Podcasts about sufficiently

Kelly Brownell interviews Jon-Paul Bianchi, Director of Systems Change at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, about the foundation's systems-change approach linking food, health, early childhood, and family economic security to address inequities affecting children and families. Bianchi describes his path from PhD research to policy work and then to Kellogg, and explains how integrated grantmaking focuses upstream on policies, practices, resource flows, narratives, and long-term investment in people and relationships rather than isolated programs. He highlights Vermont's inclusion of food quality in childcare ratings and the foundation's Farm to Early Childhood efforts connecting procurement, regional food systems, and state policy, with examples from states like North Carolina, Iowa, and Wisconsin, and notes Brazil's national local purchasing policy as a model for success. Transcript As I was mentioning before we got started, I've long admired the work of the Kellogg Foundation. Working with the concept of food systems or connecting agriculture with nutrition and thinking about regenerative agricultures. There are a lot of places where your foundation was out front. So, I salute you and your colleagues for that. And it'll be interesting to find out what's happening right now. Tell us a little bit about yourself, and how did you get into the philanthropic work and your work with Kellogg in particular? I'm Jon-Paul Bianchi. I'm the director of the Systems Change team at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. And what that essentially means is I'm the director of national programs at the foundation. But we call it systems change because we really do see in the different areas of work that we focus on- health, family economic security, food, and early childhood- that these things are all interconnected by some distinct systems. But also, common systems that overlap across them. And so, that's the approach that we take. And I'll spend some time sort of diving into that today. You know, to answer the question of how I got here... you know, a master stroke of luck. I was set to be an academic researcher. I was working on my PhD at the University of Wisconsin. I was ABD and decided that I didn't want to be a researcher and I wanted to work in policy. And I moved to Colorado to take a job sort of sight unseen, being the policy director of an organization that worked in K-12 and children's health, and food and early childhood education. And did that for a few years and learned to translate research into practice; into policy. And was giving a presentation and got a tap on a shoulder from somebody that worked at the Kellogg Foundation who was interested in what I was saying. And we had one conversation, and six months later, I wound up having a new job and leaving Colorado and moving to Michigan. That was 15 years ago. Well, you went into this with a great background having done the science as a graduate student and then into the policy world. And you're right, the intersection of those two is really where the magic can occur. You began talking about this, but let's talk about it a little bit more. So, when you say that there are systems that cut across different problems like food and health and economic security, etc., and I know you structured your team to reflect that cross-cutting kind of view of things. But tell us a little bit more about that. And how is this different than what's usually done, and how does it affect the way your work gets carried out? So, big picture at the Kellogg Foundation, we envision a society where every child can thrive. But we know that there's too many kids and families that still can't access good food or quality childcare, or their parents can't find quality jobs because of inequities that are embedded in the policies and the practices and narratives that shape our systems. And so, having a multi-issue integrated grant making team, it's made us more effective by better understanding the points of intersection and collaboration across those bodies of work. So, our food systems program officers are in the same team, and they work closely with our program officers in early childhood and family economic security and health. And those collaborations strengthen the work in a variety of ways. We have experts in each of those areas, but because they're spending time with each other and working in the same team, they're exposed to, and they learn about each other's work and each other's worlds. And that creates powerful collaborations in the foundation, but more importantly, out in the field. And it helps us to see that we can't fix any of these systems, including food systems, with surface level or patch kinds of solutions. We really have to work together to get upstream and focus on policies, focus on practices, focus on resource flows and narratives that really sustain the inequities that we see. And so, the foundation partners with organizations to dismantle barriers in food systems in the other areas so that children and families can access quality food. But I think we also recognize that's about investing in people. And it's about investing in people over time to drive transformational change in any of these systems, including food. For people listening to this who aren't in the world of philanthropy or academics or science or policy they might be saying, "Well, this kind of makes common sense. Isn't this the way it's usually done?" And in fact, it's not usually done to have this cross-cutting work accomplished the way you're doing it. It's actually a pretty impressive thing. Yes, thank you. And I have a lot of respect for our philanthropic partners and peers, and we work very closely with a lot of large and small foundations. And I think the adage in philanthropy is you know one foundation you know one foundation. So, we do it this way and somebody else will do it differently. And I think there's a lot of connection for us back to our founder. You mentioned Will Keith Kellogg at the top of the call. He was ahead of his time in terms of understanding the interconnectedness between food and the land and opportunity and people's education. And a lot of that came out of his tradition as a Seventh Day Adventist. But also, I think just as a person coming up in the Depression and seeing what happened afterwards and really beginning to understand in his own community of how these things were sort of connected to one another. And so, for us, both inside and outside the foundation, systems change really means betting on people long term to reshape those systems from the outside in. But also, from the inside out. And that's really what we're striving for. You mentioned the history of Dr. Kellogg. The history of that family is so interesting, and what went on in, you know, the sanitarium in Battle Creek, Michigan, and how the concept of breakfast cereals came about. And how the focus on natural foods was so important. It's worth spending a little time even on just Wikipedia to try to find out what that history is, because I find it fascinating. So, let's go back to food and go a little bit deeper and talk about what this systems approach looks like in practice. You're a philanthropic organization. You exist in the context of a capitalist society where businesses are out to do as well as they can. How is the foundation's work different from, say, funding a food pantry, launching a single nutrition program somewhere, which is what typically might be done? Yes, I think what we intend to do and how I think our systems approach is a little different from, say, you know, funding a single nutrition program, is that we mean to design and redesign practice and policy based on how kids and families actually live their lives. Right? So, where food and health and early childhood and family economic security show up together in a community, right? Families experience these things simultaneously in their everyday lives. They don't experience these things in silos. And so, we try to have our team and our work reflect that. So, instead of treating food as a narrow problem to fix with one program, we try to think about how the entire system around a child and their caregivers works or doesn't work and find those opportunities and levers to move that whole system. I'll give you a concrete example that will bring in our colleague Linda Jo Doctor, who you mentioned at the top of the conversation. Early in my time at the foundation, I was a reviewer for the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant. This was an Obama era competitive grant process for building early childhood systems in states. And the state of Vermont did something really interesting that I had the good fortune to review as part of that team. They included the quality of food and access to fresh, healthy food in childcare centers as part of their quality rating and improvement system for childcare. They didn't just talk about teacher quality or curriculum or reflective practice. They actually said, "If we care about child development, then what children are eating every day in those childcare centers is part of what quality means." That's a systems approach. They connected food policy and procurement directly into early childhood policy and practice so that nutrition and education and child wellbeing were all being advanced simultaneously. I brought that back to the foundation and brought it back to Linda. And we had a really great conversation about it, and then another, and then another, and then another. And that experience helped shape how I think and how many people think about our work at the foundation. And it led to things like the expansion of our Farm to Early Childhood work, which again, leans heavily on procurement as the strategy to drive systems change, but connects it into early childhood policy. Tell us about that. You know, the Vermont example you gave is a terrific one. And you talked about Farm to Early Childhood. What does that mean in practice? In practice for the foundation, it really leaned heavily first on, sort of, understanding the landscape of where there was capacity to connect regional food hubs, farmers and producers and growers to systems of early childhood. At the same time that you have these burgeoning and developing systems of early care and education with regard to financing and sophistication, you have something similar going on in them in the food system movement, depending on the state that you're in. And so, we work diligently in a subset of states to really connect those policy levers, pull them together, and try to create essentially more situations like Vermont, you had partnership at the local community level, at the regional level, and then at the state systems level. So, syncing up the actual practice on the ground, syncing up how the relationships between different organizations are formed and maintained with regards to better food and early childhood. But then also trying to codify that into state policy and practice. And we did that for a number of years and had remarkable success in places like Iowa and Wisconsin and even in North Carolina, and a handful of other states. And we very much saw this as a build off our successful farm-to-school work, but doing it in a system that comparatively in terms of early childhood, was a little more fragile, right? And it wasn't necessarily as easy to do it, but all the more important and helpful because of the age and the vulnerability of the kids and families that we're talking about. The systems approach is very powerful, and so I'm going to ask a question not to be challenging, but to in some ways give you a softball for proving the systems approach. If at the end of the day, the most important thing in a childcare setting is to get healthy food into the bodies of the children so they can thrive intellectually and medically and everything else. Couldn't you accomplish that by just giving a good shopping list, a Costco shopping list to the daycare directors, and they could go buy good foods? And why does it need to be connected with farmers and, you know, the broader connection into the community at large, why is that important? Yes. Well, backing up, I wouldn't want to state, as an early childhood person, that the only thing that, you know, makes an early childhood program high quality would be the quality of the food and that that would, you know, lead to optimal child development and school readiness. I think, you know, there's other things in there that actually matter too. But this is definitely a key component. I would say, you know, to your question, that that system that you named already exists. We have the Child and Adult Care Food Program. We have the ability to subsidize the cost of food, and to have that good shopping list in play. But, I think, what the systems approach does is it asks different questions, right? It seeks to say, where does the food come from? How is it grown? Who is benefiting economically, right? How are schools and childcare centers and farmers and communities connected? And how do we strengthen those, connections and relationships so that we can begin to shift policy and practice so that children and families can reliably have access to good food. And they know that it's coming from the community in which they're situated. And the people on the side that are actually producing the food, the farmers and the folks doing procurement and others, that they're actually connected to it too. And they know where the food is going. And so there is this social kind of interstitial benefit to connecting those systems in a way that I think brings value beyond just you get a healthy meal today. I think it begins to shift