free cash flow metrics. He advises clients with existing large allocations to hold firm, while those new to the sector should consider building substantial positions. Overall, Day sees gold as the best commodity to own now, even as other hard assets may eventually begin to outperform within the broader cycle. Timestamps: 00:00:00 – Introduction 00:00:43 – Oil Supply Disruption Analysis 00:02:51 – Oil Price Projections Scenarios 00:11:05 – Oil Producers Valuations Review 00:15:47 – Fertilizer and Commodity Disruptions 00:21:45 – Gold and Silver Stocks Outlook 00:23:00 – Foreign Markets Outperformance Trends 00:30:30 – Gold Risk Versus Reward 00:39:00 – Gold Miners Valuations Discussed 00:47:40 – Silver Market Analysis Today 00:49:30 – Commodity Super Cycle Thesis 00:55:00 – Coal and Supply Security 00:57:30 – Concluding Thoughts Guest Links: Website: https://adrianday.com/ Adrian Day is considered a pioneer in promoting the benefits of global investing in the United Kingdom. A native of London, after graduating with honors from the London School of Economics, Mr. Day spent many years as a financial investment writer, where he gained a large following for his expertise in searching out unusual investment opportunities around the world. He has also authored two books on the subject of global investing: International Investment Opportunities: How and Where to Invest Overseas Successfully and Investing Without Borders. His latest book, widely praised by readers, is Investing in Resources: How to Profit from the Outsized Potential and Avoid the Risks (Wiley, 2010). Mr. Day is a recognized authority in both global and resource investing. He is frequently interviewed by the press, domestically and abroad. He is a popular speaker and is frequently invited to lecture at financial conferences and seminars around the world. His pleasures include fine dining, reading (especially history), and the opera.

Brief SummaryBitcoin is trading around $75.5K this morning after sliding toward key $75K support.Ethereum is below $2,100 and remains weaker than Bitcoin on a relative basis.Bitcoin has fallen to 13th among global assets, with capital rotating toward AI, semiconductors, gold, and other non-crypto trades.Traders are moving defensively into stablecoins, with USDT and USDC dominance rising.SoFi launched SoFiUSD to nearly 15 million members, making it one of the first U.S. national banks to offer a stablecoin directly inside a banking app.A large holder reportedly sold about $1.29 billion worth of BlackRock's Bitcoin ETF in a dark-pool trade.IREN signed a $1.6 billion Dell agreement to expand AI cloud infrastructure, showing how crypto infrastructure companies are chasing AI demand.Coinbase's Base launched Base MCP, allowing AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Cursor to interact with wallets and DeFi apps.Crypto PACs spent about $9 million in Texas and scored wins in both parties.The U.K. sanctioned HTX and Russia-linked crypto networks as part of a broader crackdown on sanctions evasion.Singapore charged former Hodlnaut CEO Zhu Juntao with six fraud counts tied to TerraUSD exposure claims.OpenZeppelin's CEO warned that AI coding agents have made DeFi increasingly unsafe because attackers can find vulnerabilities faster than defenders can patch them.XRP remains range-bound near $1.32 to $1.33 after a failed breakout.The stablecoin market remains above $300 billion and is becoming one of the biggest battlegrounds between banks, fintechs, crypto exchanges, and regulators. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Exciting World of Sumo: Highlights from the May 2026 Basho Discover the thrilling moments from the May 2026 Basho, including poetry, bingo winners, and sumo insights. Perfect for sumo enthusiasts and newcomers alike. The Art of Sumo Poetry: Celebrating Wakatakakage One of the most fun ways to celebrate the beloved rikishi, Wakatakakage, is through poetry. Our listeners often participate in a "sexiest rikishi" poll, sharing their thoughts in poetic form. We share a few selected pieces. These poems showcase the affection fans have for this talented sumo wrestler, bringing an artistic twist to our discussions. Sumo Bingo: A Global Celebration During the May Basho, we hosted an exciting Sumo Bingo game that attracted 491 players globally. Our winners were from Japan, Singapore, and Scotland, and their bios highlight the diverse backgrounds of sumo fans and how the sport transcends borders, uniting enthusiasts from all walks of life. In this basho, several prominent rikishi were sidelined due to injuries, so the competition was wide open, leading to some surprising outcomes. Question: What makes Wakatakage so popular? Wakatakakage is considered a master of sumo technique, having won the Technique Special Prize 7 times. After winning his first yusho, he suffered a major knee injury and was demoted to the makushita (unpaid) division of sumo. After healing, he climbed back through the ranks to reach the highest levels of sumo again. His impressive skills and dry personality have endeared him to fans, as reflected in the poetry shared during our discussions. BINGO! More about Sumo Kaboom and our BINGO game at http://www.sumokaboom.com We play Sumo BINGO every basho, and it's always free. We give away sumo merch to our winners with the help of our sponsors Big Sumo Fan and Cheeky Sumo. • http://Bigsumofan.com is an online sumo merch store based in US, and they ship to over 30 countries. http://www.bigsumofan.com • Cheeky Sumo is an online sumo-inspired apparel and merch company that aims to celebrate, educate, and support the sumo community with cheeky designs and training gear. Laugh at their fun graphics and proudly rep your sumo spirit - because sumo's got more than just power - it's got personality! http://www.cheekysumo.com Way of Salt on Amazon or purchase at Big Sumo Fan and support a smaller business! • Support us Ko-fi https://ko-fi.com/sumokaboom Twitter @SumoKaboom Instagram https://www.instagram.com/sumokaboom/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SumoKaboom/ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/SumoKaboomPodcast • Check out our Sumo Kaboom tshirts and sweatshirts at Bonfire.com/sumokaboom • Ever wonder where we get our research? Check out the Show Notes section of our website.

Passion and drive helped Rishi Naleendra achieve initial culinary success, but it was only when he learnt to trust his team and change himself that his restaurant climbed to the next level –Michelin recognition. In this episode of the INSEAD Knowledge Podcast, Professors Michael Jarrett and Andy Yap chat with Sri Lankan restaurateur Naleendra.Growing up in war-torn Sri Lanka, he went from a childhood dream to be a pilot to becoming the chef and owner behind noted Singapore restaurants Kotuwa and Cloudstreet.Naleendra recounts his bold decision to close down a successful bistro that had already achieved one Michelin star and how his singular vision won buy-in from an experienced team and demanding investors. Yet his passion and high standards had a negative side: high turnover and burnout of staff and a team culture built on fear rather than ownership.It was only when Covid-19 struck that he was forced to stop and reflect. An intervention by a trusted colleague made him confront an uncomfortable reality and come to realise that he needed to change both as a leader and a person. It was only by trusting those around him and creating the conditions for others to perform that he could ever hope to achieve two Michelin stars. A new-found leadership maturity helped him tackle the transition from running a small “mom and pop” business to leading a professional organisation. He now acts as the bridge between investors, creative talent and operational teams, and has to find ways to manage expectations and emotions on all sides.For Naleendra, the mark of a good leader ultimately comes down to one unglamorous word: practice. Not talent, title nor experience – but practice. The soft skills needed to speak honestly to investors, inspire loyalty in your team and hold your nerves under pressure are all habits that are built over time.His advice for the next generation: Don't wait for the position before you start behaving like a leader. Train for the role before anyone hands it to you, stay curious and never become too important to learn from the person next to you. Read the INSEAD Knowledge article.Explore more INSEAD Knowledge Podcasts.

The practice of healthcare is inherently powerful, and our patients are vulnerable to our power. Though power can be abused, the righteous use of power, for the benefit of the vulnerable, is profoundly Christlike. We will explore the lessons of power which help us understand our roles, including the fundamental nature of professionalism and key kingdom strategies of healthcare missions.

Iaros Belkin caught up with Owen Healy at ETHCluj, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, in what turned into one of the more honest conversations I've had at a crypto conference this cycle. Healy is the Founder and Director of Owen Healy Blockchain Talent, a boutique Irish recruitment firm that has placed lots of people from 25+ countries into blockchain projects since he entered the space in early 2021. He built the whole thing from a standing start during COVID, living in rural Ireland, unemployed, with nothing but a LinkedIn account and a genuine curiosity about the technology. That backstory matters. It means when Healy talks about the current market, he isn't protecting a fund position or managing a narrative. He's telling you what he actually sees from the candidate and employer side simultaneously. And right now, what he sees is sobering. On AI and job displacement The WEF Future of Jobs report projects 92 million roles displaced and 170 million created by 2030. Net positive on paper. Healy isn't buying the framing. "There are a lot of companies that historically would have been over-bloated and overstaffed, and they're conveniently using AI as an excuse to conduct layoffs," he told me. "AI is replacing jobs, but maybe not to the extent that the corporate world would like you to believe." He's equally clear that nobody is immune. "Everyone is using the benefits of AI and suffering the consequences of it at the same time." On developers Developers who were comfortable at €150K two or three years ago are now accepting €120K. Healy is direct about why: the market is an employer's market, full stop. Location matters more than it did. The US and Asia are moving; Europe is quiet. And developers are being pushed up the stack regardless. "People are being forced to effectively do more and leverage the best AI capabilities. Sometimes it's reasonable, sometimes it's not." On institutional money arriving This is the part of the conversation that surprised me most. Healy's read is that institutional entry is changing the candidate profile the industry actually wants. "We're entering an industry where hoodies are less in demand and suits are in more demand." For years, TradFi professionals were crypto-curious but couldn't stomach the risk of leaving stable, pensionable careers for a space where ten-year jobs are rare and use cases can be murky. That's changing. JP Morgan, BlackRock, and others are doing blockchain-related hiring now, and it's pulling a cohort of talent that was always interested but never had a comfortable entry point. London, New York, Hong Kong, Singapore: that's where institutional-adjacent hiring is concentrated. On EthCC feeling like a funeral It was an offhand remark that landed harder than most prepared conference soundbites. "EthCC felt like a funeral in many respects," Healy said. His reasoning is rooted in what he sees from the inside: projects that look fine externally, companies still putting on a brave face while quietly running out of runway. He mentioned Code4rena winding down as one example, a business he described as legitimate and genuinely useful to the space. "Nobody's going to invest in you or use your services if you're anticipating you'll run out of business in six months." The one piece of advice he offered for a bear market Go to events. Build the relationships now that pay off when conditions improve. He did it in 2023. He's doing it again. Practical. Unglamorous. And coming from someone who built a 100-placement recruitment business from a rural Irish village during a pandemic, probably worth listening to. Iaros Belkin is a founder of Belkin Marketing, a boutique agency serving as Strategic Advisor to Deep Tech, Web3 and AI Founders. Two decades of experience navigating high-stakes global markets and orchestrating everything a good venture team needs: from grants and key partnerships to VVIP events elevated experience. See more breaking stories here. Irish Tech News are Ireland's No. 1 Online Tech Publ...

May 26, 2026: Today, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang went on Singapore's CNA and called the AI layoff narrative "lazy and irresponsible" — I'll break down the data and history behind why he's largely right. Then, the CEO of Bolt fired his entire HR team onstage at Fortune's Workplace Innovation Summit — I'll trace the full arc of the HR function and make the case for what the Chief Future of Work Officer needs to become. And U.S. MBA programs including Carnegie Mellon Tepper, Indiana Kelley, Georgetown McDonough, UCLA Anderson, and Emory Goizueta are losing ground fast — I'll walk through the cost trend, the job market deterioration, the AI mechanism dismantling the consulting pipeline, and the argument I've been making for years that companies like Amazon, Walmart, and Starbucks are becoming the new universities.

It's Part 2 of the boys back-to-back episodes and this time they go to Malaysia and Singapore to take on questions that have nothing to do with the regular scandals you find here on GWTM. It will still spark some discussion, so let's get to it. Caller #4 is Darren 41yrs from Kuala Lumpur. Darren and his partner have been together for 10 years. His partner recently had a stroke leaving him paralyzed and immobile. Darren has never reeally loved him, but doesn't want to feel selfish if he decides to leave now. Caller #5 is Kat 29yrs from Singapore. Kat has grown up in the IG-era, so she wants to know: why is that her ex-boyfriends and flings all unfollow or block her once they are done?GTWM and Good Times Radio are now streaming exclusively live on Discord!Join the Discord community by going to ⁠⁠⁠www.discord.gg/goodtimesradio

Impact investing may have originated in the West. Its future is being shaped in the East.  From Singapore to South Korea, Japan to Hong Kong, investors in a mosaic of Asia-Pacific markets are leaning into Asia's distinctive edge in the global impact investment ecosystem: patient capital, intergenerational stewardship and disciplined innovation.The driver: a rising, intergenerational “now generation” steering the region's innovative operating businesses and investment portfolios toward sustainability and social impact.“There's this undercurrent of energy and willingness to try and come together,” Katy Yung, who leads the Hong Hong-based Sustainable Finance Initiative, tells ImpactAlpha's Dennis Price on the latest Agents of Impact podcast. “The reality is it has to be an intergenerational effort.”

I grew up shy, introverted, and terrified of public speaking.A bookworm in Hong Kong. A wallflower who couldn't hold a room. A kid who went into investment banking because that's where smart people were supposed to go, not because it was right for me.So I walked away.Professional football. BBC radio. The Premier League. A microphone. A stage.And somewhere along the way, the worst public speaker in the room became one of the most sought-after communication coaches in the world.But here's what I'll tell you: it wasn't talent. It was never talent.It was one conversation with a stranger every single day, for years.What I discovered through football, banking, 15 years on stage, and six years coaching some of the most senior executives on the planet is this: communication is not a gift. It is a skill. And most leaders are operating at seven out of ten of their potential without even realizing it.The expertise is there. The knowledge is there. The years of experience are there.But if you can't make people feel something, none of it lands.I sat down with Nick Day, CEO of JGA Recruitment Group and host of the HR L&D Podcast, for one of the most honest and wide-ranging conversations I've had on communication, leadership, and influence.We go deep on public speaking, the art of listening, why preparation is the only thing that separates great communicators from average ones, and why in a world flooded with AI-generated content, the human touch has never been more valuable.Nick and I unpack the real reason most presentations fail, why following your passion is terrible career advice, what every great leader he's ever interviewed has in common, and the one question you should ask before you build your next deck.This is one of the most practical and honest conversations I've been part of on communication and leadership.I hope it changes the way you speak.Apply to work with me: https://www.michaelxcampion.com/Connect with me: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelxcampion/This episode is from the HR L&D Podcast hosted by Nick Day.Connect with Nick: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickday/Learn more about JGA Recruitment Group: https://jgarecruitment.com/I'm a Hong Kong-born, UK-based professional speaker, executive coach, and corporate trainer with over 15 years of experience on the global stage. Before stepping into this world, I worked in investment banking and played professional football, representing the Hong Kong national team and competing in the Premier League.Today, I help senior leaders and high-performing teams unlock their communication potential. I'm also a Partner and Head of Corporate Training at Quinlan and Associates, working with organizations across Hong Kong, Singapore, London, and the Middle East.My one-line thesis is simple: talent is practice in disguise.(00:00) Why Communication Is the Skill Every Leader Is Missing(01:26) Human First, Not Resource First(02:23) From Banking to Professional Football, Michael's Story(07:56) Talent Is Practice in Disguise(09:35) Curiosity Beats Chasing Passion(15:58) The Communication Gap Most HR Leaders Don't Know They Have(21:07) Preparation Is the Only Thing That Earns Confidence(23:41) The Art of Listening on Stage(40:09) AI and the Rising Value of Human Connection(44:38) Design Emotion, Not Slides

My guest today, Christine Pedi is known as the “Lady of 1000 Voices." She discovered her talent for multiple personalities through her long association with the legendary Off-Broadway revue, Forbidden Broadway, performing in companies all over the world, including New York, London, Japan, Singapore, and more. Among the dozens of personalities Christine is known to impersonate are: Liza Minelli, Rosie Perez, Ethel Merman, Angela Lansbury, Bernadette Peters, Julie Andrews, Katherine Hepburn and many, many others.She's received a Drama Desk nomination, as well as an L.A. Ovation & NAACP Award for her work.On Broadway, Christine debuted in Little Me with Martin Short and Faith Prince, directed by a favorite StoryBeat guest, Rob Marshall. Other Broadway appearances include several peculiar offstage callers in Eric Bogosian's Talk Radio, starring Liev Schreiber, and a turn as Mama Morton in the long-running hit, Chicago.She brought her collection of divas to Off-Broadway's Newsical the Musical, and starred in Spamilton: An American Parody, which she also co-produced.And many of you will know Christine from her long-running daily SiriusXM Radio show Broadway Breakfast on the On Broadway channel playing music of the stage & screen and interviewing Show Biz legends Mon-Fri, 9am-3pm. On Saturdays she and Seth Rudetsky co-host Dueling Divas.  And fans of Howard Stern can hear her provide the occasional celebrity voice on his SiriusXM morning show.Other Off-Broadway performances include: the title role in Miss Abigail's Guide to Dating Mating and Marriage, A Broadway Diva Christmas, Jerry's Girls, and My Favorite Year.Christine's performed her cabaret show, Great Dames, at many major New York venues, winning both the New York Bistro & Nitelife Awards. Her holiday show, There's No Bizness Like Snow Bizness, has been an annual New York staple since 2008. She's even performed for President & Mrs. Clinton, playing a singing Hillary!On TV, you may recognize Christine on The Sopranos as Mrs. Bobby Baccala (4 scenes, 5 lines...dead). But she recently escaped the clutches of Dr. Death on NBC.Be sure to check out Christine's popular, hilarious videos on YouTube, especially her “Shit Liza Says” videos. It's brilliant, laugh-out-loud stuff.Last but not least, and closest to my heart, Christine can be found singing on the well-regarded 1994 double-CD Complete Work recording of Jekyll & Hyde, the Musical, featuring Anthony Warlow, Linda Eder and Carolee Carmello.

NextEra’s $67B all-stock Dominion deal targets data center alley. Plus China’s top five each outpace Vestas, and 80% of Swedish wind producers ran at a loss. Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly email update on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Linkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary Barnes’ YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us! [00:00:00] The Uptime Wind Energy podcast, brought to you by StrikeTape, protecting thousands of wind turbines from lightning damage worldwide. Visit striketape.com. And now, your hosts Speaker 6: Welcome to the Uptime Wind Energy podcast. I’m your host, Allen Hall, and I’m here with three other people, Matthew Stead, Rosemary Barnes, and, uh, Yolanda Padron down in Texas. Uh, we’re all getting ready to go to American Clean Power in Houston, Texas, where it will be practically 150 degrees and 99% humidity, and we’re all looking forward to those warm, wet days that we will spend It is very similar to New Orleans. New Orleans was also very warm and very humid. So there’s a trend going on here with American Clean Power, although we were up in Minneapolis not too long ago, uh, but I guess we were in Phoenix too, so we gotta find a middle ground, everybody. Can we go someplace like– [00:01:00] Rosemary says we should always go to the Maldives, Tahiti. I got a lot of requests from Tahiti from people. We never go there. We never go to Hawaii.  Rosemary Barnes: I’ve suggested Hawaii so many times, and I’ve been told that Americans are not gonna be given permission from their manager to go to Hawaii.  Speaker 6: It’s kinda like Las Vegas.  Rosemary Barnes: Maybe one day we’ll make it to San Diego or something and get, um, beach adjacent facility And if your presentation is too boring, then everyone will be at the beach. So that will be how we ensure quality control of the speakers, which is a big problem at these events now, right? Like you can’t, um, there’s– It’s more like the norm is fairly boring sales pitches rather than informative discussion.  Speaker 6: We used to have OMNS, when I say we, I mean the wind community used to have OMNS out in San Diego in Coronado at the Del Coronado is, I think that’s the hotel name. And the one time that I went, I think I’ve been [00:02:00] there, I would say one time, uh, everybody was outside on the, at the beach, basically on the patio. So they’re holding all these talks and discussions, and it’s… I’m looking around, it’s like me and five other people. Everybody else is out there next to the water. So they had a problem with that. So I guess what they figured, either make it really cold or make it really hot, so it forces everybody into the climate-controlled conditions of, uh, the, uh, auditorium to watch the speakers. Maybe that’s the, the plan. All right. Let’s, let’s, let’s talk about what happened with NextEra and Dominion because there’s going to be a huge merger. So if you thought utility business was boring, it’s not anymore. NextEra announced a sixty-seven billion dollar all-stock deal to acquire Dominion Energy, a move that would create the largest regulated electricity utility in the world by market cap. Uh, [00:03:00] the combined company would serve about ten million customers accounts across Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, where I’m based, and South Carolina with one hundred and ten gigawatts of generation across renewables, nuclear, and natural gas. Uh, but the real driver here is data centers, of course. Dominion sits in the heart of Virginia’s data center alley, where it has connected more than four hundred and fifty data centers, and NextEra is building thirty data center hubs through its NextEra Energy Resources subsidiary and has partnered with Google Cloud on paired generation campuses. So together, they would control about a hundred and thirty gigawatts of large load pipeline. And the question is whether the regulators will let it happen. And I think that’s, having watched some of the news articles over the last several days, uh, the news broke pretty much Sunday morning or late Saturday night that this was happening and [00:04:00] The first thing that came to mind, are the regulators going to let it happen? And the concern is going to be, and you can well imagine how this plays out, they’re going to drag Dominion and NextEra up to Washington, D.C. and berate them about how electricity rates cannot increase due to data centers. And if they don’t swear to that, then this merger won’t happen. That’s my interpretation of what’s about to happen. It may not, but how does this play out? How does everybody else on the team at Uptime see this play out?  Matthew Stead: Seems like a good idea to me. So more economies, more geographic diversity, more opportunity for renewables.  Yolanda Padron: I can’t speak to Dominion, um, but being relatively close to the NextEra engineering team, they, they really know their stuff, right? So I think it’s something that should kind of give us a, a sense of relief here that it, [00:05:00] it’s a big team, but it’s a really smart and competent team taking over a big undertaking.  Speaker 6: You would like to see renewables and data centers work together. This would be the perfect match of the two, right? The, the largest renewable owner management company, along with the biggest data center, uh, region. Connecting those two would make infinite sense, but in the, our political environment today in the United States, that may be the reason to oppose it.  Matthew Stead: Yeah, why would it be a bad idea?  Speaker 6: Windmills, Matthew. Windmills. Windmills are bad. Can’t even call them wind turbines anymore. They’re windmills.  Rosemary Barnes: I used to mock people for saying windmill instead of wind turbine, but then when I moved to Denmark, um, you know, who, you know, have a firm, firm ownership of modern wind energy, or at least did back 10, 20 years ago They say windmill when they speak English. Um, the Danish word for it is vindmølle, um, which means windmill. [00:06:00]And so I can’t… I couldn’t maintain that, that energy because like, am I gonna, am I gonna mock these, you know, like everybody at that company knew more about wind energy than I did. Am I gonna mock them for not, not knowing the difference between a windmill and a wind turbine? No. So yeah, that’s, that’s something that I, I don’t do anymore.  Matthew Stead: That is really valuable to know, um, Rosie. I must admit, I did not know that, and I would mock people saying w- windmill, so thank you for setting me straight.  Rosemary Barnes: Yeah, there are plenty of, um, plenty of people who don’t know the difference between a windmill and a wind turbine and think, “Oh, why you only got three blades with so much air between them? You know, you’re gonna… Y- if you would just put twice as many blades, you’d get twice as many energy. Everybody who works in wind energy is just an obs- obvious complete and utter idiot.” Um, so there’s that kind of person, but then there’s also the industry. Another fun fact that they call the blades wings. Uh, um, yeah, in Danish they call them blade wings, which they are. [00:07:00] Speaker 6: In Spanish, isn’t it shovels? ‘Cause when I always translate those, uh, Spanish questions over to English, it always comes out shovel. At least early on, y- the early versions of Google Translate would translate it to shovel. Like, what are they talking about shovel on a wind turbine? That doesn’t make any sense.  Yolanda Padron: Yeah, like a shovel or a stick or like a, what you row with.  Speaker 6: Oh, like an oar. Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Okay. Thank you, Yolanda.  Matthew Stead: I think it’s really interesting that, um- We don’t have much material on NextEra, Dominion. Um, yeah, we just don’t think it’s a good– We all think it’s a good idea. There’s no controversy here.  Speaker 6: Oh, there’ll be controversy. Don’t worry about that. There’s always controversy. Welcome to America.  Matthew Stead: But among the four of us-  Speaker 6: We all think it’s great.  Rosemary Barnes: Well, it’s, um, I mean, some of the interesting facts that I read was that they’ve got 130 gigawatts of load, um, that they’re bringing to the table, and 51 gigawatts of that is contracted data centers. So that’s, that’s interesting. [00:08:00] And I think large amounts of new data centers on the grid are controversial because in– if you’re not very, very careful about how you integrate them, then you can end up just making electricity more expensive for everybody in the area that doesn’t necessarily get, you know, profit sharing from the data center. So, um, I think that, uh, like, you know, the wind ind- in the wind industry, we’ve obviously been through and are still in the phase of where social license, um, community acceptance is one of the most important things, maybe the most important thing when you’re developing a new project. And I think that we’re just at the start of that realization for data centers as well. Companies that are building the, the data centers, they need to do more than what’s required of them because otherwise they have big risks of project delays. It’s millions of dollars delay, um, for the delay for, um, yeah, for every, every day that, um, a data center is held up. And so how can you afford to risk annoying anybody? [00:09:00] You know, you just wanna be like the just, just perfect, um, addition to the community so that everybody is just happy and, and lets the project proceed. So, yeah, I thought– think that that’s, that’s quite an interesting aspect that I think I’m gonna s- we’re gonna see changing as, you know, all these planned data centers become real data centers. There’s a real risk that everybody hates data centers soon as much as they, um, hated wind tur- um, wind farms for a while.  Yolanda Padron: For the consumer, aren’t there, like, I don’t know if they’re in Virginia, but aren’t there price caps too for the market? When you’re– When it comes to how expensive the megawatt hour is? Speaker 6: Not necessarily. Re- remember that AEP in Ohio, uh, was requiring data centers to buy electricity at a certain amount. Because they both basically committed not to raise prices for electricity to the local communities, and that would be really hard to do. And okay, great, if, if they can pull it off, awesome. But there’s already a lot of [00:10:00] pushback about it, and it hasn’t even gotten to the point of being real yet, so it’s only gonna get worse. I see. And all the data centers are gonna be up in space no matter what. Everybody’s talking about building data centers on the ground. There’s no shot that that’s gonna happen. I’m just telling you, ’cause they can’t do it. They don’t– They can’t build gas turbines fast enough. There’s just limitations there, and transformers and everything else. It’s gonna be in space. It’s so much easier.  Yolanda Padron: And all the approvals you have to get and everything.  Speaker 6: It will be easier to do it in space In space, you don’t have neighbors. Matthew Stead: I said it before, it’s just crazy. The key issue around data centers is it’s actually the transmission rather than generation. I mean, you know, at least in Australia, and correct me if I’m wrong, Rosie, but you know, less than half the price in Australia is generation. The other half is sort of retail and transmission and this and that. And so actually, you know, the generation cost shouldn’t really increase. It’s really the transmission and the, the poles and the wires, which are the problem. And [00:11:00] you know, to your point, Rosie, social, social license for poles and wires.  Rosemary Barnes: I’m actually really surprised at Allen, ’cause normally, Allen and I have this, um, you know, we’ve played out this scenario probably 50 or 100 times over the, over the years with emerging technologies, and it’s always me that’s like, “You know what? I think, uh, I think there’s something to this one.” Um, and Allen always poo-poos it, and in this case, Allen’s, Allen’s excited. I, I’m on Allen’s– So I also, I also think space data centers is, is a thing that’s more likely to happen than not, at least to some extent. Um, so yeah, but I think, Matt, you’ve got the more mainstream opinion. Speaker 6: The voice of the common man. I  Yolanda Padron: think for all of our listeners out there, this is the first time Rosie and Allen agree on anything, so round of applause team.  Speaker 6: It won’t last long, Yolande.  Rosemary Barnes: It’s not true because, you know, nine out of 10 new technologies I also think are stupid. Um, so Allen and I agree on the bulk of them, but then of that one in 10, you know, nine out of 10 of those I, I [00:12:00] like and Allen doesn’t, so this is the, you know, the one-tenth of the one-tenth, so. Speaker 6: I don’t like gas turbines. Can we all agree we don’t like gas turbines? It’s– That would be insane to scale.  Rosemary Barnes: You know what? I, I don’t have a particular problem with gas, gas turbines. I don’t want a lot of new gas turbines. Um, I guess that that’s– We can all agree on, on that. I don’t think the– I think we have most of the gas turbines that we need, or at least, um, will in the next couple of years. And, um, yeah, I do think that their existence supports faster electrification, um, and faster growth of wind and solar. So I’m definitely not someone that wants to see all gas turbines turned off tomorrow.  Speaker 6: No, I don’t, I don’t want to turn them off. I’m  Matthew Stead: just saying you can’t get to scale. Speaker 6: Delamination and bond line failures in blades are difficult problems to detect early. These hidden issues can cost you millions in repairs and lost energy production. CIC NDT are specialists to detect these critical flaws before they become [00:13:00] expensive burdens. Their non-destructive test technology penetrates deep into blade materials to find voids and cracks traditional inspections completely miss. CIC NDT maps every critical defect, delivers actionable reports, and provides support to get your blades back in service. So  Matthew Stead: visit cicndt.com because catching blade problems early will save you  Speaker 6: millions. Well, for the first time, five Chinese turbine manufacturers have all individually outpaced Danish wind giant Vestas in annual installations. Goldwind topped the global list with twenty-nine point seven gigawatts installed in twenty twenty-five. Behind them, Envision put up twenty-one point eight, Windy nineteen point eight, Mingyang at eighteen point six, and Sany at fifteen point one gigawatts. Vestas came in [00:14:00] sixth at twelve point nine gigawatts. The Chinese dominance was fueled by an enormous domestic market that has accounted for about ninety-four percent of those five manufacturers’ sales. Uh, but exports are obviously growing out of China too. The five captured nearly sixty percent of the hundred and seventy-eight gigawatts installed globally in twenty twenty-five, a year that saw the world market grow forty percent over twenty twenty-four. So Vestas still holds the crown for cumulative installations at two hundred and one gigawatts, but the gap in annual volume is now almost impossible to ignore. So Vestas has a lot of competition over in China. The, the amount of, uh, gigawatts coming out of the largest manufacturers in China is quite impressive, almost, well, more than double than what, uh, Vestas is doing, and Vestas is doing a pretty brisk business. What are, what are the outcomes of this, everyone? Is, can this be sustained in China [00:15:00] for very much longer? Can they continue to, to create at, at that rate?  Rosemary Barnes: Yes. Okay, move, move on to the next segment  Speaker 6: Well, that’s a, that’s a huge amount of gigawatts coming out of China. And if 94% of it’s staying in China, eventually you run out of China to put wind turbines in. Rosemary Barnes: They– I mean, we’re a long way from running out of places in China to put wind turbines in, because China is gigantic. A lot of it is not that populated. They’ve got a lot of offshore area still. But I just think it’s gonna follow the same playbook as, as solar probably, where you see, you know, early on heaps of domestic market, which is totally rock solid because it’s not relying on people to see a positive business case in doing it. You know, like it’s really… You know, targets are, are really mandated and people make sure that they are met. Um, and then the incentives are also different as well. Like my understanding is that [00:16:00] there’s a lot of incentives about installation of megawatts, um, and then, you know, the, the operation is like, we’ll figure that out as we go. The volume, the number of manufacturers that are there, they’ve got, you know, like such a great supply chain all there in the same area, so you can move fast and like I, I don’t see anything can get in the way of, you know, continuing to pump out these turbines at that speed. It’ll keep going until, you know, the government basically decides we’ve got, uh, enough wind energy now and then puts the, the brakes on it. And, you know, that’s what we’ve just been through in solar recently. China is, um… You know, they’ve just– they’ve got a big economy and they’ve just got like rock solid resolve to follow through on, on things that they commit to. Um, whether we can, you know, argue about whether it’s a smart strategy or not, but you know that they will follow it, they will execute on, on it. I don’t think anyone would, would say that they won’t. So I think, [00:17:00]can it continue forever? No. But do I think it can continue for another 10 years? Yes. And is that long enough to cause massive problems for any other manufacturer? I think also yes.  Matthew Stead: Hey, Rosie, can I ask you a question? You know, obviously there was some cable was proposed, you know, between Australia and Singapore. Do you see China going in that direction? You know, putting rather than pipes with gas in it, um, pipes with electrons? Uh,  Rosemary Barnes: I don’t see China– I’m actually working on a video at the moment about a global sub-sea grid, and I just interviewed, um, uh, Xlinks, you know, that was originally a project from Morocco to the UK, and then the other one, which is super cool, um, we might have an argument about the plausibility of it, is NATO L, which is just in like early development stages. It’s going to connect the UK to Canada. Um, and yeah, so that’s, um, a few thousand kilometers long. The ocean depth is maximum [00:18:00] three, I think, kilometers, maybe even a tiny bit more than that, um, which is like right on the edge of what is possible. N-none of those projects really actually rely on big technological improvements. Um, they’re possible with today’s technologies. Um, but I don’t see China doing so much of that. I think that one thing that might actually stop that is that, um, when you have big interconnectors like that, I think the engineering part is not the hard, the hard part. I think that the, it’s the politics. I do see them exporting their, um, you know, they’ve got really good ultra high voltage DC technology, but the transmission lines, they have exported a little bit. There’s some projects in Brazil that are Chinese made. There’s one in India. I don’t actually know if that is Chinese made, but you know, like I could really imagine them also rolling out projects in Africa, for example. Um, but beyond that sort of thing, I, I wouldn’t tip China as the country to, you know, develop a global [00:19:00] sub-sea grid. Speaker 6: Do you think the low solar prices have hurt the wind manufacturers in China a little bit? Obviously, there’s a lot of solar panels that are able to be shipped immediately, which is what’s happening right now. But turbines, not so much. It’s a little harder to do. But you, you would think that a lot of these countries and communities would be putting in wind But solar is so cheap right now that, that is what is winning at the moment, and it must be hurting the Chinese wind manufacturers, you would think. Rosemary Barnes: I don’t think they’re really in a competition with each other, um, at the moment. In Australia, I think yes. I think that, um, the, like, roaring success of solar and especially batteries is, um, making wind less appealing to develop. But globally, I think that it’s, you know, it’s a race between, um, fossil fuels and renewables. It’s a race between energy security and continued reliance on, you know, countries that [00:20:00] you don’t really want to rely on for fossil fuels. I think that those are the, the much bigger, um, competition at the moment. It’s a bit short-sighted because, yeah, wind and solar is really easy for the, the part of the, uh, energy transition that we’re doing now, and, uh, if you just don’t build any wind until you reach the limit of solar and batteries, then you’ll find yourself quite far behind. So that’s what we’re really struggling with in Australia and finding, like, what is the right level of government, um, support because people… You know, like in an electricity market like Australia, you’re not supposed to rely on governments, you know, planning out the system and deciding what thing to build, and I think that that has been a real strength of the Australian market that it has, you know, the government has got out of the way. It is hard to see, um, us getting to where we need to go in a orderly fashion without some planning for this, like, lumpy middle part of the energy transition. I don’t know. What do you think, Matt? Is that how you see it in Australia as well?  Matthew Stead: Yeah, I think there’s a place [00:21:00] for everything, and, you know, wind, solar, battery is a perfect match and the right places for the right thing. Rosemary Barnes: It’s really hard because, you know, like, when you look at the system as a whole, you know, like you plan out what, what full energy system is cheaper and better, you know. Is it the, you know, the current fossil fuel system and all of the, you know, annual maintenance and, um, improvements like, um, extensions that need to go along with that to support, you know, things like data centers and population growth, or is it the fully renewable system? And, you know, if you look at the end state, then I don’t think that many studies or maybe any studies come to the conclusion that anything other than renewables is the, the cheaper, better system. But it’s just, it doesn’t mean that every step along the way is cheaper, and so you end up with this, yeah, like this hump in the middle that you’ve gotta, you’ve gotta get over if you wanna get from one to the other, and it’s, um, it’s complicated. Speaker 6: I just listened to a podcast about this half an hour ago, uh, and it [00:22:00] was very contentious. And I won’t get into the details of it, but it was just one or the other. We wanna have all petroleum-based, coal-based generation in the UK, or we want zero emissions. They never got into anywhere in the middle, which is where it’s going to have to be. So why don’t we talk about that? I– It doesn’t… The political atmosphere of the UK is, is a little unstable, as we’ve all read in the newspapers and seen online. Uh, but it, but it’s just causing the both sides to go to extremes. And on the renewable side, some of the arguments that are being made were so outlandish that I could hardly continue to listen to it. Same thing on the gas and coal side. Like, what are we gonna do? The UK is really in a pinch. They’re gonna have to do something, and it all– as Rosemary’s pointed out, doing nothing is real ex- it’s gonna be tremendously expensive too. So there’s, there’s gonna have to be a, a reckoning somehow, but it, it’s all tied to the [00:23:00] economy at the moment. Like most things that happen in a country, decisions are made about what’s happening right now, not what’s gonna happen five years from now.  Yolanda Padron: Right. And to your point, like countries need to protect themselves, right? Like what are you gonna do, bank on world peace?  Speaker 6: That’s a bad bet historically.  Matthew Stead: But, um, how many, how many of those charts have you seen in the last one to years where you’ve got the, the fossil fuel, say the coal generation versus renewable generation? How many of those, um, charts have crossed over in the last few years where, you know, renewables generation is, is higher than coal generation? It’s just, it’s happening all over the world. It’s just happening, and you look at the graphs, it’s just happening.  Speaker 6: It’s less expensive, so that’s why they’re doing it. The decision’s made with the dollar. You know, the financing and the bankers and insurance are all gonna drive that, and it’s not gonna be the decision you, the homeowner, are gonna have a lot of influence on. It’s all gonna be done at a higher level, and it’s gonna be whatever’s cheaper and whatever’s available. Back to Rosemary’s point, [00:24:00] solar is cheap and available, people are gonna do it. Wind is cheap and available, they’re gonna choose it no matter who’s in office, right? I… Yeah, that’s the engineer talking, not the politician.  Matthew Stead: Battery, wind, and solar is only gonna get cheaper. Is, um, is, uh, gas turbines and coal gonna get cheaper? Speaker 6: They can’t. In order to get the efficiency up where they need to, it’s gonna be super expensive, which is what we’re at today. That’s why gas turbines are s- you can’t mass produce them, and that’s why they cost so much money. It’s a great business if you sell a couple a year. You can’t sell thousands of them. There’s just not a way to do that. As wind energy professionals, staying informed is crucial, and let’s face it, difficult. That’s why the Uptime podcast recommends PES Wind magazine. PES Wind offers a diverse range of in-depth articles and expert insights that dive into the most pressing issues facing our energy future. Whether you’re an industry veteran or new to wind, PES Wind has the high-quality content you need. Don’t miss [00:25:00] out. Visit peswind.com today. Over in Sweden, they built all the wind farms, and here at Weather Guard we’ve talked to a number of operators over in Sweden, so has EOLOGIX-PING, uh, and the– So but the wind farms and the customers haven’t really showed up, and researchers in Sweden have analyzed two hundred and forty-four Swedish wind power producers owning more than about thirty-seven hundred turbines covering eighty-five percent of the country’s total wind generation. So it’s a pretty large study. They found that eighty percent were effectively operating at a loss in twenty twenty-four. The total sector losses reached six point three billion Swedish kronor, uh, about six hundred and twenty million euros. The sector’s profit margins fell to a negative fifty-one percent. That’s right, negative fifty-one percent. Uh, and here’s the real paradox. Although wind production actually [00:26:00] rose from thirty-four point two to forty point six terawatt-hours, revenues fell for the first time in at least six years. Uh, the more they produced, the less they earned. And the real culprit is overcapacity. So they have so many turbines up in northern Sweden, uh, that it’s driving the energy prices down, much like Australia. Uh, and the missing link is obviously transmission because it is big demand to the south. It’s just getting the power there. Vattenfall alone lost eight hundred and seventy million euros in its wind business in twenty twenty-four, and one of its subsidiaries curtailed seventeen percent of the potential production because of, uh, shutting the turbines down was less expensive than selling into negative prices, which would make sense. So the price has gotten so low in Sweden that it’s better just to turn the turbine off and, and eat the loss than to generate power at a, at a negative price. This is a common theme [00:27:00] as wind has grown, and solar for the same matter, is that when you have so much of it, the price of electricity will drop. And until you can get that power out to other areas that has high demand It becomes a losing proposition. How does this play out? Will the– Now will countries finally take transmission seriously and start to even out the grid? Is that where we’re going?  Yolanda Padron: I mean, I hope so. The idea of curtailing potential energy isn’t something new, right? It happens here in Texas all the time. It happens in a lot of places all the time, um, just to, to not overflow the grid. And it makes sense, but it doesn’t make sense too much, at least to me, that in the same country you have parts of it where you have an electricity surplus and negative pricing, and other parts of it where you just, you don’t have enough energy for the whole, uh, region, right? So, uh, I really hope they take it a bit more seriously than they, than they currently are.  Matthew Stead: Uh, I think the interesting thing about Sweden is [00:28:00]that they’ve got a lot of hydro as well, and so those two things tie together. Um, you know, much like Australia, we’re building the, like the largest in the Southern Hemisphere, um, hydro scheme, and, um, maybe that’s part of the missing puzzle is the actual, the storage element. So if they had more pumped hydro, you know, they could, um, perhaps store that excess energy and then, then reuse it. But, you know, unless there’s no pipes from the north to the south, you know, that’s not gonna help anyone.  Speaker 6: Hydro is expensive. The more recent news articles I’ve seen about pumped hydro is it’s way less expensive to put in wind or put in solar or put in some batteries than to do pumped hydro projects. It’s complicated. It’s a lot of construction, obviously, and, uh, the pumps and the equipment are not cheap. So, uh, yeah, so although if you do have hydro and it’s currently running, you would leave that alone, but I think some of the newer pumped hydro projects probably won’t happen. Even if they’re on the– have [00:29:00] been planned and, and even started, I think they’re really reevaluating that it’s probably cheaper to do batteries. Matthew Stead: In Australia, in Snowy 2.0, I think the original budget was, was it 3 billion? And now it’s up to 12 to 15 billion.  Rosemary Barnes: Anybody that was working on that would’ve known that the price was very likely to blow out because that particular project has a really long tunnel. The two reservoirs that, like the reservoirs were existing, so you think, okay, that’s good, you save money. But the expensive part of pumped hydro is the tunneling and then, and it’s a very long tunnel. Um, and it’s just so super predictable that when you have a super long tunnel, you one, increase the cost a lot, but two, increase the risk of a massive cost blowout. So I think it’s not a good predictor of, of projects as some other ones that are, that are happening. I think the biggest problem with hydro is that, um, the project lives are so long, like 100 years e- easily, [00:30:00] but that doesn’t mean anything in today’s dollars, y- you know? So it’s like no one can, no company is gonna assign any value to the electricity they’re gonna generate in 100 years time, you know? So it’s, um, it, it’s really hard for it to stack up to, as a project today unless it’s a government doing it. Matthew Stead: But I mean, once Snowy 2.0 is done, it will still be reasonably cost-effective as a long-term storage source.  Rosemary Barnes: Yeah. If it had been made on time, then I think it would’ve, it would’ve been a real enabler for the energy transition for getting heaps of wind and solar. But it wasn’t done on time, and we barely we- storage isn’t our problem right now. We have actually got lots of, of storage. That’s not what’s stopping people from building projects. So, um, I think it is a bit of a shame.  Speaker 6: Back to your point, Rosemary, how old hydro is in terms of electricity generation. I, I went to go look up when Niagara River, Niagara Falls in, in the States first [00:31:00] started producing power, 1895. That’s how long we’ve been using water power in the States to create electricity. Hoover Dam, which also does something very similar, is in the 1930s, 1935, ’36, around that timeframe. So it’s almost been 100 years there too, 90 years. Yeah. It’s, it’s amazing. So you don’t plan for those, those pieces of, uh, infrastructure to run that long, but they do. That wraps up another episode of the Uptime Wind Energy podcast. And if today’s discussion sparked any questions or ideas, we’d love to hear from you. Reach out to us on LinkedIn, and don’t forget to subscribe so you never miss an episode. And if you found value in today’s conversation, please leave us a review. It really helps other wind energy professionals discover the show. For Rosie, Yolanda, and Matthew, I’m Allen Hall, and we’ll see you here next week on the Uptime Wind Energy [00:32:00] podcast.