culture. And if you could shift culture in the institutions that people are participating in, you can actually shift culture in people. So, you could see if a parent that potentially wasn't exposed to that before, or maybe didn't have access, or didn't know how to get access to that kind of food, if their expectations suddenly shifted because in their childcare program they're getting access to quality food, that then becomes an opportunity to engage in a different way. But it also becomes an opportunity for that parent to become empowered and to come together with other parents and other community members and begin to insist that's a reality in everyday life for them. That becomes a norm rather than an exception. I really like your answer because, you know, in some ways, people in our country have become distant from their food. You know, it used to be you could just go to the store, and there might've been one agent between you and who grew the food. The farmer would deliver it to, and now there are factories and machines that process the food, and 10 steps, and it comes from different countries, and all that kind of thing. And what you're talking about is shrinking that gap again to decrease the distance, so people are more in touch. And you could easily see that if the food is coming from farmers and the daycare providers know that they're going to feel better about the food. They're more likely to tell a story about it to the children. The farmer might come to the daycare center, or the children go to the farm. And you could see there's a lot more going on here than nutrition, and that's the beauty of this systems approach, isn't it? I mean, the children want to have a garden, right? I mean, how many times have we seen that? It seems like a small thing in early childhood, but just that simple act of having a garden and being able to understand how things are cultivated and grown. Even for a small child, and I have two small kids, we have a small garden in our backyard: it's meaningful. And it also, I think, establishes a norm that the tomato that you pick off the vine or the pole bean that you pick off, that you eat, that you find just unbelievably delicious, then that becomes normative for them. That's a normative experience, and kids are not as frightened by things when they encounter it. And I think we have a real opportunity in the early childhood space to link up those two systems to say, "Yes, we can affect change." And I think that, again, back to this notion of investing in people long term, the investment in those kids long term and what they come to expect will be the norm matters very much to how we think about our work at the Kellogg Foundation. So you're talking about both practices and policies and a cross-sector approach to these things. And let's talk about policy for a moment. Where does policy typically break down? And what kind of people need to be at the table, and what sort of partnerships need to be established in order to have better food policy? I think if we take seriously that food policy is cross-sector, I believe that we need to build tables that look like the food system. And that means not just public health experts or nutrition advocates or academics, but farmers and food workers, and those childcare providers and teachers, and leaders in K-12, and tribal leaders, community organizers, local state government officials, right? And the funders, right? The funders who are willing to invest in the long slow work of doing systems change. And, you know, one place I would highlight is in your home state of North Carolina. For years, there was significant investment that helped really build a dense ecosystem. You established regional food hubs and meat processing infrastructure, and anchor institutions into schools and early childhood centers. And a really strong network of organizers and philanthropic partners. And that made it possible to fully integrate farm to early childhood in your state's definition of early childhood. And as an aside, I would say North Carolina was also one of the leading states back when I was first coming into the field of building out a high-quality system of childcare. North Carolina led that. And so, these two things converging is a very powerful example, but again, we're getting back to local sourcing. We're getting back to bigger things than just doing food education, right? Those things are now built into the system. And they're not just a side project of the system. They actually are the system. So, you're talking about a foundation doing a lot more than getting proposals, seeing what needs to be funded, and then sending money out the door. You're talking about connecting people in innovative and unique ways. And building bridges that didn't exist before. And getting people to understand the systems change approach. And it just can lead to so many interesting and innovative things that just weren't possible using traditional models. So, really my hat's off to the work you do, and I can see why it's creating such powerful outcomes. One piece I would be remiss if I didn't say this, right? What makes all those partnerships work or fall apart? Usually, it's not the brilliance of a single policy idea or practice idea. I. Sort of. Sound like a broken record, but I'm going to come back to this. Investing in that people infrastructure that sits underneath it is really important. And the places that we find that make progress in any of the issues we're talking about, family economic security, food, health, Medicaid, early childhood, K-12, right? The places that make progress really do have varied and diverse voices at the table, and they're able to build real trust. And they're able to cultivate champions and also the next generation of champions and the next generation of champions who can move between those sectors, right? And the funders are involved, but they really understand that they're financing relationships and governance and people. They're not financing programs. And I think as a grant maker, that's an interesting distinction to think about. Think we know it implicitly and we know it when we see it. It's a lot harder to stick it in a white paper and define it and disseminate it in Stanford Social Innovation Review, for example. No, I totally agree. In the work that we've done over the years with, uh, community partners in Durham, it's been my impression that they get this systems thing from the very get-go. That they understand that if poverty is too severe, then nothing else is going to work, and if housing is a problem, then these other things are going to be affected in pretty serious ways. And they understand the importance of these. And in a way you're letting the flowers bloom. You're taking, I think, what some people understand intuitively and would like to accomplish, but they've been forced into silos. And then once a funder comes along and can allow this to prosper, I think it's sort of a natural thing that occurs. I think so. And I think the tricky thing there is to not be seduced by the programmatic solution. Like, do you remember several years ago when the notion of collective impact was this very popular term that folks talked about? And it's a good thing. I mean, I think the framework and the model is powerful, and it's a useful thought exercise. But what I found in a lot of collective impact work was that it focused very much on aligning the programs. Sufficiently funding the programs and aligning the programs, but not the human side of design and redesign of how do those programs function, right? Who do they serve? Who's at the table when building them or rebuilding them? Do you have the ability to change them midstream if you feel that you need to? And I think a slightly different approach with systems change is you're sort of engaging in a loose hold of the policies and the practices and the issues to give people and the people infrastructure and the relationships time to come together and figure out how they want to move them individually, and how they want to move them collectively. And that's a subtle difference. That's a nuance that I think has really worked in our particular corner of the world. One thing I bet some people are interested in is how the Kellogg Foundation might be distinct from Kellogg as a company. You've described beautifully the innovative work you're doing. The company is off doing what it does commercially. How do these two things intersect? And what's been the history of the connection between the foundation and the company? Yes. So, when the foundation was founded in the 1930s, Will Keith Kellogg, as you said, he endowed the foundation and created it separate and apart from the company. So, it's an independent philanthropic organization. And so, while we bear the name of Will Keith Kellogg, the foundation does not have a formal connection or stake in the company any longer. As you may know, the company split into two companies a few years ago, one called Kellanova and one called the W.K. Kellogg Cereal Company. And since then, I believe both companies have been acquired. I think Mars now owns Kellanova, and Ferrero, an Italian company, owns W.K. At present, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation does not have any connection to either of those companies because they've been acquired by other groups. And aside from having some stock with the foundation, that was sold to support our endowment, we don't have any formal connections anymore. But I think the proximity of the foundation to the company in Battle Creek, and I think the shared history of Battle Creek and the shared history of Mr. Kellogg's vision is actually important to note. And I think it does matter to how the two institutions are connected. I said this a little while ago in the conversation, but in the 1930s, Mr. Kellogg knew that you couldn't separate food from health and education, family economic security, and he knew this while he was making cornflakes, right? And so he helped make sure in the late 1930s that children in Battle Creek had access to fresh milk in schools at the same time that he was doing work in soil conservation and in building healthy land. And he had a sense of knowing that how the food is grown and how kids are nourished, it's part of the same story. And I think that DNA has pulled forward into the foundation, and it makes it a really special place to work because we still carry that memory of him, and we still carry that vision of him into the work that we do. Thanks. You know, a long time ago, when I first became familiar with the Kellogg Foundation, I wondered about the history and the independence of the foundation from the company. And I pretty quickly came to learn that the foundation, as you said, is quite independent from the company. But you've enriched my knowledge even beyond what I've known over the years, so thank you. That's a fascinating history. So, let's end with one final question. If you fast-forward and kind of look ahead, what do you think is on the way? And what does success look like to you and your colleagues? Yes, it's a good question. I mean, I think if we got this right, you know, 10- 20 years from now, success would look like children and families living in communities where good food is just a part of everyday life. It's normal and reliable and not something that folks are lucky to find. I talked a little bit about how Mr. Kellogg thought about this in the '30s, but we also see what's possible in other places, right? When that vision can become a reality in terms of policy and practice. So, we had done some work in the country of Brazil. And we see now that national policy in the country of Brazil now requires that at least 50% of school food be purchased from local sources, grown with high-quality standards, right? That one decision reshaped incentives all along the food chain. What farmers grow, what institutions buy, what kids eat. That's a powerful example of institutions using their everyday purchasing power to build healthier and a more just system. So, you know, 10- 20 years from now, if we've done our job, it would mean that the kinds of innovations in places like Brazil or North Carolina or even in Michigan with our 10 Cents a Meal program, that those types of things would have become the norm. That schools and early childhood centers and hospitals and tribal and local governments would be routinely buying good, locally rooted food. And that workers and farmers are earning a fair and stable wage, and they have incomes. And the communities most affected by hunger and inequity are actually at the core of leading and designing new systems. And food policy would no longer be a patch on top of the inequity. It would be one of the main ways that we build healthier and more equitable futures for kids and families. BIO Jon-Paul Bianchi is the Director of Systems change at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) in Battle Creek, Michigan. In this role, he leads WKKF's national grantmaking strategy focused on early childhood care and education, health equity, employment equity and food systems. As a longtime philanthropic leader and national expert with a focus on early childhood education, Bianchi provides strategic oversight to the foundation's national programmatic work to support thriving children, families and communities. Bianchi holds a doctorate of Education from Vanderbilt University's Peabody College of Education and Human Development, a master's degree in child development and a bachelor's degree in child and family studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He helped found and currently serves on the board of Valley Settlement in Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