(1/3) The Great Game. Gaius and Germanicus debate in their favorite wine bar by the Thames, in Londinium, Spring 92 AD. Germanicus compares 19th-century British strategy to modern American policy, noting both pursued a 78-year containment of Russia. Britain's efforts from 1830 to 1908 involved "wasteful wars" in places like Afghanistan and the Crimea to block Russian expansion in Eurasia. This strategy eventually backfired; by weakening Russia and later alienating Japan, Britain suffered a massive military humiliation at Singapore in 1942, leading to the empire's collapse. The United States has followed a near-identical timeline since 1947, which Germanicus argues has driven Russia and China into a close alliance while making an enemy of Iran. He concludes that the U.S. is currently at a 1930s-style "inflection point," having lost its global reputation and "mojo." Survival now requires acknowledging this reality rather than clinging to a "godlike" view of military power. (1/3)1904

***The challenge with recording remotely with three people is that sometimes the wifi just doesn't cooperate. There are a few moments where the audio overlaps slightly. We apologize that we weren't able to fully fix it in post-production.***What does it really look like to fly a family of five to Singapore in business class using points and miles? In this episode, we sit down with one of our amazing listeners, Gretchen, to break down exactly how she made this bucket-list trip happen using smart award flight strategies, transferable points, and a whole lot of persistence. We talk through the best ways to search for award availability and why flexibility is everything when planning international family travel. Gretchen also shares a very scary scam that could have turned out WAY worse without the a great credit card company in her corner! She also tells us what it was actually like exploring Singapore with kids, including must-do experiences like Gardens by the Bay, incredible skyline views, and even seeing Indonesia from across the water. If you've ever dreamed of taking your family on a huge international adventure without paying cash prices, this episode is packed with practical tips, inspiration, and real-world advice to help you make it happen.Girl's Trip Interest Form (April 7-10, 2027)Mentioned in this Episode:Gretchen's Singapore/Thailand Blog PostList of Airline Customer Service NumbersFor Thailand/Singapore Questions email Gretchen.navy@gmail.comFind Us On Online:Sign Up for the Y! Wonder Travel NewsletterWonderland on Points Youtube ChannelMary Ellen | JoFacebook GroupAffiliate Links:Seats.AeroCardpointersHalara (use code "Wonderland" for 10% off)Tobiq 15%Our Favorite Credit CardsOur Favorite Travel NecessitiesWe receive a small commission when you choose to use any of our links to purchase your products or apply for your cards! We SO appreciate when you choose to give back to the podcast in this way!

This episode rounds up the latest Cardano and Midnight developments in one pass, from Indigo V3 and Cardano Critical Integrations V2 through to the first public steps for Vola Network, the latest NFT marketplace shift after JPG Store's shutdown, and a growing stack of Midnight ecosystem releases. Peter also breaks down why infrastructure, governance, and partner chain tooling matter right now even when they are less visible than headline-grabbing announcements.The second half of the update shifts from ecosystem news to practical builder momentum. Peter shares why the Singapore push around Cardano Summit and TOKEN2049 matters, then walks through several projects he has been building himself, including the Learn Cardano DRep site, a new on-chain activity leaderboard, a bounty platform aimed at bringing fresh liquidity into the ecosystem, and the annual Push-Up Challenge fundraiser for mental health.Key Takeaways:- Indigo V3 expands Cardano DeFi with a new reward model, broader synthetic asset support, and stronger oracle infrastructure through Pyth.- Cardano Critical Integrations V2 focuses on maintaining major integrations and adding Fireblocks support that could matter for institutional and enterprise participation.- Vola Network's public testnet is an early example of how Cardano partner chains can serve specific business and infrastructure use cases.- The closure of JPG Store marks a transition point for Cardano NFTs and pushes users to understand migration paths and new marketplace options.- Midnight is moving from concept to product layer, with MeowDrop, Moonlight, Midnight City, privacy education, and new market experiments all appearing together.- Peter argues that Cardano Summit and TOKEN2049 are ecosystem-level opportunities because they create visibility with enterprise, regulatory, and infrastructure decision makers.- New builder tools such as the DRep portal, leaderboard, and bounty platform are designed to turn governance, on-chain activity, and contributor work into more visible participation.Links & References:- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/XUNLQX- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/Tp3KCS- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/CZyf7G- Intersect Hydra Voting: https://link.learncardano.io/Cn2nX9- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/5Jb2gu- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/AIZAji- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/Rnalwg- ANOlaunch — Launch Your Cardano Token Website | Pepeano: https://link.learncardano.io/QMI2e2- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/LqOXXT- Vola Explorer: https://link.learncardano.io/wniToA- Vola Wallet — Download: https://link.learncardano.io/TbNXZI- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/eMYzks- JPG Store says goodbye: https://link.learncardano.io/4sndu9- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/M9fSYi- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/jUMxS2- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/umzlvx- https://link.learncardano.io/kUAmIL- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/Ng3jsO- How Private Are You? | Midnight Privacy Quiz: https://link.learncardano.io/H3O0ye- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/s0HD1l- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/05qZPI- Ascend Market | Leveraged Event Perpetuals: https://link.learncardano.io/rzsx0D- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/ZNnQY5- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/EAesoJ- Cardano's Big Singapore Push: Why Summit + TOKEN2049 Could Shape the Next Cycle - YouTube: https://link.learncardano.io/t3YPs3- https://link.learncardano.io/Cahuqi- https://link.learncardano.io/GrfcOI- https://link.learncardano.io/Mx5NHZ- Peter Bui · Cardano DRep — Informed Voting, Public Rationales: https://link.learncardano.io/vG2x1z- Leaderboard | Learn Cardano Leaderboard: https://link.learncardano.io/wmcvrG- Cardano Bounties — Earn Stablecoins Building the Ecosystem: https://link.learncardano.io/S4Roix- x.com: https://link.learncardano.io/BpxyaE- The Push-Up Challenge - Cardano Community: https://link.learncardano.io/IGzXFOWebsite: https://link.learncardano.io/bQ68RcX/Twitter: https://link.learncardano.io/3a1QtvDisclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only. Nothing constitutes financial advice.DISCLAIMER: This content is for informational and educational purposes only and is not financial, investment, or legal advice. I am not affiliated with, nor compensated by, the project discussed—no tokens, payments, or incentives received. I do not hold a stake in the project, including private or future allocations. All views are my own, based on public information. Always do your own research and consult a licensed advisor before investing. Crypto investments carry high risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. I am not responsible for any decisions you make based on this content.

Welcome to Episode 208 of the Talking Disney Podcast.  In this episode, we talk about a new D23 event in Singapore, a class-action lawsuit against Disney, new electric vehicles for Autopia, a new way to make park reservations, Soarin' Across America is coming soon - and we know what scenes they chose, park hopping restrictions end soon, voice actor Tom Kane passes away, and a new Main Street U.S.A. Lego set is coming soon, plus much more. With The Devil Wears Prada 2 released, we update our Talking Disney Podcast Fantasy Movie standings. Finally, we continue our journey of watching and discussing the Disney-Pixar animated feature films with Coco.  Thanks for listening! Check out our new Linktree site! All of our social media and important links are in one location.  Like us on Facebook: @TalkingDisneyPodcast Follow us on X: @TalkingDisney Follow us on Instagram: @talkingdisneypodcast Follow us on TikTok: @talkingdisneypodcast Subscribe on YouTube: @TalkingDisneyPodcast Email us: talkingdisneypodcast@gmail.com Website: www.talkingdisneypodcast.com Check out The Disney Podcast Group on Facebook - www.facebook.com/groups/TheDisneyPodcastGroup 

Before he became a familiar face on screen, appearing in over 70 films like 'The Bridge on the River Kwai', 'The Cockleshell Heroes', 'The Guns of Navarone' and 'The Wild Geese', Percy Herbert survived one of the most brutal chapters of the Second World War. Captured during the fall of Singapore in 1942, he endured life as a prisoner of war, facing starvation, violence, and witnessing events like the Alexandra Hospital massacre. Those experiences would stay with him and later shape the performances that made his name. His story is told in his autobiography, Time Will Pass Johnny, a remarkable account that traces his journey from the camps of the Far East to a long and successful acting career. To talk about her father's life, I'm joined by Katrina Wood.   Patreonpatreon.com/ww2podcast  

This week, we present SmarterMarkets™ Encore: Ideas Worth Repeating. We're bringing back an episode that we brought you last May with Michael DiRienzo, President & CEO at The Silver Institute.   During the conversation, David Greely and Michael discuss the outlook for silver, its role in the energy transition, and the role it can and should play in investor portfolios and in our financial system in the 21st century. Those topics are as relevant now as they were last year.   One update: last year, we discussed that at the time, silver appeared undervalued as it took 100 ounces of silver to buy 1 ounce of gold. Of course, silver prices have climbed over the past year. Now it only takes roughly 60 ounces of silver to buy 1 ounce of gold in the physically deliverable gold and silver futures markets now trading on Abaxx Exchange in Singapore.  

Rich reacts to his New York Knicks taking a 2-0 lead on the Cleveland Cavaliers in the Eastern Conference Finals. 49ers FB Kyle Juszczyk and Rich discuss his offseason prep for the upcoming season, the timeline for George Kittle's return from his season-ending Achilles injury, why he's already impressed by what he's seen out of Niners' draftees De'Zhaun Stribling and Kaelon Black, says why Kyle Shanahan and Brock Purdy are a match made in heaven, San Francisco's season-opening game in Australia vs the Rams, and more. Rich weighs in on Matthew Stafford's big Rams contract extension, and takes a call from a listener in Singapore who expertly trolls the 49ers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Peter sits down with Laura Matticucci from the Cardano Foundation and Nathaniel Acton from EMURGO to unpack the treasury proposals behind Cardano Summit 2026 in Singapore and Cardano's presence at TOKEN2049. Rather than arguing in the abstract, they walk through the specific community concerns: why treasury funding is being used after Voltaire, what EMURGO's decision to remove its 15% management fee changes, how milestone-based withdrawals work, and how the teams plan around ADA volatility while budgeting in USD.The conversation also gets into what these events are actually meant to deliver. That includes developer participation, builder exposure, enterprise and regulatory conversations, media reach, and the longer sales cycles that start at major events before they show up later as partnerships or integrations. Peter closes with a clear DRep call to action, arguing that Cardano should use its current momentum around infrastructure and institutional readiness instead of stepping back from high-signal global events.Key Takeaways:- Laura Matticucci and Nathaniel Acton argue that Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 should be funded through the treasury because the ecosystem-wide event strategy now sits with decentralised governance after Voltaire.- EMURGO says it will waive the 15% management fee that had been included in the event proposal, reducing the cost to the treasury.- The guests say event budgets are planned in USD while treasury withdrawals happen in ADA across milestones, which creates treasury management risk but not a reduction in the intended sponsorship value.- Success is framed around KPIs such as developer turnout, builder participation, enterprise and regulatory meetings, media coverage, and partnerships that develop over a longer time horizon.- Peter argues that Cardano should not disappear from major industry events while critical integrations and institutional infrastructure are still coming online.- The interview highlights Singapore as a strategic Web3 hub and TOKEN2049 as a concentrated venue for decision-makers, investors, builders, and enterprise conversations.- The guests also confirm there have already been discussions around overlapping activity with Midnight, including hackathon tracks and event coordination.Links & References:- Cardano Foundation Activity and Financial Report 2025: https://link.learncardano.io/Xf5pJE- Cardano Foundation Activity and Financial Report 2025: https://link.learncardano.io/ngHWCn- Cardano Summit 2026 - Singapore | 5-6 October: https://link.learncardano.io/ERBuyW- TOKEN2049 | 7-8 October 2026 | Singapore: https://link.learncardano.io/T49v1I- https://link.learncardano.io/lRh3HE- https://link.learncardano.io/GrfcOI- https://link.learncardano.io/Mx5NHZWebsite: https://link.learncardano.io/bQ68RcX/Twitter: https://link.learncardano.io/3a1QtvDisclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only. Nothing constitutes financial advice.DISCLAIMER: This content is for informational and educational purposes only and is not financial, investment, or legal advice. I am not affiliated with, nor compensated by, the project discussed—no tokens, payments, or incentives received. I do not hold a stake in the project, including private or future allocations. All views are my own, based on public information. Always do your own research and consult a licensed advisor before investing. Crypto investments carry high risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. I am not responsible for any decisions you make based on this content.

In this episode of The Spoon Podcast, Michael Wolf talks with Jake Berber, the cofounder and CEO of Prefer, a Singapore-based startup that uses fermentation to create coffee and cocoa extenders from ingredients like rice and chickpeas. Berber explains why rising coffee and cocoa prices, climate pressure, and growing global demand convinced him there was a massive opportunity to help future-proof some of the world's favorite foods, and his journey from Texas to Israel to Singapore led him into the world of food tech and climate-resilient ingredients. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Special PMLA Court in Chennai last month dropped proceedings linked to ED case against Singapore-born Buhari, heir to Dubai-based Coal and Oil Group.----more----https://theprint.in/india/energy-empire-heir-who-landed-in-eds-crosshairs-ahmed-buharis-road-to-glory-and-the-tumble/2937457/

A toxic and false belief has been dominating business culture for decades: Money is the byproduct of value creation. It sounds like common sense, but it is one of the most damaging things a thinking person can believe. This episode takes the belief apart and shows the moral claim hiding inside the causal one. The cost of getting this wrong is steep: you spend thirty years hounded by a number you can never reach, unable to rest, unable to truly enjoy what you have built — and then arrive at sixty to discover the prize the belief promised was never there. You will hear about Gary Stevenson, the Citibank trader who got rich betting against ordinary people, and Harvard professor Michael Sandel on what price does to meaning. And one night in Singapore — the Dragon VIP table, thirty thousand dollar minimum, and the dread right behind the performance of pleasure. On the other side is rest from chasing the next number, space for fulfillment, contribution, and love… and the greater work that the market alone could never have pointed you toward, the work that runs on its own fuel and outperforms anything you ever produced to please the market. Listen now. Show Highlights Include: A popular claim made in podcasts, LinkedIn posts, and even respected business books that slyly design your belief system into feeling like you're not enough and will never be enough (2:03)  Irrefutable examples of why your worth is not tied to your market value so you can stop living with invisible chains attached to you (3:52)  How your belief that prices indicate worth will try to argue with me at (7:32) - watch what happens in you…  The insidious way a toxic belief hijacks your mind to prove its worth to you (this explains why it's so hard to change your beliefs even when you're faced with proof it is not true) (12:07)  Why some of the most successful people are the most unhappy and unsatisfied but won't even admit it to themselves (12:54)  2 ways the belief that "price = worth" tears apart your joy, fulfillment, and love bit by painful bit (15:16)  3 questions that can incapacitate the toxic belief that's been running you for your entire life (and why your toxic belief will fight back every step of the way) (21:07) How to step off of the "Treadmill of Worth" before you're on your deathbed and regret your entire existence (28:26)    For more about David Tian, go here: https://www.davidtianphd.com/about/  Feeling like success in one area of life has come at the expense of another? Maybe you've crushed it in your career, but your relationships feel strained. Or you've built the life you thought you wanted, yet there's still something important missing. I've put together a free 3-minute assessment to help you see what's really holding you back. Answer a few simple questions, and you'll get instant access to a personalized masterclass that speaks directly to where you are right now. It's fast. It's practical. And it could change the way you approach leadership, love, and fulfillment. Take the first step here → https://dtphd.com/quiz

Simon's live update for CNA, the pan-Asian English language TV news channel based in Singapore. With Yasmine Yonkers and Arnold Gay anchoring.

Cam Cooksey shows up with the question every kid secretly wants to ask. Is space real? And if it is, what even is it? Lt Gen (Ret.) Steven L. Kwast pulls out a scale-of-the-universe chart and walks Cam from the size of a sunflower out to Andromeda, then all the way down to quarks and quantum strings. The takeaway: you are connected to all of it, top to bottom. From there the conversation gets philosophical in the best way. Kwast lays out the decision-making framework he teaches future leaders. Start with an opinion, hold it with humility, then test it against the facts. His own starting opinion is that there is one God who made an infinite universe so we could love, explore, and grow. They tackle time travel (probably possible, probably unwise), the early 90s vertical takeoff rocket technology that will let you fly New York to Singapore in 37 minutes, and the deep state lie that the planet is too full. The closer, from Cam, is the line of the episode. Before you try to figure out outer space, focus on inner space first.