Andy Briggs, chief executive of Standard Life, joins the Big Boss Interview to discuss the war in Iran, pension reform,and the growing risk that millions of people are not putting enough aside for later life.Briggs says pension savers should not panic about the conflict in the Middle East, arguing that most economists expect short-term volatility rather than lasting structural damage to investments. Standard Life, which looks after 12 million customers and manages more than £300 billion in assets, believes pensions should be viewed over decades. Workplace retirement saving continued through COVID, the Ukraine inflation shock and the Liz Truss mini-budget fallout, because contributions are taken from gross pay before workers see their wages.Briggs addresses concerns about a potential AI bubble, noting that much of the funding flowing into artificial intelligence is now debt-based, which could create risks if companies fail to generate sufficient cash to service that debt.The new Pension Schemes Act — the biggest overhaul of the sector in more than a decade — has his broad support, particularly the push for greater scale and investment in productive assets such as infrastructure and growth equity. UK pension savers have generated real returns of around 4% per annum over the past decade, compared with 5.2% in Canada and 5.5% in Australia. The biggest difference, he says, is exposure to private assets. He draws a clear line at mandation, however, arguing that investment decisions should remain a matter of customer choice rather than government compulsion.Briggs is emphatic that pensions policy needs long-term, cross-party consensus rather than budget-cycle speculation. He points to the damage caused by rumours ahead of Rachel Reeves's budget, when thousands of customers withdrew their tax-free cash prematurely — only for the policy to remain unchanged, leaving those savers worse off.The current auto-enrolment minimum of 8% of salary is no longer sufficient, he warns, calling for a gradual increase to 12%. Without change, 60% of people could reach retirement in the 2040s without enough for a decent standard of living. The crisis is partly hidden because today's retirees still benefit from defined benefit pensions built up earlier in their careers — a cushion that is rapidly disappearing.Briggs concedes the UK is "not sufficiently financially literate" on pensions and expresses concern for younger generations struggling to find secure work. Greater pension investment in the UK economy, he argues, could stimulate growth, improve infrastructure and create better jobs — benefiting both savers and the wider economy.Presenter: Felicity Hannah Producer: Olie D'Albertanson Editor: Henry Jones01:54 Andy Briggs joins the pod - discusses political upheaval. 06:00 War in Iran impact on pension savers 08:19 AI bubble concerns & tech stock exposure 09:58 Pension drawdowns around the Reeves budget 11:32 Pension Scheme Act & mandation 17:02 Returns gap vs Canada & Australia 22:20 Pension adequacy & the case for 12% 24:05 60% face inadequate retirement by the 2040s 26:35 Young people & the retirement challenge 30:50 Financial literacy admission 36:10 Personal reflections on careers & opportunity

The post Sufficiently Insufficient to Support Steroid Stewardship appeared first on JDDonline - Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.

Sufficiently Weird

Plagues Upon the Earth: Disease and the Course of Human History By: Kyle Harper Published: 2021 704 Pages Briefly, what is this book about? A comprehensive historical overview of the never-ending war between humanity and disease. From its earliest days all the way down to the COVID-19 pandemic. With a specific focus on what he calls the "paradox of progress": every new advance creates new opportunities for diseases. But it's not just us driving diseases, they're driving us as well. Efforts to mitigate the negative effects of these pathogens are scattered throughout our history, our civilization and our genes. What authorial biases should I be aware of? None that you'd really be surprised by. He explicitly takes a very global view of humanity's disease burden, knowing that the story of European diseases like smallpox and the plague have already received plenty of attention. (Which is not to say he ignores them. Merely that he locates them as just one among many.) Who should read this book? I think everyone should be more aware of the potential dangers of pandemics, and the monstrous impact plagues have had on the development of humanity and civilization, and this book does a fantastic job with the second part, but it has less to offer on future danger than I hoped. Speaking of which: What does the book have to say about the future? Harper definitely takes the stand that our long war against diseases is far from over, and there is a lot of great discussion about how pathogens evolve alongside us, changing tactics as we change our environment. But there's almost no discussion (none that I really remember) of the danger of bioengineered pathogens, which felt like a significant oversight. Specific thoughts: Two things which continue to baffle me

2 Corinthians 2:12-3:6

Clement Man The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to The Clement Manyathela Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/XijPLtJ or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/p0gWuPE Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 yathela speaks to Moloto Mothapo, Parliament’s Spokesperson about why the National Assembly speaker, Thoko Didiza is reluctant to condone summons on behalf of the Ad-hoc committee for Brown Mogotsi and Paul O’Sullivan. MK Party Member of the Ad-hoc committee, Sibonelo Nomvalo says Didiza must be loyal to the people of South Africa and stop prioritising individual interests. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Trust in Jesus means distrust in ourselves and our stuff Jesus is the eternal, true witness (Rev. 3:14)​ Jesus' people come to Him in need (Rev. 3:15-20)​ Jesus promises shared authority (Rev. 3:21-22)