Take the 2026 AI Engineering Survey and get >$2k in credits and AIE WF tickets!On the product side, everyone is getting Computer - Perplexity, Manus, Cursor, and so on. Meanwhile on the research side, agentic evals like TerminalBench and GDPVal are also assuming computer (Harbor). On both ends, the consolidating LLM OS stack has become a standard toolkit, and Daytona is one of a small set of AI Infra companies that are booming because of it.“The end of localhost” has been Ivan Burazin's obsession for more than a decade.Something that is all too familiar…Long before agents became the default way people talked about software development, Ivan was already chasing the idea that development should not depend on a fragile local machine. CodeAnywhere, one of the first browser-based IDEs, was an early attempt at that future: move the development environment into the cloud, make setup reproducible, and free developers from the endless “works on my machine” tax.The thesis was directionally right, but the market wasn't ready yet.However, agents changed that. They do not care about a laptop, desk setup, or favorite editor. They need a computer they can access through an API: something stateful enough to keep working, fast enough to spin up instantly, flexible enough to resize, isolated enough to be safe, and composable enough to run the messy real-world workflows that real software engineering actually requires.Daytona isn't just selling “sandboxes” in the narrow code-execution sense. It is the latest version of Ivan's original localhost thesis.In this episode, Daytona's CEO joins swyx to explain why AI agents need more than code execution boxes: they need composable computers, stateful sandboxes, instant startup, dynamic resources, and infrastructure that can survive workloads going from zero to 100,000 CPUs.We go deep on the new agent compute market: Daytona's hard pivot from human dev environments to AI sandboxes, the New Year's Eve MVP that customers begged for, why Daytona runs on bare metal with its own scheduler, how one customer runs almost 850,000 sandboxes a day, and why RL/eval workloads went from 0% to roughly 50% of usage in just months. Ivan also explains why agents need Windows and macOS machines, why CLI may matter more than MCP, why Kubernetes is painful for this workload, and why the future AI cloud may look more like Stripe than AWS.We discuss:* How Daytona grew out of CodeAnywhere, Shift, and the “end of localhost” thesis* Why Daytona pivoted from human dev environments to AI sandboxes* Why agents need composable computers instead of disposable code execution boxes* The New Year's Eve MVP that customers chased API keys for* Why Daytona chose bare metal, stateful snapshots, and its own scheduler* How Daytona spins up one sandbox in ~60ms and 50,000 sandboxes in ~75 seconds* Why Daytona's biggest customer runs ~850,000 sandboxes a day* How RL/eval workloads create zero-to-100,000 CPU spikes* Why RL workloads went from 0% to roughly 50% of Daytona usage* Why customers compare Daytona against EKS/GKS and say they're “never going back”* Why every AI agent may need a computer, including Windows and macOS environments* The Apple licensing constraints that make macOS sandboxes hard* Why CLI gives agents more power than MCP* How open source helps agents integrate Daytona* Why agent-generated PRs may break today's CI/CD assumptions* Why AI SaaS companies reselling tokens may face a cold shower* Why the AI cloud may look more like Stripe than AWSIvan Burazin* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivanburazin* X: https://x.com/ivanburazinDaytona* Website: https://www.daytona.io* X: https://x.com/daytonaioTimestamps* 00:00:00 Hook* 00:01:12 Introduction* 00:03:15 CodeAnywhere, Shift, and the end of localhost* 00:05:58 What Daytona is: composable computers for AI agents* 00:08:07 The pivot from dev environments to AI sandboxes* 00:10:17 The New Year's Eve MVP and customers begging for API keys* 00:12:56 Bare metal, stateful sandboxes, and Daytona's scheduler* 00:17:28 60ms startup, 50,000 sandboxes, and 850K daily runs* 00:21:53 Spiky RL/eval workloads and the new agent infra problem* 00:28:12 RL workloads, Kubernetes pain, and dynamic resizing* 00:33:31 Why every AI agent needs a computer* 00:38:48 macOS sandboxes and Apple's licensing problem* 00:44:28 Why CLI may matter more than MCP* 00:48:11 Open source, GitHub stars, and agent integration* 00:53:11 Git, CI/CD, and agent collaboration bottlenecks* 00:58:15 Founder life and building a 25-person infra company* 01:02:44 AI SaaS, token resale, and API-first business models* 01:06:10 GPU sandboxes, data centers, and compute growth* 01:09:48 Why the AI cloud may look more like Stripe than AWS* 01:11:26 Closing thoughtsTranscriptIntroduction: Daytona, CodeAnywhere, and the End of LocalhostSwyx [00:00:02]: Okay, we're in the studio with Ivan Burazin, CEO of Daytona. Welcome.Ivan [00:00:07]: Thanks for having me, man.Swyx [00:00:08]: Ivan, you and I go back.Ivan [00:00:10]: Way back.Swyx [00:00:11]: How I don't even know how, you found, did you reach out or, for Shift.Ivan [00:00:17]: I reached out to you. The reason was you - we were just - we were thinking about I was one of the co-founders of CodeAnywhere, the first browser-based IDE, and so we were thinking a long time of, localhost should die. And you had this article.Swyx [00:00:29]: End of localhost.Ivan [00:00:30]: Then I reached out to you because of that, and then we talked, and I was actually at a different job and learning about I was the head of, developer experience, and you were quite well-versed in that, and I actually reached out to you, among other people, how do we go about that? What are the key things and whatnot at this point in time? And you were nice enough to take the call, and I remember I was late on your call with you.Swyx [00:00:51]: I don't remember.Ivan [00:00:52]: I remember because I was with my then I'm thinking of a girlfriend or wife at that point in time, I'm not sure. It's the same person, so that's great, and I was late ‘cause we were, in, Italy on, vacation, and then I was late for something. I felt so bad, and you were so nice to be, good about.Swyx [00:01:10]: The reason I'm nice is because I'm also late to other people, so it's like, who's, who's without sin here, yeah, so I have to, for those who don't know, InfoBip Shift, there's this whole thing that, you did in the past, and, and that was basically one of the inspirations for me starting AI Engineer, which is like, I have to thank you for giving me that push to be like, “Oh, you can, you can build and sell conferences?”Ivan [00:01:34]: I remember you asked you asked me at the beginning to give me advisory shares, and I was so focused on what we were doing, I said no, and I should've took the advisory shares. So I'm sorry, dude. But anyway.Swyx [00:01:43]: We're not, we're not venture backed.Ivan [00:01:44]: No, it doesn't matter.Swyx [00:01:45]: It's Yeah, anyway, so I think what's impressive about you is that CodeAnywhere is the thing that you've been trying to build, and, you kind of put it on hold and then came back after InfoBip. Just give us the story, do you - the story and the origin story, going into Daytona.From CodeAnywhere and Shift to DaytonaIvan [00:02:05]: Sure. Like, really way back, me and my co-founder have been together. I say this, I've said this multiple times, it's like we were married and divorced and married. Some people actually ask me is my co-founder my partner. they thought it literally. It's not literally, but we have done multiple companies together, and to your point, we had this shift where we went from the CodeAnywhere to the conference called Shift, and then back to, Daytona. We originally started stacking servers, doing like virtualization in the early 2000s and, routers and doing basically all these things, at a foundational level, and that was a services company which we sold to focus on what my co-founder actually invented, which was the very first browser-based IDE, right, I say the first. Before us was actually Heroku. They did it for a very short time until they became Heroku. But outside of them, we were the only one, and it was called.Swyx [00:02:55]: There was Cloud9.Ivan [00:02:57]: Cloud9 came out slightly after us. There was Replit, which came out when we stopped doing it, Replit came out, and they have been successful since then, which is great. There was Nitrous.io. There was quite a few that existed at the time, but it was like too early. But the interesting part is that we, at that point in time, because there was no VS Code, there was no Kubernetes, and Docker had just started when we Or I'm not sure if it was even public at that point in time. And so we had to build everything to the whole stack ourselves and that was the key learning that we brought into and that we've been using in Daytona today. So it was super early. There's about 3 million people used CodeAnywhere. It was slightly, it was angel-backed more than venture-backed. We ended up paying everyone back because it didn't have that sort of scale. But, three years ago, we started something similar with Daytona, which is not what we are today, but it was automating dev environments for human engineers, the basically the underlying stack of CodeAnywhere. And then we did a hard pivot last January to sandboxes. And so here we are.Swyx [00:04:01]: Historic pivot, yeah, and, it's one of those things where, I had independently invested in CodeAnywhere, but also in E2B, and then both of you pivoted into the same thing, and I'm like, “F**k.”Ivan [00:04:12]: You invested, you invested in Daytona. You invested in Daytona. But you were the first If we had not got your check, we wouldn't have done it.Swyx [00:04:18]: No way.Ivan [00:04:19]: No, it was like, “We have to get him on board first,” and you were that kicker that we, that got us off the ground.Swyx [00:04:23]: No, because you were putting me on your pitch deck, man. I was like, “Man, this is like a good trip if I don't invest.”Ivan [00:04:29]: That's because it was your quote. It's like we.Swyx [00:04:30]: Yeah. It's the end of localhost.Ivan [00:04:31]: Did a bunch of research about end of localhost and who was interested in that,.Swyx [00:04:34]: No, that's like, I put, I wrote that blog post, and every single company in that field reached out to me, and then every VC who was receiving those pitches then also had to call me and, talk it, talk through it with me.Ivan [00:04:47]: It's finally happening though.Swyx [00:04:48]: It was really super interesting.Ivan [00:04:48]: It's finally happening.Swyx [00:04:49]: It's finally happening.Ivan [00:04:49]: Yeah, it's finally.Swyx [00:04:49]: It's finally happening, with maybe sort of non-human users. Yeah, so what is Daytona today? Let's get like a quick description. I'm wearing the shirt.What Daytona Is Today: Composable Computers for AI AgentsIvan [00:04:58]: You're wearing the shirt. Yes,.Swyx [00:04:59]: It says, I think your branding is very good. Like, it's very consistent. It runs AI code. Like, it cannot be simpler.Ivan [00:05:05]: Exactly, but we're gonna probably have to change that.Swyx [00:05:07]: Oh, s**t.Ivan [00:05:07]: It's also a subset of what we do. Unfortunately, we really love this, Run AI Code is super simple. People interpret it different ways. I think we've given out 5,000, 6,000 of these shirts. People wear them with pride because it doesn't really market about us.Swyx [00:05:21]: Yeah, Daytona's on the back.Ivan [00:05:22]: It markets the back. It markets to the person itself, so I think we did a really good job on that one. But it is also a subset of what we do, because people, when they think about Run AI Code, they just think about these small, let's call it isolates, code execution boxes that, you send some code, you get an output. Whereas what Daytona is today is essentially composable computers for AI agents. It is, the market calls them sandboxes which can be misleading.Swyx [00:05:44]: All these things. All these things on.Ivan [00:05:45]: Yeah, exactly, ‘cause it can be misleading ‘cause people usually think about sandboxes as a demo or a test environment versus a production-grade environment. But what Daytona does, if you think of the laptop that you have in front of you or the computer that's over there, or, my wife is an architect, so she has like a Windows with a 3D graphics card inside to do 3D rendering. Like, as humans, we have different computers or different compositions of computers. And our belief is strongly that agents today and going forward will need all these different compositions of computers to do different types of tasks. And so we offer that basically through an API.Swyx [00:06:19]: Yeah, to give people - I'm trying to sort of front-load all the aha moments or the wow moments so that people can, stay engaged and click like and subscribe. the market is exploding, right? Like, you have been reporting 74% month-on-month growth, and it also, it's just been growing for a while. Like, it's been going like this. And every single - It's not just you guys. It's every single.Ivan [00:06:41]: Everyone, yeah.Swyx [00:06:42]: Sort of, compute provider. I don't know if you agree with me saying compute provider or not.Ivan [00:06:48]: It's fine.Swyx [00:06:48]: Yeah. So like organically PLG-driven growth, but also enterprise is doing super well, I think I wanna rewind to January of last year when you did the pivot. Like, so you obviously called this market early, and you were positioned for it, and you are now one of the market leaders. But what was the insight that made you do the pivot?The Pivot: From Human Dev Environments to Agent SandboxesIvan [00:07:06]: The insight that made us do this pivot is the quarter before that, so end of 2024, when we had - Basically, we did a demo with - I don't I think we discussed this as well, Devin was not public. You actually gave me access to Devin at that time. So Devin.Swyx [00:07:25]: I did?Ivan [00:07:26]: Yeah, you gave me access.Swyx [00:07:26]: I don't think I was supposed.Ivan [00:07:27]: Yeah, exactly.Swyx [00:07:28]: Yeah, I.Ivan [00:07:28]: So it doesn't matter. You.Swyx [00:07:29]: Yeah. I gave like three friends access.Ivan [00:07:31]: Yeah, or it was a call and you showed it to me. It doesn't matter. but OpenDevin was available, which is now called OpenHands. And so we're like, “Oh, this seems to be a thing. This is not public. Let's take our for human automation of dev environments and take, OpenDevin and launch that as a SaaS.” And we did that. Not very many people signed up and used it, but a lot of people reached out that were building agents, and they were like, “Hey, my agent needs a compute sandbox runtime,” whatever you wanna call it. I forgot what it was called at that point. And then we were like, “Oh, amazing. This is a new market. Here is our infrastructure. Here's our product, and go.” And what we found really fast, soon, was that people did not like what we had built. It didn't work. And I remember talking to people at the beginning when we're doing this, the sandbox we're building for agents. People were like, “Oh, why is it different? It's the same thing. We have like EC2, we have VMs, we have all these things.” But we saw that everyone we gave it to, it was like 20, 30 people, they all said, “No.” Like, “This is not what we need. This sort of breaks.” And basically, me and my co-founder not knowing a lot about - ‘cause we're infra people. We're not AI people. So I basically took it upon myself to like watch every single podcast that exists, including all of, all of these and all that, and sort of get up to date, read all the blogs, like get, understand what's going on.Swyx [00:08:45]: Do you wanna shout out who else was useful, just in case people are also looking.Ivan [00:08:49]: Generally we -, I looked at There's a few of podcast, different segments and different types. So there's you guys, No Priors, Bill Gurley's was great while.Swyx [00:09:04]: VG2, yeah.Ivan [00:09:05]: Yeah, while it was around. So there's a few. 20VC is interesting from a different dynamic, and some are different dynamic. But there was, also Red Points.Swyx [00:09:14]: We're not really about the compute market.Ivan [00:09:15]: It was also already - Sorry?Swyx [00:09:16]: You're, you want - You're looking at the agent infra market.Ivan [00:09:19]: I was looking at the agent market and the AI market in general and sort of understanding who are the players, what the perception, and how that goes. And like obviously you complement this with like going to conferences, going to events, going to meetups, reading white papers, like doing all the things that you have to do to understand what's happening. And so when we figured, when we sort of had an idea of what we had to build, literally over the New Year's Eve, literally on New Year's Eve, I half vibe coded the first MVP, first minimal viable product of what Daytona is today. And I went to sleep at like 3:00 AM or something like that. I was doing - I just put my like baby daughter and wife to sleep and, Happy New Year's, and go back to just, doing this. And I sent it to my co-founder, my CTO, and he saw it in the morning. He's like, “This is absolute garbage.” “Do not show this to anybody at all, but the idea is good.” And so he took two weeks, and he rebuilt it.Swyx [00:10:09]: Did it like look like that? Listen, I - It was rough idea.Ivan [00:10:12]: Oh, not even, not even close. Like it was it was way worse. But it was like a very - It was a simplistic view of what it should be. Like, it worked, but it was not ideal. And so he went, we went down the whole, which is his job as CTO, to go, and he came back with this version. We then called all the people that had said like, “This is garbage,” a quarter ago. And we set up these calls, and we gave it to - We just demoed it to everyone. And all the calls went long, every single one. They were 15-minute calls, and they all went to like 25, 30 minutes or whatnot. And everyone said, “We need, we want access.” There was no login, just an API key, ‘cause it was just a beta or an alpha. And they said, “Oh, we want access.” And we're like, “Sure, yeah. Okay, thank you very much.” But after like the next day, if we'd not send it, every single one, like every call that we did, everyone came back, “Where is my API key?” Like everyone wanted it. We're like, “S**t.” Like this is it. Like I've never felt So one, the understanding to your point was like most people thought it was the same infrastructure for humans and agents. We understood a quarter ago it's not. We just didn't know what was the right primitive. And then when we came, and we can talk about what that is, and we gave it to these people, I've never seen, I've never experienced - I've done multiple companies in my life. I've never experienced this, that people literally call you if you do not give them access. Like they want access right now. And so it's like, okay, they don't want this. the thing that they want doesn't seem to exist, or they have not found it, and they really want what we want. And then when we understood that we're onto something, and then when you think about the size of the market, like the market for human engineers and enterprise is a very large market, so think GitLab or whatnot. But the market for every single agent that will exist ever in the future is just like, what is that market? How big is that? And we're like, “We are all in on this.” And so that is where we made sort of the cut between the old product and the new one.Bare Metal, Stateful Sandboxes, and the Lambda + EC2 ModelSwyx [00:12:02]: Yeah. But it wasn't composable at the time?Ivan [00:12:05]: It was very - It was basically just a Linux box that you could change, that you could define number of CPUs, disk, and RAM. Like that is what you could do, but you couldn't have multiple operating systems, you couldn't resize it on the fly, you couldn't add a GPU, you couldn't do like all the things. It was just the, just the first sort of variation of that, yeah.Swyx [00:12:22]: Was it bare metal from the start?Ivan [00:12:24]: It was bare metal from the start. And so the interesting thing that we thought about right away, so our.Swyx [00:12:29]: Which, give people the background, what is the normal path?Ivan [00:12:32]: Yeah, so, basically most providers run this on top of VMs. And also.Swyx [00:12:37]: Firecracker.Ivan [00:12:38]: Yeah, they run on Firecracker and VM. And so we also fire - We can get - We have multiple isolation layers and we can do that. But the common way to do it is that they, one, that the state of the machine, or the hard disk is not part of the sandbox itself. And the other thing is they're not meant to last forever. So most of them are preemptible, like they can There's a time that they can live. And so our thought was when we were going into this is, agents will be like humans in the sense of you don't want your laptop to be shut down until you're done with work. Like, and you want to close the lid and open the lid, it's the same state. So you - Agents would want that, like the pause and come back. They want those two things. But also agents really want speed, right? Can they get it? So when we thought about it's like we need something insanely fast, how to make it fast, how to make it long-running, and stateful. And so those two things, it's like combining a Lambda and an EC2, right? Those two things together. And so we didn't have an idea how others did it, ‘cause we didn't know too that there was a market around this. It was more like, okay, this is what we need, what they need. And we looked at Kubernetes, it wasn't wasn't good enough for that. We looked at Nomad, it didn't enable that. And so our history in rewriting our own scheduler at CodeAnywhere is basically what my CTO came up with. Like, he's like, “Oh, the learnings from there,” and he brought it. And the funny thing is, our third co-founder, when he saw it, he's like, “Dude, what is this? This is like 2008.” Like, we went back in time, and he's like, “Exactly.” And so the reason why Daytona is like super fast, and you see this on benchmarks, is we essentially, we run on bare metal. We have our own scheduler, we use the underlying, disk, CPU, and RAM of the underlying machine, which means your IOPS are insanely fast because there's no, there's no network between an EBS or something like that. But also the snapshot, the point in time, the templates, are also preloaded on the bare metal machines. So when you fire off a sandbox from a template or a snapshot, you're essentially directed to the bare metal machine where that snapshot is based on that NVMe drive, and then it literally just turns on that machine, and it's local. There's no network latency, anything on there. And so that is sort of the specificities that we, when we're thinking from first principles, what a computer would look like for an agent, that is what we came up with, and that's what we created.Benchmarks, 60ms Startup, and 50,000 SandboxesSwyx [00:15:02]: Yeah. I should maybe, I don't know if you endorse this, but there's someone that does compute SDK, you guys do very well on there, with like the TTI, right? I. is this a, is this a is this a relevant benchmark for you guys? I don't know.Ivan [00:15:16]: I don't know, and it changes every day. So today RKL is.Swyx [00:15:18]: I don't know what RKL is. Never heard of it.Ivan [00:15:20]: Yeah. RK, yeah, so it is there.Swyx [00:15:22]: You are, at least a third of the next tier of performance, and then, there's a lot of other better-known names that are very slow to start.Ivan [00:15:31]: Yeah. We've been the number one by far for a long time, and now there's different, there's different definitions also of sandboxes, different isolation patterns, different other things. So RKL runs it literally on the S3, the data, so it's very different, and they spin up a sandbox, spin up a container for that, so it's a different type of thing. So the definition of a sandbox is something that we can all, we all need to get along with. But yeah, we're insanely fast on getting these things, up and running. And so you can see even there that it's a zero point 0.10 to 0.11, so.Swyx [00:16:03]: Close enough. Yeah. what else do you need, right?Ivan [00:16:05]: Yeah. So the benchmarks itself, so, in this, in I don't think the benchmarks equate to market ownership or revenue or anything like that. and I've seen this with multiple benchmarks, not just in sandboxes, but in general benchmarks around.Swyx [00:16:20]: It's table stakes. It's just like.Ivan [00:16:21]: Exactly. But it doesn't hurt.Swyx [00:16:22]: Just roughly check.Ivan [00:16:22]: Like you definitely have to be up there and you have to be competing so that people know that, oh, this is definitely one of the top. Because this is only one dimension of what customers look for. There's other things like how many can you spin up consecutively? There's a feature set, there's support, there's like all different things that people look at, but you definitely have to be there, on the benchmarks.Swyx [00:16:40]: How many people do people spin up consecutively?Ivan [00:16:43]: So we have.Swyx [00:16:43]: Or concurrently, is the Concurrency, right?Ivan [00:16:45]: There's three metrics that we look at. And so one is like time to spin up one, and so our time to spin up one is 60 milliseconds with network latency. So request, spin up, reply, 60, the whole thing, 60 milliseconds. That is one. But if you wanna spin up 50,000 at once, we are now at about 75 seconds. So it takes about 75 seconds to spin up concurrently 50,000. Some others, there's public data around this, like take 2,000 seconds, which is 30 minutes. Like there's different variations of that. And then there is the so it is speed of one, speed of like multiple, and then how many can you consistently have up and running. And so we basically have right now no limit to how much we can add because we basically own our own metal. But the biggest customer of ours does like about 850,000 every single day is sort of where they're, where they're just shy of a million every single day that they're running, we do have a request for half a million concurrent, which is literally half a million CPUs somewhere running. So that's an interesting.Swyx [00:17:44]: They pay by like vCPU seconds.Ivan [00:17:47]: By seconds, yeah.Swyx [00:17:47]: Or whatever. Yeah. Okay, and so and then, and the other thing is, the sleeping and the resuming, ‘cause it's all the stateful resumption of all these things, how, what kind of workload are people putting through this, right? Like how is it Do we measure by gigabytes in memory, gigabytes in storage? I don't In like network attached storage. I, what are the costly ones of, out of all these features?Workload Economics: CPU, RAM, Network, and StorageIvan [00:18:15]: The most expensive thing are CPU.Swyx [00:18:18]: Okay. Yeah, of course.Ivan [00:18:18]: The second one, yeah Then it's RAM, then it's disk. We actually don't charge.Swyx [00:18:22]: Which is snapshotting, right?Ivan [00:18:23]: No, it's actually the, snapshotting's part of it, but basically the size of your hard disk, of your machine. So do you have 10 gigabytes, do you have 20, do you have 50, do you have whatever? And then the transference of that. Right now, currently we don't charge for, network at all at Polychron.Swyx [00:18:37]: Oh, you gotta, yeah, you gotta fix.Ivan [00:18:38]: Yeah. It is very much a it's a larger and larger part of our bill, so we're working around, that part there. Obviously, that is the least, expensive, so the hard disk is the least expensive, so it's basically CPU, RAM, for us network, ‘cause we don't charge the customer, and then hard disk, is how it's split up. But there's also different types of workloads, so we basically split it up into two types of workloads in Daytona. One is what we call background agents or long-running agents. and the other is, basically RLs and evals, which I put sort of together. And so they have very different patterns of usage, and if you look at the usage of a background And I'll just name names of companies, not specifically.Background Agents vs. RL/Evals: Two Usage ShapesSwyx [00:19:21]: Yeah, open, all hands.Ivan [00:19:23]: Yeah. So like a background agent's a Cognition, a Lovable, a like all these things are Harvey. These are all long-running, background agents. And so if you look at their usage patterns, their usage patterns are similar to human, which is like follow the sun. Basically, the usage patterns of that is like noon is probably the highest, and the midnight is the lowest, and then weekends are lower. weekday is higher.Swyx [00:19:42]: Yeah, that's a fun question. How global is it? Is it very US-centric or?Ivan [00:19:46]: The US is a large part, but we have currently, we have Asia, Europe, and the US regions.Swyx [00:19:52]: So it's quite global.Ivan [00:19:53]: Yeah, it's quite global. We have it all over. It's interesting that our I talked to you a bit about this. Our number one city by user.Swyx [00:20:01]: Hmm.Ivan [00:20:02]: Is Singapore.Swyx [00:20:04]: Oh, wow. Amazing.Ivan [00:20:05]: Which is an interesting one, right? Not by revenue, just by just like by individual head count.Swyx [00:20:09]: Really?Ivan [00:20:09]: Just like an interesting thing.Swyx [00:20:10]: Singapore is, Singapore is weirdly high in the adoption charts of AI for the population. It's like an, seven, eight million population. And it's like keeps showing up.Ivan [00:20:20]: No, it's quite interesting. We were quite shocked, and I was like, “Oh, this is interesting.” And also one that's up there.Swyx [00:20:24]: There's a reason I'm doing AI using Singapore. it's because I'm from there.Ivan [00:20:27]: We're there. We're gonna, we're gonna be there as well. and it's interesting that Japan is in the top or like Tokyo's in the top, which is in all the tech cycles it has never been. It has never been, so it's quite interesting that they're.Swyx [00:20:39]: I think the Japanese just love AI. Yeah. It's that, and then it's Brazil. That's it.Ivan [00:20:44]: Brazil has always been in.Swyx [00:20:45]: I think.Ivan [00:20:46]: Even when I look, if you look at like GitHub's data and ask historically with CodeAnywhere, it was always like US, Western Europe, and then you'd have like India, Brazil, China, like that would be there. But like Singapore was not in, specifically Japan was never in sort of that top, that top.Swyx [00:21:01]: Yeah. Weird pockets.Ivan [00:21:01]: Weird. Yeah, so it's very global.Swyx [00:21:02]: Okay, so actually that, but that's helps you to distribute your load through, all time?Ivan [00:21:08]: The interesting thing is like we have those kind of loads, but if you look at the researcher loads, they're quite different. So what they are is like if you give them concurrency of 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 CPUs at ARMb, when they fire off a run, it's just 100%. And then it just runs, and then it stops. So it's very, the usage pattern is squares basically, right? And it's also not follow the sun, because people will fire it off at midnight before they go to sleep but then wake up and so it's very unpredictable, so you don't know where that is. So the shapes of the usage are quite different than we have had before. And also what's interesting is when it's sort of a follow the sun, even if you have a high growth company, you can sort of predict your usage patterns and have enough capacity for that, because it's sort of, it grows in a, in a way you can project. When you have companies doing sort of like evals and RL, they're super spiky. So they're gonna come in, it's like, “We're gonna use nothing, then can we have 100,000?” Right? And then go back down. And then 100,000, go back down. So it's very different, right? And.Swyx [00:22:09]: Do you want to lock them into commits so.Ivan [00:22:11]: Yeah, we do.Swyx [00:22:12]: Yeah, okay.Ivan [00:22:12]: We so we have to lock them into some sort of commits to have that capacity, because we have to have, basically we have to have the capacity for peak. Right? And so right now, Daytona's mean utilization is 15%, 1-5.Swyx [00:22:25]: Oh my God.Ivan [00:22:26]: So it's very low.Swyx [00:22:27]: Because it's very spiky.Ivan [00:22:27]: It's very spiky, but we get up to 90%. so we have these things. And so what we're, what we're looking at right now as a company is similar to Cloudflare where you can like geo move things around, but that works really well for basically the background agent where it's follow the sun. But this, it's not. Like it's a very different shape. Obviously with scale you figure these things out, but that's an interesting new problem that we have, as a compute provider in the agent space. And when we were doing the conference recently, and so we talked to like Nikita from Neon and.Swyx [00:22:57]: I should bring it up.Ivan [00:22:58]: Parag from Parallel and whatnot, everyone has the same problem. Whereas the usage is super spiky, and this is something that has not happened before, that you have these types of like it was always, it the amplitudes were not this high, right? So it's quite interesting use case and problem solve.Compute Conference and Spiky Agent InfrastructureSwyx [00:23:12]: Yeah, I don't know if we're gonna bring this up again, but let's just talk about the conference, you had like 1,000 something people at the Warriors game, at the Sorry, where is it? What's.Ivan [00:23:22]: Chase Center.Swyx [00:23:23]: Chase Center.Ivan [00:23:23]: Chase Center.Swyx [00:23:24]: I went. It was, it was very impressive. Obviously, you can, how to throw a conference, what did you learn? you put, you pulled together all these impressive names.Ivan [00:23:33]: What I.Swyx [00:23:34]: What were you looking for?Ivan [00:23:35]: My thesis behind the Compute Conference was let's bring together people that are building infrastructure for AI agents. Because when I think of what we're building, it is the agent is the primary user, what are the ergonomics and usage patterns of agents, and so we can do that. And what I found, this was a theory, it wasn't proven, is that we all have these problems, as I touched onto. And I was, as I was talking on stage, it was like we all have the same underlying infra problems, which is this spiky workloads, unpredictable workloads that we've never had before, in human, compute or human infrastructure. And it's, again, it's the same when I was talking to Parag or when I was talking.Swyx [00:24:20]: Lynn. Nikita.Ivan [00:24:21]: Lynn, Nikita. Lynn especially, I was talking to her the other day as well. Like the It is a very interesting type of problem to solve because I can touch on Cloudflare because there's a lot of like talk about that recently as to how they solve that, which is they have a bunch of geos, and basically, as users work in different places, and depending on your tier, they can move you around the geos. And so that how, that's how they get the higher utilization. But you can sort of predict these, and it's If it's something in You'll rarely get a spike that is 10 orders of magnitude. Like you'll get a like let's say one of your customers has some like an exponential curve. What is that to I'm using Cloudflare as an example. 10%, 20%, whatever it is. I don't, I don't have this data, I'm just assessing. It's surely not 10x, right? It's surely not something there. And so how do you go out and solve this problem? And we're all solving this in different ways. So we have.Swyx [00:25:11]: She also has the same thing.Ivan [00:25:12]: Yeah, I know specifically that like Neon had that issue as well. Like how are we solving these spiky loads and things like that ‘cause we talked about it. And so the interesting thing for me to actually internalize was, yes, everyone that's building for agents first is going through this, and we're all solving similar problems, which is quite.Swyx [00:25:28]: Let me let me double-click on this. Okay. So for example, Neon, I happen to know that they're very sort of S3 oriented, right? so they're just like fully bet on S3. And you get to benefit from S3's distribution and infrastructure. So I would imagine that Neon doesn't have to care, whereas Lynn maybe has to care a bit more because obviously she's doing GPU inference. And, for listeners, we did an episode with her, one and a half years ago. And you have to care. But like, right?Ivan [00:25:54]: Parag cares for sure, and Nikita.Swyx [00:25:58]: And Parag is C of, Parallel.Ivan [00:25:59]: Parallel, yeah.Swyx [00:26:00]: Former CTO of Twitter.Ivan [00:26:01]: Twitter, yeah.Swyx [00:26:02]: They are the search.Ivan [00:26:03]: Yeah, they're search, yeah.Swyx [00:26:03]: I You and I know but the listeners don't know.Ivan [00:26:08]: Yeah, we can put it down in the screen, and so ‘cause we, when we were talking.Swyx [00:26:11]: I'll put it up on the, on the screen.Ivan [00:26:12]: Yeah, right.Swyx [00:26:12]: People can look it up if they need.Ivan [00:26:14]: Look it up. And, yes, but they still have CPU and RAM, allocation that you have to have up and running. And so CPU and RAM, you have to allocate that and have that ready. And so there's basically two ways to do it. One is you either over-provision and you can handle the bursts, or two, you basically have, I don't know if this is a term, just-in-time compute, which is like as your load becomes, as your usage comes in, you can fire off requests for VMs or bare metals at other cloud providers and then get them up and running.Swyx [00:26:43]: This is if you go above 100%, right?Ivan [00:26:45]: Yeah, this is.Swyx [00:26:46]: Like your overflow.Ivan [00:26:46]: If your overflow, like spillage or whatever you do.Swyx [00:26:48]: You probably lose money on it, but it doesn't matter, right?Ivan [00:26:50]: It, not Well, you might, you might not That is a more cost-effective way to do it but it's a slower way to do it. Because basically what you have to do is you have to like queue your requests, spin up these just-in-time compute, get it all ready, provision it, and then get your workload there. And so if the time isn't important that much, that's fine, and you can do that. But if your customer, and especially for, let's say, the RL training runs, the reason why a lot of people come to us is because GPUs are more expensive than CPUs, right? So you want your GPU running at, what, 100% the entire time. And so when you're running runs on CPUs, when the when the CPU cycle is like down and spinning up the next one, you want that to be instantaneous so that your GPU doesn't go down, right? And if you then have to like go out and provision machines, you're essentially telling the GPU that it has to wait, and that's incurring our cost. So there's things that you have to try to solve for there.RL Workloads, Declarative Images, and Kubernetes ReplacementSwyx [00:27:43]: Yeah, let's talk about the different workload, right? You said that, what was it? A few months ago, you had zero RL workload and now it's 50%.Ivan [00:27:52]: It will be this one, 50%, yeah.Swyx [00:27:54]: Let's talk about how different it is, right? Like I imagine, for example, a lot less dynamic code generation of like arbitrary code. Like here, it's probably all the same code. You're just doing parallel runs or something, I don't know.Ivan [00:28:05]: Yeah. So you'll have multiple Depends on the like for each run, you'll have a snapshot. And they, for the most part, they actually do use our declarative image builder, which is like, “Oh, we, the agent wants these dependencies, these env vars.”Swyx [00:28:17]: These ones, yeah.Ivan [00:28:18]: Yeah, the declarative image builder, it.Swyx [00:28:20]: Which is a very modal like thing that they.Ivan [00:28:22]: Yeah. And so we build it on the fly and then we propagate that snapshot, and you can spin up as many sandboxes as you want against that snapshot. And then if you have to do changes, the model can, or like it could be also be automated. It's like, “Oh, now for the next run, we need to install these things or remove these things or whatever to get, a task done,” and then it goes off and runs that. So yes, that is something that it seems that they prefer. The number one reason I found, or should I say, let's take a step back. What we are competing against in that environment is essentially managed Kubernetes. So EKS, GKE, whatever. That is what the vast majority run on. And anyone that has tried Daytona versus GKE, EKS is like, “I'm never going back.” That has always been. There's a few reasons. One is the ergonomics. So if you have, if you're using Kubernetes to spin that up, you have to essentially manage the interface interactions with that. Daytona, although as a compute provider, it's more akin to a Twilio and Stripe from a consumption perspective than it is an AWS. Like you have an API, an SDK, it's quite like easy and seamless to get these things up and running, that's one. The other is the speed to which we spin up, which we mentioned earlier, which is much faster, and the scale to which we can go to. We haven't got into features, but an interesting feature is that it's very hard to OOM, or out of memory, our sandboxes, because we can dynamically on the fly.Swyx [00:29:48]: Resize.Ivan [00:29:49]: Resize, which is like impossible on almost any other thing. There are some technologies that enable you to do that, but it's like a very hard thing. And so we actually saw this when, the Terminal Revenge team is, brought us actually. So thank you, Alex and the team, that brought us into this whole space.Swyx [00:30:05]: It's just very rare that, a framework would just say, “Guys, just use Daytona.”Ivan [00:30:11]: Yeah, I think it says it somewhere. Yeah.Swyx [00:30:13]: Yeah. I was like, “What is this?”Ivan [00:30:15]: There's all, there's multiple there, but they also mention a few other places. and so Daytona specifically-We have, the, just jumping on themes here We, I don't know where it says Data Center.Swyx [00:30:27]: I, there.Ivan [00:30:27]: Doesn't matter.Swyx [00:30:28]: There's a very strong recommendation, which is, very unusual. Which is, it's.Ivan [00:30:33]: We do not pay them for this, just.Swyx [00:30:34]: I know, yeah. They just like you.Ivan [00:30:35]: Yeah, they like us. yeah, and also a thing, so, Data Center has multiple isolation sets underneath. The customer doesn't have to know what they are. But basically we have Docker, which is a container, that's hardened with Sysbox. So it's Docker's, isolation that is a security equivalent to a VM, but it's still a container. And that is the default, and they, especially in these training workloads, really like that as an interface to be able to use just a basic Docker container, and we enable Docker and Docker. Which for these RL runs, if you need to do a Docker compose or Kubernetes, you can spin up a K3S inside of these things, which unlocks a huge amount of workloads that you can do that you cannot do on other providers. So just on that part is much more interesting. And so we went that, through that. We showed them that we could do that, and they enjoyed that quite a bit. They being the general venture people.Swyx [00:31:28]: Those people, yeah.Ivan [00:31:29]: And Harbor people.Swyx [00:31:29]: Harbor people, do are they, are they a company yet?Ivan [00:31:33]: As far, I do not know.Customer Pull, Slack Connect, and the Computer Use BetSwyx [00:31:35]: Okay. All right. Yeah. It's like super obvious that like, there's a lot of excitement and success around these things, okay, so yeah, tell us more, right? Like, this is an exploding workload, Harbor adopted you, which helped speed things along. But what are you learning as this new workload comes online?Ivan [00:31:53]: There's a couple things that we learned, which we chat about in the beginning. We, and this has led our story, as we mentioned, we like talked to a lot of customers along the way, and we add more features and more tool sets as we talk to customers. And it's interesting that And I think it's that the ecosystem is so small and/or the models get smarter, where when we see one user come with a request, we know it goes on a roadmap if like three to five customers come with the same request in that week. It's like very bizarre. It happens so many times, which is.Swyx [00:32:27]: Because they're all friends.Ivan [00:32:28]: Sorry?Swyx [00:32:28]: They all, they're all friends. They're all in the same group chat.Ivan [00:32:30]: Yeah, probably, yeah. ‘Cause and they're like, “Oh, can you do this?” And I'm like, “Okay, this is interesting. We'll put it on a feature request.” And then the next one's like, “Oh, can you do this?” “Okay.” It's all the same, right? It's always the same. And so what we try to do, and I personally try to do, I try to be on as many call, quote-unquote “sales calls” I can. I'm in every Slack channel. We literally have about 1,000 Slack Connect channels, something like that. It's an interesting, there's so many interesting things you find out when you have all the Slack channels. You can also see where people, transfer between companies. You see leave Slack channel, enter Slack channel. It's an interesting thing. Also, just I digress, I feel that Slack Connect is literally LinkedIn what it should be. You have a list.Swyx [00:33:08]: LinkedIn charges you to, use your own connections, but Slack doesn't, right? Slack is like, do it for free. It's more lock-in. It's great.Ivan [00:33:15]: Yeah. It's amazing. Yeah. It's one of the reasons.Swyx [00:33:17]: You're gonna pay Slack for life.Ivan [00:33:18]: Exactly. You're there for life. So that's interesting. And so one of the things, the newer things we were talking about earlier is we made a big bet and put a lot of investment on computer use. that is not seen publicly the light of day. We haven't GA'd that yet, but we have.Swyx [00:33:32]: Is there a thing I can pull up?Ivan [00:33:33]: There is computer use there. It's right up a bit.Swyx [00:33:36]: Oh, yeah. Okay.Ivan [00:33:38]: What we have, what we talked about and what we've seen publicly is there's this theme now about, the human emulator where And Elon from XAI has talked about this publicly, and if you think about the models today, they're actually quite sophisticated and they can do a lot of work, but they still don't have access to all the tools. Like, I'm a strong believer that the most efficient way for an agent to work is essentially headless or through, terminal or whatnot. But if we, if we look at knowledge work in general, there's about 100 million knowledge workers in the US, about a billion in the world, and knowledge workers, and the salaries of them aggregate to 10 trillion in the US 50 trillion worldwide.Swyx [00:34:24]: Wow.Ivan [00:34:25]: Something like that. And if we look at, the five most important sectors of that, so like healthcare and government and financial services and whatnot, that's about 56% of that. So let's say it's about half of that. So in the US it's about 25 trillion, and most of them, most of that work is actually still locked into legacy apps inside of Windows, which is not going anywhere for a very long time. Like, people just won't invest in that. How much of it? our assumption is the following: if, in the RPA market, which is similar market, well, not the same 25% of, these white collar, workers', work is automated. If an agent is more sophisticated, can go through more runs, figure stuff out, let's say it's, 40%, right? And so if you take 40% of that, you get to essentially, $10 trillion a year.Swyx [00:35:17]: That's a TAM.Ivan [00:35:18]: That is a that is a TAM. So that's the TAM of the models, right? That's not our, essentially ours. But you get to that size, and to be able to do that, you essentially have to give agents these computers with the legacy. So computer use, either Mac or Windows or Linux. Linux we also obviously have and others have. But Windows specifically is something very new, and the only option right now is an EC2 with, Windows or on Azure. Both of them take anywhere from three to five minutes to spin up. We've created an actual sandbox, so it's a second instead of milliseconds, but you have, point in time snapshots, you have, forking, you have all the things that you have from a sandbox, but essentially enables you to hopefully unlock all this value. And so that's been our big push and bet, but we've sort of, kept our ear to the ground. What is sort of the next things in the market?RPA Returns: Why Agents Still Need ComputersSwyx [00:36:06]: Yeah, knowledge work, and building, and sort of RPA, the next wave of RPA. I got very excited about RPA kind of during COVID times. The UI path was IPO-ing. And it was, a very hot Isn't it, Eastern European?Ivan [00:36:20]: It is, Romanian.Swyx [00:36:21]: Romanian?Yeah, it might be the only Romanian, big unicorn okay, yeah. This I don't I don't, I don't have like a I think there's, I think there's a stage being set for the resurgence of RPA, ‘cause everyone understands that, yeah, no one wants to deal with these shitty apps and no one's gonna rewrite them. Like, you just have to do, a remote operation and programmatic operation of them.Ivan [00:36:45]: If you wanna unlock it, my own setup was basically the following. So I was doing a board deck recently, last month, whatever, and I'm like, “Okay, let's just, let's just do automated.” So, all our data's in, ClickHouse and PostHog and QuickBooks, where everyone else's is, and I'm basically, connected that all to, my Cloud code, like go off and go Cloud code whatever. Go off and, here's the integrations, go do that. It pulled out the first report, which was great. It connected to Brex and all these things, pulled it, which was great, and then I say, “Okay, now pull out this, and this,” and I kept getting, really well McKinsey-style design reports, but the data said partial data. all the missing data, partial data. Like, it can't access all the things, and I got so frustrated, and so I got, I got, my Mac Mini virtual sandbox with OpenClaw. I gave it its own account in our company, and then I went to all these services and created a read-only account, so literally like an intern in your company. And so I would say, “Now go and do this report,” and it would get the same, or like, “I can't via the MCP or the API or whatever. I can't get all the information.” I'm like, “Go log in.” And it will log into the website, then go in, export the data. It'll export the data and do the thing end to end. So even for things that have today APIs, not all of it is exposed, and I to get value, I get immense value right now, but it has to be a computer usage, unfortunately, and so I spend a bunch of tokens just on that, but I get the job done. And so if even a startup like ours, and using all the hottest tools, still needs a computer agent what hope does, Goldman have to have a headless, right?Swyx [00:38:22]: Yeah, what a - Why isn't Microsoft doing this?Ivan [00:38:27]: I'm pretty sure, Satya had a post yesterday.Swyx [00:38:29]: Oh, okay. I see.Ivan [00:38:29]: Which was like, “Every agent needs a computer.”Swyx [00:38:31]: I see, I see.Ivan [00:38:32]: So they have launched something recently.Swyx [00:38:34]: Yeah, they have Microsoft Power Automate, I'm sure, I'm sure, they're gonna have their version.macOS Sandboxes, Apple Constraints, and the Windows OpportunityIvan [00:38:39]: Version of that, yeah.Swyx [00:38:39]: You're gonna try to do yours, and it - I always know there's always demand for Mac, but I know it's, tricky to host, macOS sandboxes.Ivan [00:38:49]: We will have macOS sandboxes fairly soon. The problem with macOS, OS sandboxes is, I'm deep in this, I don't know how much interesting is.Swyx [00:38:55]: No, it's.Ivan [00:38:56]: MacOS has this problem.Swyx [00:38:57]: It's a licensing thing, right?Ivan [00:38:58]: Licensing thing. So one, you're allowed to run only two parallel VMs per machine, so that's one. Two, you can only license to a different user every 24 hours. So if you come in and theoretically, if I wanna charge you per second and I charge you one second, I have to have it idle for the rest of the day. I can't have anyone else doing that. So the pricing will be different in the sense that I will have to - we would have to charge for 24 hours, and that's not even, that's not even the most difficult thing. But the, thing above that is, from a security perspective, they enable you to do memory snapshot, pause, resume, but only on the same physical drive, physical machine. And so what you can do in, Windows world or Linux world is that I can move in the background, your snapshot from one to the other and manage load, right? Here, if you wanna do that, you essentially have to have your.Swyx [00:39:49]: Yeah, snapshots. Yeah.Ivan [00:39:50]: Your.Swyx [00:39:51]: It's like.Ivan [00:39:51]: Physical machine.Swyx [00:39:52]: You can't break it up.Ivan [00:39:53]: You can't, you can't move things around that, and all of that is, that part is, from a security standpoint, if it is written. Like, I understand the security aspect of that, but it disables you from doing these agentic, like really scalable agentic workloads.Swyx [00:40:08]: You need to do a vibe-coded, clean room implementation on macOS that you can then - That's like Clean OS or something. I don't know.Ivan [00:40:17]: So. We have.Swyx [00:40:18]: ‘cause like Linux was originally like a clean room rewrite of Unix.Ivan [00:40:21]: Okay. Yeah.Swyx [00:40:21]: Or something like that, right? Like same thing to macOS. Someone needs to do it.Ivan [00:40:25]: Someone will do that, and someone will have some long-running agents for a few days to figure this stuff out. But yeah. So definitely we - we're really close to offering something ‘cause people do want it, but the pricing will be different, and the feature set will be sort of stringent.Swyx [00:40:38]: Yeah, nobody's gonna use this. like, the labs, the labs will because they want to automate macOS.Ivan [00:40:42]: They have to do RL. They have to do RL again. But even if you The - So the point is with the RL part, if you, if you do RL on macOS, then the next iteration of the model comes out, it will be able to use these tools significantly. Then you actually need to run those, that somewhere. So you're gonna have to have that, later on. And from, if anyone at Apple is listening, I very much feel that they are shooting themselves in the foot of the scale of the revenue of compute or licensing they could get if they would just enable a concurrency model similar to what you can get on a Windows and a, and Linux.Swyx [00:41:17]: Yeah. Yeah. And I'm sure they've heard this before. They just don't care. Yeah, it's And maybe they will change their mind with the new CEO.Ivan [00:41:24]: Yeah. We'll see.Swyx [00:41:25]: We'll see.Ivan [00:41:25]: High hopes.Swyx [00:41:26]: High hopes.Ivan [00:41:26]: High hopes.Swyx [00:41:27]: Okay. But I, it's very clear the market opportunity is huge in Windows, and you can go for a long time on just Windows, but your customers are gonna want both. and I think, it is interesting to me that, this is the sort of God application of agents, right? Like, I don't It was - How big was OpenClaw for you guys? Like, was it, was there, a significant bump.OpenClaw, Agent Labs, and the B2B2C Sandbox MarketIvan [00:41:54]: Not for us because we.Swyx [00:41:54]: Because you already.Ivan [00:41:55]: We're kind of positioned differently. Whereas although it's completely PLG and we have individual developers that use it, most of the users that use Daytona are sort of a B2B2C. Sort of it's either B2B or B2B2C. So, in the researcher world, it's B2B, so you're selling to, labs and neo labs and things like that. But on the long-running agents, it's mostly, from a scale revenue perspective, it's mostly B2B2C, where you have a app layer agent that uses you at a big scale.Swyx [00:42:26]: Like a Manus. Yeah.Ivan [00:42:28]: Like a Manus Lovable type of thing.Swyx [00:42:31]: Yeah. I think that's the question of, well how, um-Uh, yeah, B2B to C is basically to me what I've been calling an agent lab, which is kind of like you're not in a model lab, but you're making a very good wrapper that is a platform that other people can sign up so they don't have to code those things. Yeah, it sound, it sounds like a much better market than the direct OpenClaw market.Ivan [00:42:56]: I've like - We I've done multiple things. So the CodeAnywhere's part of our career path R in the calendar, was very much an end user developer product. And so that is great. It You can get a lot of developer love, and I feel that we do as a company have a bunch of developer love. But it's a different type, where it's people building these things. Again, it's more akin to a Twilio because you don't really run - As a person, you wouldn't run Twilio. I don't know how many people remember. It was like ask your developer billboard and whatnot. And people really love Twilio, but they only used it inside of like, “Oh, I'm building this app or service for thing.” And so we're very much directly to that. And you also know that I used to work for a competitor for Twilio, so it's kind of ingrained, in my DNA.Swyx [00:43:35]: People don't know InfoBip is that big.Ivan [00:43:38]: Yeah, it's.Swyx [00:43:39]: Because.Ivan [00:43:40]: It's a billion euro.Swyx [00:43:40]: They're all American. They're like, “Whatever's in Europe doesn't matter to me.” But like it's the, it's the same size or bigger? Same size?Ivan [00:43:46]: It's about half the size.Swyx [00:43:47]: Half the size?Ivan [00:43:48]: Yeah, about half the size.Swyx [00:43:48]: It's like, yeah.Ivan [00:43:48]: Still huge. Multiple billions a year. Yes.Swyx [00:43:51]: That's crazy.Ivan [00:43:51]: Exactly, and so that - These are like really interesting and large revenue-generating, very sticky businesses. Whereas when you're selling to the - When your focus is the end developer, it is a very hard sell because they're very price sensitive, very price conscious, very around that. And there's very It's very hard to scale. Your cap is the number of people that are willing to spin up - First of all, wanna spin that up, and then spin up multiple of these. Whereas if you're in the enterprise one, like we know everyone's talking about like how many tokens they're spending, I'm spending. Like a lot of companies today are like, “If this is our company, spend as much as you can.” Like basically that is where we're going. And so if you think about that paradigm, where you're selling to companies that say, “Spend as much as you can to generate, productivity,” versus, “Oh, I'm a single person. I have this much budget, and I'm doing this thing because it's fun or it's helping me out or whatever.” Like it is a different, it's a different go-to-market, I think, strategy.MCP, CLIs, and Sandboxes as the Agent RuntimeSwyx [00:44:50]: Yeah, there's a lot of discussion. I'm just kind of going through like the mental list of things that are in your favor, which is, for example, MCP versus CLI. Like obviously you want CLI. It's been very good for you. I feel like it's maybe a drop in the bucket or maybe it's huge. I'm just checking whether it's like these are big trends.Ivan [00:45:10]: Those things you - work well in our favor, to your point just because every.Swyx [00:45:13]: They're kind of drop in the bucket, right?Ivan [00:45:15]: I think it's like sort of all the things come together. And so there's so many things that impact that. To your point, like OpenClaw wasn't huge for us, but like having the agent SDK, from Anthropic, so or Cloud Claude Code was very interesting. The reason why it was interesting is that a lot of, let's call them app I don't know what to call them, app layer agent companies, essentially they are like, “Oh, I can create this new app, this new agent. All I need, I just use Claude Code, and I throw it into a sandbox, and then I have my interface to the human to that.” And so that enabled so many more companies to actually offer this, and then they would pull on sandbox. So that was, that was interesting. And to your point, like MCP, versus the CLI, the MCP is an interface against an API, whereas the CLI is like you can actually go do things. Like this is it. The difference between integrations and actually running scripts or data or analysis against a thing. So being able to use a CLI very well enables the agent to do more things, and it's because that people will invoke a sandbox, they'll run it in the CLI, and but it'll do anal-analysis on that data and then give you an actual result versus just, pulling data from an API source.Swyx [00:46:29]: Yeah, it's a layer of indirection basically, it's the same thing as agentic search versus RAG, which where you're.Ivan [00:46:34]: Exactly, yeah.Swyx [00:46:34]: Just like you just win whenever people put more agents into their workflow. And so like it doesn't really matter, but I'm just kinda teasing out like what else have people heard about that like it's sort of, “Oh yeah, this is another sandbox use case. Oh yeah, that's another one.” Am I, am I missing any big ones?Ivan [00:46:51]: The thing, the thing that people, which is the computer use stuff, which I think is probably the most interesting one, is, and to your point, we've talked to so many people over the last year. It's like, “Oh, like why do you need a sandbox? Why do you need this? Why this?” And to your point, it's like, “Oh, I need sandbox for this. I need sandbox for that. I need sandbox-” It's like, “Oh, I need it for every single thing.” And so basically what I, what I - and it sounds like a broken record, it's like you use a laptop every single day, right? And you are n of one. It's just you. But now imagine how And by the way, the laptop, the computer PC market, the PC market is about equal to the cloud market in total. So it's about 150, 180 billion a year. Something like that. It's about roughly the three cloud hyperscalers is about equal to like Apple, HP, Lenovo, whatever, It's a little bit less, but it's sort of like that. And now imagine And that's just like, so how big is the addressable market? What, how many people are there in the world now? What's the last data?Swyx [00:47:45]: Let's call it eight billion.Ivan [00:47:46]: Eight billion. And so let's say you can have two computer, like you have one personal and one business, whatever. Like so it's double that, right? and so that's 16 billion, right? How many agents are gonna be running in two years, in 10 years, in 100 years? Like And for every single task, they will need one of these. And so how big is that? That market is essentially quote unquote “infinite”. You will get to the point, and Dylan Patel was at the conference talking about, from SemiAnalysis, that talks usually about GPUs, was also talking about how CPUs will now be a bottleneck because it will be the constraint. You won't be able to grow, or we won't be able to have enough of these because there won't be enough CPUs to basically do.Swyx [00:48:23]: Yeah. Well, I actually had a really good podcast with Doug Oliphant, who, which was his president at SemiAnalysis, where they've basically been like, yeah, it's been a GPU shortage first, but then it's cascaded down to memory and now to CPUs.Ivan [00:48:35]: CPU, yeah.Swyx [00:48:35]: It-What's next? So networking. So, networking actually has been in shortage for a while if you're looking at, just GPU networking. But, yeah, it's really crazy the amount of computer use that's going on, yeah, cool. I, other questions are, just the one very big part is the open sourceness which you didn't have to do, your competitors don't do, like it's not, a lot of people are worried about keeping their projects open source because some competitor can just slot fork it. I don't know if there's any reflections on just being an open source company.Open Source, Trust, and Enterprise ProcurementIvan [00:49:15]: Yeah. There's a bunch. So we the original product that we did was open source.Swyx [00:49:19]: Yeah. CodeAnywhere.Ivan [00:49:20]: So doing that was actually very good for us. There's basically a saying of, What's the saying? Like, companies that are, that are doing really well, measure themselves against, free cashflow, that are kinda okay, it's EBITDA, then, it's, it goes all the way down.Swyx [00:49:36]: The worst is like GitHub stars.Ivan [00:49:37]: GitHub stars. GitHub stars are the worst, yeah. So you go all the way down to GitHub stars. And so our original one was GitHub stars. That's what we talked about, we're at the point we're talking about revenue, so we're we've gone up the stack on that. And so we started.Swyx [00:49:47]: No, profit.Ivan [00:49:48]: Yeah. We haven't, we're, we'll get there. We'll get there. But basically at that point we did stars and GitHub and it was useful, and the original variation that we did, it we split the core into its own repo and it was Apache 2.0, so very, permissive. And then we basically would bundl