I believe that we will win. An echo of an old ad for the 2014 US men's World Cup team. It did not win. I was in Berkeley for the 2025 Secular Solstice. We gather to sing and to reflect. The night's theme was the opposite: ‘I don't think we're going to make it.' As in: Sufficiently advanced AI is coming. We don't know exactly when, or what form it will take, but it is probably coming. When it does, we, humanity, probably won't make it. It's a live question. Could easily go either way. We are not resigned to it. There's so much to be done that can tilt the odds. But we're not the favorite. Raymond Arnold, who ran the event, believes that. I believe that. Yet in the middle of the event, the echo was there. Defiant. I believe that we will win. There is a recording of the event. I highly encourage you to set aside three hours at some point in December, to listen, and to participate and sing along. Be earnest. If you don't believe it, I encourage this all the more. If you [...] --- First published: December 8th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YPLmHhNtjJ6ybFHXT/little-echo --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Sufficiently armed with a fraction of a plan and some poorly thought out contingencies, the Dicey Bastards try to take back the Grande Whimsey. Authors & Dragons is the indie author podcast you didn't know you needed. Listen as these professional story crafters focus their talents on ruining Dungeons & Dragons for everyone. Featuring the voices and poor decision making of MK Gibson, Rick Gualtieri, Drew Hayes, EM Kaplan, Robert Bevan and Steve Wetherell.You can learn more at www.authorsanddragons.com, but you should like, and subscribe, and hit the bell, and choke the weasel, and smell the rock, and dance the last fandango, and all those other things that help podcasts to grow and thrive and conquer.Want to hang out with us? Hey, relax man! I'm not trying to sell you drugs. BUT I am trying to sell you on our wicked sweet Patreon, where you can hang out in our Discord and get access to exclusive content, ad free episodes, and hang out sessions with your favorite indie authors. You'd rather have drugs? Okay, well, I don't blame you but I also don't have any. Look us up on Patreon!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/authors-dragons-comedy-dnd-podcast--5624719/support.Featuring Drew Hayes, John g Hartness, Rick Gualtieri, Robert Bevan, Joseph Brassey, Steve Wetherell, EM Kaplan, MK Gibson and more! Check out more adventures and fun dumb stuff at www.authorsanddragons.com

Oh fuck, six people are dead! In the middle of the night, someone killed Krauss, Gohda, Rudolf, Kyrie, Rosa, and Shannon and dumped them in the shed, then painted a strange occult marking on the shed door! The baroque and grotesque murder mystery begins this week as Battler takes it on himself to question the people around him and try to prevent his Aunts from increasing the body count further now that Natsuhi has pulled Kinzo's favorite rifle from storage... This week on Backlog Dialogues, some bodies have been discovered!

Hour 2 of Baskin and Phelps

In this episode, Drew Edmond is joined by Chanan Lavi, CEO and Co-founder of Kipp, to discuss solutions to one of the most common card decline reasons - non-sufficient funds. Listen in as they talk about how to optimize these transactions and explore the implications for merchants, issuers, and consumers. 

Join Brian and Mike Cohn as they unpack the five essential pillars that take Agile from “just the motions” to meaningful, measurable impact. Plus, get a behind-the-scenes look at their revamped course built for real team transformation. Overview In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian is joined by longtime collaborator and Agile thought leader Mike Cohn for a deep dive into what really makes Agile stick. They explore the five foundational pillars—mindset, practices, roles, teamwork, and support beyond the team—and share stories of what happens when teams get them wrong (like obsessing over story point math or demoing a copyright update in a sprint review). Along the way, they introduce the newly available Working on a Scrum Team public course and explain why it’s designed for entire teams, not just isolated roles. Whether you're new to Agile or knee-deep in transformation, this episode will help you rethink how to build an Agile approach that actually works. References and resources mentioned in the show: Mike Cohn #80: From Struggling to Success: Reviving Agile Teams with Mike Cohn Scrum Team Roles and Responsibilities Working on a Scrum Team Course Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast Want to get involved? This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input. Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one. Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com This episode’s presenters are: Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work. Mike Cohn, CEO of Mountain Goat Software, is a passionate advocate for agile methodologies. Co-founder of Agile Alliance and Scrum Alliance, he thrives on helping companies succeed with Agile and witnessing its transformative impact on individuals' careers. Mike resides in Northern Idaho with his family, two Havanese dogs, and an impressive hot sauce collection. Auto-generated Transcript: Brian Milner (00:00) Welcome in, Agile Mentors. We're back for another episode of the Agile Mentors podcast. Thanks for joining us. I'm with you, as always, Brian Milner. And today, I have the one and only Mike Cohn back with us. Welcome in, Mike. Mike (00:12) Thanks, Brian. Good to be here. Brian Milner (00:14) Always happy to have Mike on the show and really appreciate Mike making time to come on. Wanted to have Mike on because there's some things Mike's been talking about recently that are really interesting and people have been asking a little bit about this and I thought maybe it'd be just a good opportunity to talk through some of the stuff that Mike's been writing about. I know you spent, Mike, a lot of time helping teams to not just do Agile but to really get solid results from it. to see impact from it. And I know the topic you've been talking about recently is sort of these five pillars of supporting real agile improvements, the mindset, practices, roles, teamwork, and support beyond the team. So I thought maybe we could just dig in and drive through those and maybe learn a little bit about those as we go. Obviously also to talk a little bit about the exciting new course that's being launched here, the working on a Scrum team course, because I know that was originally just for private classes, right? And now it's being open to the public. Mike (01:23) Yeah, we've done working on a Scrum team as a private class for probably 20 plus years. It's been kind of our main offering to private clients. But we're hearing from a lot of people that they have one team and they can't really get a private class approved with the budget and such. So what we're doing is going ahead and making that course available as a public course. So two people from your company, five people from another company all in the same class the way we've done our certified courses for decades. And so we're going to start offering this as a public course. And the exciting thing there is that it's really meant to be a team-based class, where things like Scrum Master training, great class, but it's really meant for the Scrum Master, right? And working on a Scrum team is really designed, and you and I helped you and I design this course together, but it's designed to be something that is a whole team training, right? So good for anybody on a team. Brian Milner (02:16) Yeah, yeah, it's been really great teaching those in the private classes and I'm excited to think about the public being able to come in and take that now. Let's talk a little bit about these pillars and, I think people are gonna be really intrigued by the concept here. The first one is mindset, I think, and just wanna start there and say, what does it actually mean to... think Agile and what is the found, why is that kind of the foundation for successful transformations? Mike (02:43) Remember the kind of the early days of agile and there was a lot of conversation about could you be agile without understanding the principles, right? If you just did the practices, were you agile? Other people were saying, no, you have to start with the principles, right? And so do you start with principles? Do you start with practices? And I remember these early debates and they often devolved into a discussion of the karate kid movie, right? Remember that one, right? And, you know, can you just wax on? Brian Milner (03:12) Ha Mike (03:12) for long enough, just do the practices. And then all of a sudden, your karate instructor or your agile coach is, OK, you're agile. And it's like, wait, all I know how to do is wax a car, right? And so there were these discussions about practices versus principles. And I was kind of always on the side where you better understand the principles to do this. Just knowing the practices, waxing on all day, is kind of just going through the motions. And so you have to understand the principles. And the idea that I wanted was that if a team truly understood all of the principles underneath Agile, I don't just mean just the manifesto, but all the principles that are there from Lean, from Kanban, from everything, that if you really understood those, you'd kind of invent the practices, right? You do those and you go eventually to go, hey, we should probably meet every day. Or hey, if we tested first, that might be a really good thing. Brian Milner (03:57) Yeah. Mike (04:05) So you'd invent the practices if you really had that type of agile mindset. And so for me, when we're working with organizations to get them truly agile, and I don't mean like more agile than less agile, but agile in a way that's going to stick, you got to change mindsets, right? You've got to do more than just the wax on. So people have to get the mindset. Brian Milner (04:27) Yeah, I love that. I know that I've experienced some things in the course of working with people that's it's sort of like you, if you're not on the same page with the principles, then you start to talk through the practices and you run up against a problem. And really what you find out the core of it was, well, we weren't aligned on really the principle behind this. So why would I want the practices then, right? ⁓ Mike (04:49) Yeah. Well, that's where you also end up then with a lot of team debates about things, right? Because you're arguing about the practice. if you'll say you and I are arguing about the benefit of some practice, if we agree on the principle, we might just have different views on it. But deep down, we'll probably agree on some practice, or we might find an alternative one. But if you don't agree on the principles, you end up with a lot more of these kind of annoying. mean, team debates are great. I mean, I love. Brian Milner (04:54) Yeah. Mike (05:12) you know, having a team debate, arguing stuff like that, but not about pointless things, right? And not without some sort of foundation. They just kind of get in the way. It's just frustrating for everybody. Brian Milner (05:21) Yeah. Well, I'm kind of curious, what kind of signs or signals do you think teams should look out for to kind of clue in and let them know that what might actually be going on here is more of a mindset issue? Mike (05:36) think sometimes it's when you hear the appeal to authority, right? Somebody says, you know, well, we got to do it this way because the scrum guide says, right? Or the one that annoys me is we have to do it this way because Mike Cohn says, ⁓ you know, that was like, no, I, somewhere else also said, think, right? Don't just, you know, don't just, you know, blindly do story points or something. Cause I say they're a good thing. I want you to think too. Brian Milner (05:50) You You Mike (06:01) And so I think that kind of appeal to authority when teams are debating things. It's where we also see teams who think they're agile because they do a set of practices. We use a particular agile tool, so we must be agile. We do daily meetings. We must be agile. And those are not the things that make you agile. Those are artifacts of being agile. If you're agile, you're going to meet a lot. You're not going meet a lot, but you're going to talk a lot. Um, and so those are the artifacts of behaving in an agile way. And so I want to understand why we're doing those things. So I look for those kind of appeals to authority. Um, you know, emphasis on that type of stuff in an argument talking about how this is the right way saying there's only one right way to do something. Brian Milner (06:49) Yeah, yeah, that's great. How does working on the Scrum team deal with this? How does that address it? Mike (06:55) Well, one of the things we do, it was actually one of my favorite exercises. We do this exercise at the start of the class where we ask people to kind of map out how the organization talks about certain adsel principles and then how does the organization behave. And so for example, if a company says, people are our greatest asset, and then they treat people like dirt, we've got this kind of problem between what we say and what we do. And so I like to kind of map this out. And so we do this with the principles in the Agile Manifesto. And once we map those out and we start to see things that we say we value, but we don't behave that way, really helps us understand if we've really embraced that mindset. Or are we just doing things because an Agile coach told us to, or a boss told us to, or we did it that way in our prior company. Those are all bad reasons to do something. Brian Milner (07:48) Y eah. So this is great. So I agree. The mindset's really foundational. And there is this symbiotic relationship between mindset and practices, which came first and which comes first, as we talked about. I know a lot of teams get stuck doing Agile, though, in really only name only. So when we talk about practices, what makes the difference between going through the motions? Mike (08:00) Mm-hmm. Brian Milner (08:11) and actually doing things that work. Mike (08:13) Well, practices is kind of our second pillar, right? You have to have the mindset, right? But you also have to have the practices that come from having that mindset. so, again, I try to think of that team on a desert island, right? And they're isolated from the world. They've never talked to anybody, but they have an agile mindset. What practices are they going to invent, right? And I think those are kind of the core practices. We see a lot of problems with as an example, teams that misunderstand sprint planning. And I know when I first started teaching about sprint planning, I'd have a slide up there to have a picture of a sprint backlog. And the sprint backlog listed tasks like code this, design this, test this. And then there were estimates next to code this. It's going to take four hours testing. It's going to take three. And so we were able see all these numbers and think the point of a sprint planning was these numbers. And Even in the early days of this, I was always saying, no, it's not about those numbers. It's about deciding what product backlog items you can pick. if taking a, I don't even want to call it an estimate, but taking a wild guess about, it probably can take four hours to code. If that helps you decide how many backlog items you can commit to, great, put those numbers up there. But it was never about the numbers. And it's one of the most common problems that I see with teams in sprint planning is they get obsessed with How many hours did we bring in? How many points did we bring in? And I remember one team I worked with where we did sprint planning. Having those estimates were helpful for them on their sprint back. They were helping. And we finished the meeting. And we're using Google Sheets in a meeting to do this. We've got a row with the estimates in there. And as we start to wind down the meeting, I deleted that column that they'd spent so much time talking about. They're all kind of pissed off at me. Why'd you delete that? We spent all this time talking about it. I said, because we got the benefit, right? You got the benefit of those numbers. The benefit isn't a week from now remembering that you said five hours, because it's going to take what it takes. The benefit was the discussion that it led to of can we take more or are we already full? So I see teams get obsessed with that. This is one example, but that's one of the problems with sprint planning as a practice. Brian Milner (10:25) Yeah. Yeah. I think you're absolutely right. And that's one of the things I know I've talked about with people going through the course is sort of understanding the purpose behind the things. Just going back to, know, harkening back to what you said about, don't just do it because someone told you, you know, understand why the purpose behind it. And, know, otherwise we, I'm sure we've all had that experience before where someone just tells you to do something and says, you know, why? Cause I told you so, you know, that, that doesn't, that's not very convincing. Mike (10:52) Thanks, Mom. Brian Milner (10:53) Right, right, thanks mom. Yeah, not very convincing, but it's much more convincing when they can tell you, well, no, you do this because this is what we're trying to do. And I think you're right, that makes all the difference there. ⁓ Mike (11:05) It just, don't know anybody that responds well to being told what to do, right? My instant reaction is no, right? mean, you it could be, you know, a really, you it could be a really good thing. Eat more vegetables, you spend more time outside. No, right? Don't tell me what to do. So. Brian Milner (11:09) Right. Right. Yeah. It's almost like our default response is no until you convince me. Are there other common practices? We talked about sprint planning. Are there other kind of practices you see teams struggle with? Mike (11:28) Yeah, yeah, for