Victoria Lai has lived several careers in one lifetime: presidential appointee at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, entrepreneur, and now business advisor and nonprofit COO. But her biggest pivot came when she nurtured her passion for making ice cream on nights and weekends while working a serious government job. In this extra sweet episode, Victoria walks us through how a $25 Craigslist ice cream maker and a promise to herself led to Ice Cream Jubilee, the award-winning DC-area business celebrated by Food & Wine, the Washington Post, and Thrillist, and what it felt like to eventually sell the business she'd spent nearly a decade building. She also opens up about her family's Chinese immigrant history and how it shaped both her flavors and her sense of purpose, and why she considers her latest pivot back to mission-driven work the most fitting chapter yet. Chapters: 00:00.160 Welcome to She Pivots 00:28.360 Guest Introduction: Victoria Lai 01:58.160 Childhood Memories and Family Influences 06:57.320 The Path to Law School and Government Work 10:58.576 Finding Inspiration in New York City 13:02.754 The Birth of Ice Cream Jubilee 26:36.392 Taking the Leap: From Government to Ice Cream 32:46.677 "Ice cream-preneurship" 36:07.043 Achieving Success and Letting Go 39:02.320 A New Chapter: Coaching and Personal Growth 44:18.680 Closing Thoughts and Gratitude 44:40.626 Podcast Credits You can keep up with Ice Cream Jubilee at their website, www.icecreamjubilee.com Be sure to subscribe so you never miss a pivot story, leave us a rating (it really helps!), and share this episode with a woman in your life who you think needs a little inspiration. She Pivots is a podcast created by host Emily Tisch Sussman to highlight influential women voices, share stories of bold career moves, and inspire women with interviews about career reinvention and how personal pivots can redefine professional success. Join our Substack community! Subscribe here for exclusive content and to connect with other pivoters: shepivots.substack.com Learn more about the inspiring women in our pivoter community by following us on instagram @ShePivotsThePodcast, and check out our website shepivotspod.com for resources and updates. She Pivots is proud to be an iheart podcast.Support the show: https://www.shepivotsthepodcast.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this week's rewind episode, Emily sits down with four-time Olympian Katie Ledecky, the most decorated American female Olympian in history. Ledecky brings us back to her roots, talking about her first-ever goals in swimming and how she originally fell in love with the sport at age six. The swimming legend shares her perspective on the grueling work required to maintain excellence over a two-decade career, regularly logging 20+ hours a week in the water and another 6 to 7 hours in the gym. Katie opens up about how she handles pre-race nerves, her mental strategies for befriending pain in the final meters of a race, and how she breaks down monumental goals into small, doable pieces. Plus: The deep impact of her family, what it’s like to drop into a random local pool for lap swim, and what true lifestyle balance looks like for her outside of training. She also touches on what it means to be a powerful role model and how that mission became even more meaningful when she partnered with Athleta’s Power of She collective. IN THIS EPISODE How does Katie Ledecky befriend pain? She recalls a defining 1500-meter race from the 2014 Pan Pacific Championships where she hit a wall of pain at the 900-meter mark but pushed through to pick up her split times. Katie talks about how she feels about what she’s achieved in her 22-year career in sport. Having far surpassed her childhood dreams, she shares how she continues to set bigger goals while maintaining her passion. What is Katie Ledecky’s "why" in swimming? She discusses balancing her personal drive to find the best version of herself with a deep joy for inspiring the next generation of athletes. How Katie Ledecky fuels to train and perform. She walks through her daily nutrition schedule, navigating early morning practices, and structuring a balance of protein and carbs. How much sleep does Katie Ledecky get and what she does when she doesn’t get as much as she’d like. Katie discusses aiming for 8 to 9 hours a night and the sacred role of her daily midday nap. What it was like for Katie to follow in her brother’s footsteps in the pool. She reflects on looking up to her older brother, Michael, and following him into the sport. What Katie Ledecky’s relationship is with goal setting and how that has evolved since she started swimming. She explains her childhood habit of writing down "want times" to gamify her progress. What are Katie Ledecky’s current goals? She focuses on the upcoming World Aquatic Championships in Singapore and building consistency in her training block. How does Katie Ledecky reframe negative self-talk? She shares her approach to managing off-days in practice by finding small technical elements to adjust and relying on the positive energy of her teammates. Katie talks about the most difficult hurdle of her professional career—navigating the uncertainty, isolation, and training adjustments brought on by the 2020 Olympic postponement. QUOTABLE MOMENTS "Nerves are a good thing. It means you care about what you're about to do... Knowing that you're prepared for the biggest stage and you're ready—that’s one of the best feelings in the world." "Even if you hit that point in that race, you can push past it and maybe even go faster. It's always interesting to learn those things, and I'm still learning at this age. That's what keeps it fun for me." "I'm always just trying to push myself and trying to be the best version of myself that I can be... If we can encourage each other to pursue those passions, pursue those big goals, beautiful things happen." "I can't be at 100% every single day. But if I'm at 80%, I've got to give 100% of my 80%. I just try to be as consistent as I can be on a day-to-day basis." "Keep it moving. If you keep moving forward, you're going to make progress, you're going to have a good day." SOCIAL@katieledecky@womenshealthmag@emilyabbate@iheartwomenssports JOIN: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Daily Hurdle IG Channel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ SIGN UP: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Weekly Hurdle Newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ASK ME A QUESTION: Email hello@hurdle.us to with your questions! Emily answers them every Friday on the show. Listen to Hurdle with Emily Abbate on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