a lot of people. think a huge one is product backlog refinement. I don't know what a better word would be than refinement. refinement is about making the backlog better. It's not about making it perfect. And I see teams that get stuck on backlog refinement and feel like they have to resolve every open issue, that everything has to be tiny and answered and buttoned up before we can start a sprint. And that's not the case. For me, the goal in refinement is to make sure things are small enough and sufficiently well understood. I don't want to bring in a backlog that's bigger than my velocity. If our velocity is 25, I don't want bring in a 50-point story. how about the problems of a 50-point story anyway? But I don't want to bring in some massive epic like that into a sprint. And so refinement is about making it small, making sure it's sufficiently well understood. Sufficiently well understood, not perfectly. And so Brian Milner (12:18) Yeah. Mike (12:28) The problem is these teams, and I know you've seen this, but teams who get in there, want to resolve every open issue. It's like, no, we can resolve that during the sprint. If we think about the goal and planning to make sure we know what to bring into the sprint, not too much, not too little, we're fine just enough that you're at that point. Is the button blue or red? Who cares? If it's a log in story, we're going to lock people out after some number of failed attempts. Who cares how many? Figure that out during the sprint. If it's five or three or eight, who cares? Figure that out later. So I think refinements won. Another big one would be reviews, ⁓ where sometimes teams demo too much in a sprint review. And they feel like they have to justify their existence, show everything you did during the sprint. And the most egregious example of that was this was a handful of years ago. But I literally remember a team showing Brian Milner (12:58) Yeah. Yeah. Mike (13:18) how they had updated the copyright notice on the footer of the web page, know, copyright, you know, whatever year our company, right? And it's like, my God, you didn't need to show that to stakeholders, right? We all either know there's a copyright notice on the bottom of the web page or we've seen one before. I don't need you to bring it up and scroll down to it. Now only took 15 seconds of the meeting, but that was 15 seconds of people's lives. They were never going to get back. you know, show stuff that you need feedback on, right? If you'd... Brian Milner (13:41) Right. Mike (13:45) You fixed a bug and you fixed it only way it could be fixed. Mention it perhaps, but you don't need to show it, right? Brian Milner (13:51) Yeah, yeah, know teams I've been on often it's just it's suffice it to have a list sometimes and just say here's a list of things if you want to know more about these come talk to us but we're move on to the stuff you care about. Mike (14:02) Yeah, I always have like a will show, will not show list. you know, I often, if I'm writing the meetup present, that'll put that up on Zoom or, you know, show it on a screen if we're in person. And often somebody wants to see something that's on the will not show list. Or they just want me to describe what bug was that again? What was that? You know, and I'll explain it really quickly. But if nobody wants to see it, don't bother showing it. So. Brian Milner (14:26) Yeah, I know we talk about these scrum practices quite a bit in the working on the scrum team class, but if someone signed up to take this class, what can they expect to hear or what can they expect to learn about these practices in the course? Mike (14:39) Well, I think one of the things that you and I did together in creating the newest version of the course was to look at what do you actually need to practice doing, and it's feasible to practice doing in a classroom setting, versus what should you just kind of talk through. And not everything needs to be practiced to get the hang of it, right? Everybody in the world has taken something big and split it up into smaller things before, right? I need to make. spaghetti dinner tonight. What do need to buy? Right? OK. Well, that's that's that's test decomposition by noodles, by sauce, by tomatoes. Let's make it from scratch. Right. By some garlic. Right. So everybody in the world has done decomposition. We've broken a big thing into small things. And I remember, you know, iterating over I'm still on sprint planning, I guess. But I remember iterating over exercises in sprint planning and in courses over the decades by now. And I would have one where you're planning a party for your kid, break it down into tasks. It's like, nobody learns anything from this. And so that's one where I'd rather say, OK, this problem occurs in sprint planning. How could you solve it? Other things like, let's say, splitting user stories or splitting job stories, that's a skill worth practicing together, getting feedback on. And so those type of things we try to practice in the course. other things we just talk about. mean, I'm curious on your thoughts on that. What do you think about some things being worth practicing, some things worth being better talked about? Brian Milner (16:01) Yeah, I agree. I agree fully. it's, it's, you know, there's some things, it's kind of like what you said before, there's some things that's not worth spending the time on, and it's better to just have a discussion and move on. Mike (16:13) Yeah. Yeah. I guess that's one of the things we always talked about. We always talked about return on investment of the exercise. What's the return on the exercise? And if you're going to have a one hour exercise, cool. One hour exercise. But it better have a pretty healthy return because that's a lot of time in class. And so what's the return on exercise? Is this worth a practice? Is it worth just a discussion? And if we can discuss two hard problems and give people advice on two common problems, they're probably going to face. Brian Milner (16:21) Yeah. Mike (16:41) Might be better than spending 20 minutes practicing something that they've probably done before. Brian Milner (16:45) Yeah, I completely agree. Let's move to the third pillar then, because I know this is a big one, just thinking and talking about the roles. And just as far as communication issues are concerned, even outside of Scrum, I know that's part of the big problem with teams and organizations just not being clearly defined about who does what and who's responsible for each thing. So those misunderstandings are really common failure points. ⁓ Mike (17:09) Mm-hmm. Brian Milner (17:10) How do you see teams getting that wrong and how's that derailing a Scrum team? Mike (17:15) Well, think we see it all the time on Scrum teams between Scrum Master and Product Owner and even the development team, right? Who does what? I was responding to some comments on LinkedIn this morning on some post I'd made last week and somebody had some comments. And it had to do with whether the Scrum Master or Product Owner does something. And it was interesting because in the comments on that post, I... I don't remember which one it was, but I shared a certain perspective. I feel pretty strongly that I have it right. I mean, I this is how we do it. But there were other people saying the opposite, right? And so, you know, these are people that are probably fairly experienced with Scrum, if they're following me on LinkedIn and feel comfortable commenting on a post, probably feel comfortable with it. And so there's a lot of confusion about what role does what thing. And I don't think this is something where the Scrum guy is going to have the answers for you. I think it's, I mean, you can look at the Scrum guy, oh, this. Here's my starting point answer, but we always want to play to people's strengths, right? And if you've got a scrum master who's got a lot of skill in one area, maybe they shift a little work from the PO to themselves, right? With the PO's permission, right? And the opposite, right? Between maybe PO and team. So it's fine to have default starting positions on who does what, but you always want to play to people's strengths. So I think PO scrum master, I think we see it with project managers and scrum masters, roll confusion on those type of roles as well. Brian Milner (18:38) Yeah, completely agree. A lot of those roles that are not named Scrum team roles and how they interact with the team, that's often a source of confusion as well. What are maybe some signs or symptoms that teams might be having confusion or problems in this area that maybe they don't even recognize or realize they're having an issue with roles? Mike (18:59) Any sort of conflicts, right? You know, you and I arguing over which one of us should do something. The other one would be kind of the opposite, which would be like a dropped ball. I was watching some YouTube video. I love baseball. I was watching some YouTube video the other day of like missed catches or something like that. And some team hit a baseball way up in the air and it was landing near three players, right? Three players are all looking at it. Brian Milner (19:12) You Mike (19:23) One guy waves the other two off, he's going to catch the ball and he must have been blinded by the sun because he's like six feet from the ball when it lands on the ground, right? And, you know, if we have a responsibility to catch the ball, run this meeting, right, right the backlog, the kids dropped, right? And so I think either arguing over who does something, two of us trying to do the same thing or neither of us doing it. I don't mean trying to get out of the work, right? All three players have been happy to catch the ball, but I think you've got it. You think I've got it, right? Those type of things are pretty good signs. think getting clarity around these roles can really optimize how a team works. And I think a really key thing here is that it changes over time. So I'll go back to my example of maybe the Scrubmaster has some skills that can help the product owner early on. Because maybe the product owner is new to the company. The product owner doesn't know the product as well. So they might rely on the Scrubmaster for guidance on things. Well, a year from now, we might shift responsibilities a little bit because now the PO is the expert on all things related to the product. So it's not like we want to establish clarity on roles one time and leave it forever. It's going to change. We get a new tester on the team, things might change. Product owner moves. It's going to change again. So we need to realize these responsibilities are dynamic. Brian Milner (20:39) Yeah, that's a great point. Your point about baseball just made me think about how, when you watch any youth sport in the world, when you go watch your kids play a sport, what's the one thing you always hear people scream from the sideline? Talk to each other. Call the ball. Well, that too. That too. Ump your blind. Those kinds of things. Well, let's talk a little bit about Mike (20:52) I thought you were going say, put my kid in. Brian Milner (21:00) I know this course addresses the roles and how would you say this course really helps address that issue of role confusion? Mike (21:07) think a big part of it is that we designed it to be for everybody on the team, right? Suppose you send a scrum master to a class, and it's a great class. Scrum master is going to back to the certain set of impressions about their role. Product owner goes to an equally good class about the product. They might have different impressions. Even if they took the course from the same instructor, they're hearing it a little differently. They're hearing it through their filters, right? And so when they're in a course together, there's more opportunities to clarify their understanding about those things, especially in the classes designed as we did with this one to bring out some of those differences. So I think the course helps with that. we've also designed it to mention the rules we haven't talked about, like managers and things like that. Brian Milner (21:53) Yeah, yeah, I think those are so important. And there's a lot of great discussions that come out when we have those topics. ⁓ Let's talk about the fourth pillar then, teamwork, because this, I think, builds really well on what we just talked about. And the idea that there's actually, Scrum is a team sport. ⁓ So beyond just normal human personality conflict type issues, what do you see that gets in the way of teams actually Mike (21:58) Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Brian Milner (22:18) working as a team. Mike (22:19) think ego is probably one, right? I can do everything better, just leave me alone. There's an old book that says basically, beware of a lone developer in a room, right? You know, it was referring to the developer who wants to close their door and say, I'll it done in a month, trust me, right? And one of the companies I worked with, and this one's going back like 15 years ago, but it was a really good story. Brian Milner (22:36) Yeah. Mike (22:43) is they would literally grab one unit of work. Each person on the team would grab a unit of work and take anywhere from three to 12 months to do the thing. So they were big things, but the person would do everything on it. They'd coded, tested everything. And the organization was putting out very little because of this. When they moved to Scrum in the first year, by their estimate, they said they delivered 540 % more work. over five times the amount of new features delivered. And that was through the collaboration, through the short iterations, those type of things. But it was about getting people to collaborate more. So I think there's huge opportunities to do that. One of the problems I see is when we don't overlap work. If we think about that organization I just described, you grab your thing, you're done in six months. I grab mine, I'm done in seven months. If we'd work together on those things, what's not make us any faster? No faster. But you and I could have worked on your one thing and been done in three months. OK, we're delivering value in three months, right? And so one of the things I look for a lot is how much teams are overlapping work, right? And if we're not overlapping work, there's huge opportunities to improve at that. I'll a little example of this. One of my favorite restaurants is, I don't know, barely call it a restaurant. It's a fast food deli. It's called Jimmy John's. Have you been to Jimmy John's, Yeah. Yeah, there's one near my house where I can go there and the wine will be out the door. Right. And you know, normally you see a wine out the door and it's like, crap, I'm going somewhere else. Right. These guys are so fast. They're so fast. When I get to the front, I place my order. I play this little game of can I fill up my cup? You know, I get an iced tea and they give me an empty cup and can I go fill up ice and put the tea in before they hand me my sandwich? And it's about 50-50. Right. It doesn't take long to fill up your iced tea. But the way they do that is the overlap work. As soon as I order my Italian club sandwich, somebody's already got the bread open, somebody's got a slab of meat they're ready to drop on there, somebody else has their hands over the vegetables and they're dropping the vegetables on there, and then a fourth person wraps it up. And so like four or five people touch my sandwich. Hopefully their hands are clean, but four or five people touch my sandwich as opposed to like most delis where I go and it's like you watch one person plod along making the sandwich, right? Overlap work is huge. Brian Milner (25:07) Yeah. Yeah, this episode sponsored by, no, just kidding. Use code Mike Cohn when you go to, no, just kidding. Yeah, I agree. And yeah, yeah, I'm familiar with Jimmy John's. Probably too familiar. ⁓ Yes, yeah, no, that's, I think that's part of their shtick is that they're, you know, they're known for being fast. So yeah. Mike (25:10) You Is yours just as fast? Yeah. Yeah. They call it Freaky Fast. They actually have a competition. I've seen YouTube videos of this where they get like the best teams at various restaurants race, right? And so they have like the Jimmy John sandwich making Olympics or something, but it's a skill. Brian Milner (25:36) wow, wow, yeah. You should pair that up with the hot dog eating challenge in some way and see if we could have a team sport going there. ⁓ Mike (25:48) Well, that's a good point because think about the hot dog eating. That's one guy, right? That's Joey Chesnett shoving hot dogs down. The Jimmy Johns is a team. They get the best crew at a restaurant and it's a team, right? How fast can the team go? Not how fast can one guy make a sandwich, right? Brian Milner (25:51) Yeah. Yeah, yeah. That's awesome. So what are some tips? What are some ways that you can really unite a team, especially those new teams? Because that's the fascination point for me is, how do you take this group of humans that really don't know each other and haven't worked together in the past and unite them together and have them gel as a team? How do you do that? Mike (26:21) I'll give you a couple. One, I think having really crisp sprint goals helps. So we all know exactly what we're trying to get done in the sprint. We don't lose sight of that because sometimes in the middle of a sprint, you lose sight of it. And you get myopic and you just focus on a list of tasks. And I'm going to say that it's probably similar to the team doing sprint planning and just getting them assessed with the numbers. It's not about the numbers. It's not about the tasks. It's about the backlog items that lead to some goal. So crisp sprint goals help. That's a hard phrase. Crisp Sprinkles helps. The other one I'd say is having a shared vision about where you're headed over a little bit longer term. Probably the biggest change to the Scrum Guide ever that I've liked is the inclusion of a product goal. And that was something I'd been talking about forever. mean, literally since I started doing Scrum was that sprinkles are great, but they're pretty short, right? You want to have something bigger. Brian Milner (26:52) It is. Mike (27:14) And so I like having product goals that are a few months out there. And one of the things I like doing for product goals is have teams do something like write a press release that describes their goal or create a vision in some way, write a review that you want to see come out on the App Store, Play Store, and a magazine. And one of my clients made software and they were reviewed by a major magazine and they were given an editor's choice runner up award. And they actually estimated that being runners up for that was probably worth about $10 million. First place, first time was worth about $10 million a year to them. And so they decided to get serious about this and they wrote a review. Their scrum master, she was actually combo scrum master product owner, Erin. She had the team write a review and she said, let's go earn this review. And I literally remember the email I got from her three months later. It was because it was Halloween night. I just like, you know, brought in the candy from outdoors. We're done trick or treating. And I checked my email. I a three word email from her from Erin. said we did it. And the magazine had let her know, hey, we're reviewing you. be out on, you know, like Tuesday's edition. And the review had quotes in there that were from their vision review, right? The things that they had wanted to achieve. Brian Milner (28:22) Ha ha. Mike (28:35) And that team had just really jelled around that and just became so much more productive and collaborated so much better because of that shared vision. Brian Milner (28:43) Yeah, that's amazing. getting back to the course then, I know in the course we're trying to kind of some of those collaboration muscles. What are some of the ways that the course helps to build that? Mike (28:56) think one of the key things that we're doing, and I'm excited about this, is that we're, you know, we of course use Zoom breakout rooms, right? You you go talk about this, we'll see you in eight minutes or something like that. And for this course, we're doing something where a group of three or more, when they register, can have a private breakout room. And this to me is exciting because people get the benefit of having a private breakout room. They can have sensitive discussions if they want. They can talk very specifically about. you know, what do we do about our jerk product owner? mean, whatever it is, right? You know, they can talk about their specific issues, yet have the context of a broader class. Because I think in one of the benefits of any public class is hearing how other teams are doing things. And sometimes that's because you get a good advice, you know, how did you solve that problem? We have that problem. Other times, it's just feeling that you're not alone in the world. they've got that problem too, right? And they don't have any solution for me, but I know I'm not alone in the world with this. And so I like these private breakout rooms for three or more. I think it's a novel thing we're doing with this class. And it's with the intent of combining the best of both worlds of private and public training for this. I'd the other thing is probably consistency, having everybody on the team hear the same message, having those discussions with an experienced instructor like you or me in the room to provide guidance when they have questions. know, go back to the role clarity, right? You know, they can talk about it and they're there. Then they're back in the main room with you or me and we can kind of answer questions. So I think that consistency will be huge as well. Brian Milner (30:25) Yeah, yeah, I love that idea of the private private breakout rooms that that's that's gonna be huge for a lot of people I know. ⁓ Mike (30:31) I'm excited to try it with this. This will be the first classes we do that for. I'm excited about it. Brian Milner (30:36) Yeah, yeah. Well, let's bring it home then and talk about the fifth pillar because the fifth pillar is really interesting as well. It talks about support beyond the team and teams can only do so much. Every team struggles when they're not supported well. And there's lots of studies that show leadership support is one of the biggest hurdles or obstacles to the adoption. Mike (30:46) Mm-hmm. Brian Milner (30:59) What does that support look like from outside the team and how can a team influence that? Mike (31:06) Yeah, if you're trying to be agile and your HR group has quarterly reviews of personnel that are all based on individual performance and has nothing to do about teamwork in there, it's going to be hard to focus on collaboration. So we have to kind of fix these issues. I think what we have to do here is to have team members educate those outside the organization. And we have information that we share about, you here's how to talk to a boss that's maybe mandating deadlines, things like that. And so we try to coach people through having some of those challenging conversations. And one of things I want teams to do is kind of become an example of what good agile looks like. And if you have a team that's excelling with agile and they're doing it from a kind of principles first, that mindset first approach. You're going to see other groups look at that and let's say the marketing group. They're going to look at that go, hey, that's an interesting way to work. I wonder how we could do that, right? And it's going look different for a marketing group than a tech team. the mindset is going to be the same. Principles will still be the same. And so when we get teams to do really well with this, other parts of the organization start to get interested. And then they stop being as much in our way. Brian Milner (32:20) Yeah. I know one of the most important aspects here and that we talk about is, is that you don't need to, to wait, right? If you're the team level, you don't have to just sit around and wait for the organization to make changes. you, you have opportunities to make changes as well. So how does that happen? How's the team change, you know, bring about those changes that, improve the agile process, the results. Mike (32:42) I think that's by being the example so that people see it. I think it's by having those conversations. You know, one of the things that we'll get is, you know, it's so common is the product owner that wants to change their mind all the time. I was reading something, I guess this is in our Agile mentors community, I think is where it was, but it was about the, you know, the product owner who said his favorite thing about Agile is that he can reprioritize every week. ⁓ And it's like, you can, you know. Brian Milner (33:05) Hmm. Yeah Mike (33:10) I'm not sure it's good. And I think about that, a team gets momentum, right? And you're working on a certain feature. Next sprint, it would be nice to work in that same area of this system, right? Your head's there. Just kind of keep going a little bit. And I've often described this as like, let's say you're working on three backlog items that are in a certain area of this system. Let's make it concrete. Let's say it's the spell checker in Microsoft Office, right? And you do three backlog items related to the spell checker this sprint. Next sprint, maybe your top priority is not more spell checker stuff, but maybe items, I don't know, 25, 26, and 27 on the backlog are still in the spell checker. You know what? It might be better to do those. There are probably two or three sprints away. Let's bring them into this sprint. Just get them done while my head's into spell checking. And so getting product owners or stakeholders to stop doing that, one of the ways that I like to talk about doing that is using an example of ordering a meal at a restaurant. I can order, let's say, the chicken entree. And then as the waiter is taking the orders around the table, I change from chicken, no, bring me the fish. Not a big deal. The waiter is going to cross off chicken and write down fish. If the waiter goes away, brings me back my salad, and I change my mind then, I say, hey, bring me the fish. Might not be a big deal. It's going to be a big deal if I've already taken three bites of the chicken. right? Or if he brings me the chicken. So yeah, we can change our mind, but there's a cost, right? And we want to educate stakeholders about that cost. They don't overdo it. Brian Milner (34:31) Yeah. Yeah. Well, speaking of the leaders and the organization, managers, leaders, do you think this course is appropriate for managers and leaders to attend as well? you feel like they might need to in order to really have this be an impact? Mike (34:55) Yeah, that's a good question. Is it appropriate? Yeah, I think it's appropriate. When we do this privately, we've had plenty of leaders and managers attend. I think it's great. I don't think that's required because they're not on the Scrum team. You said the name of the course is working on a Scrum team. And so they're not on the Scrum team. They benefit by knowing more how their Scrum team works. But I think what we found is that having just a key subset of people who hear the same message work through the training together, and then go back to the organization. That's enough to bring the passion, conviction, and skills that we want. So we don't truly need leaders. They're great. I would never talk a leader out of going, but I wouldn't. If I were a team and I could take the class this month or with my leader next month, I would just get the class done, right? And educate the leader afterwards. Brian Milner (35:41) Yeah. Yeah, yeah, I think that's a good plan. All right, well then we've made our way through the five pillars and for people who have come this far with us and are at this point, if they're listening and they're recognizing some of these problems we've been talking about, what would you recommend to them as next steps here? Mike (35:49) if Well, take a look at our website. If you go to mountaingoatsoftware.com. And then I think there's a courses link on the top. You can go up there and find the link to this course. It's an exciting one that we're doing. I've literally been teaching this, I think the first time I taught a class called Working on a Scrum Team was 2003 or 2004. it's a time tested course. You and I kind of redesigned it a couple of months ago to make it appropriate for public. or little better just in general and more appropriate for public. But it's a time-tested course that's now designed to be available for public settings instead of, you know, have to have 25 people or something. Brian Milner (36:36) Yeah, yeah, that's really exciting. I can't wait to see kind of how people are in, you know, react and interact in the course to some of these concepts and ideas. And we'll, we'll of course link to all these things that we've talked about in our show notes and make it easy for everyone to find the course listing and, and, you know, where the dates and everything that we're going to offer them. So make sure to check that out. Mike, thanks so much for coming on. This has been really enlightening and I appreciate you making time for it. Mike (37:01) Of course, thanks for having me, Brian. Always a pleasure.