People with ADHD can face many challenges including struggles with attention, impulsivity and time management. In this programme we go to global creative company DRPG's offices in the UK where they are doing things differently to support their ADHD colleagues. We also hear about the work of Unlocking ADHD, a charity set up by Singapore based Moonlake Lee who believes that the key to navigating life with ADHD is rooted in the creation of community spaces. And finally we go to Australia to hear how homes are being redesigned to cater to people with the condition.People Fixing The World from the BBC is about brilliant solutions to the world's problems. We release a new edition every Tuesday. We'd love you to let us know what you think and to hear about your own solutions. You can contact us on WhatsApp by messaging +44 8000 321721 or email peoplefixingtheworld@bbc.co.uk. And please leave us a review on your chosen podcast provider.Presenter: Myra Anubi Producer: Alex Collins Australia reporter: Louise Miolin from ABC News Editor: Jon Bithrey Sound mix: Hal Haines(Image: Members of the DRPG Neurodiversity Network, BBC)

Winston Churchill viewed the Soviet Union as a necessary bulwark against Hitler, leading him to treat Stalin as a "brother-in-arms" despite Soviet crimes. To keep the Russian army fighting as "cannon fodder," Churchill diverted crucial equipment—including 200 Hawker Hurricane fighters and tanks meant for Singapore and North Africa—directly to Stalin. This massive transfer of resources retarded Britain's own domestic manufacturing and aircraft industries. Sean McMeekin argues that Churchill's "historical imagination" allowed the British to avoid direct land combat with Germany for several years while the Russians suffered the brunt of the casualties, leading to modern Russian moral blackmail arguments. (3/8)1905 BAKU

Preached at Harvest City Church, Singapore. 16th May 2026