Steve Forbes explains that in this extremely precarious geopolitical situation, President Trump must stay firm by backing Israel against Iran and Ukraine against Russia.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We are back with an unexpectedly concise episode focused on last week's "ghost guns" decision, Bondi v. Vanderstok. But first we talk about the calls to reconsider the Court's Confrontation Clause doctrine and also return to the number of votes needed to call for the views of the Solicitor General (CVSG).

What are the terms and conditions of being in an offer in compromise? You have to stay in tax compliance! Do you have tax debt? Call us at 866-8000-TAX or fill out the form at https://choicetaxrelief.com/If you want to see more…-YouTube:    / @loganallec  -Instagram: @ChoiceTaxRelief @LoganAllec -TikTok: @loganallec-Facebook: Choice Tax Relief // Logan Allec, CPA -Reddit: u/Logan_Allec

Domon forgot.

Today's McKee Moment discusses one of the biggest take aways, from any larger conference event.

Send us a textHello (we're sorry!) On this week's episode, Max is going to tell us possibly the most upsetting story we've ever heard (ick!). Then Janey is going to cleanse our palates with a trickster tale! Enjoy!Janey's Sources - Diamond Cut DiamondAndrew Lang's “The Olive Fairy Book”  Full free text  Max's Sources - The Spreaders “When the Chenoo Howls: Native American Tales of Terror” by James Burchac and Joseph Bruchac Full free text of “The Spreaders” retold by James Bruchac  Support the showCheck out our books (and support local bookstores!) on our Bookshop.org affiliate account!Starting your own podcast with your very cool best friend? Try hosting on Buzzsprout (and get a $20 Amazon gift card!)Want more??Visit our website!Join our Patreon!Shop the merch at TeePublic!If you liked these stories, let us know on our various socials!InstagramTiktokGoodreadsAnd email us at sortofthestory@gmail.com

Tough enough schedule?

Yes, very sufficient. PLAYLIST: 1:04 - Vikas Music - Pokemon Theme Eurobeat Remix (Pokemon [ANI] :: YouTube) 7:31 - 8-Beats VGM - Big Apple 3 AM (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time [SNES] :: YouTube) 11:03 - Orchestral Fantasy - Fossil Falls Famicom Disk System version (Super Mario Odyssey [NSW] :: YouTube) 15:06 - 40Nix - Spark Man Stage [SNES remix] (Mega Man 3 [NES] :: YouTube) 18:14 - Button Masher, Dj Cutman - Jubilife Village [Chiptune Piano Mix] (Pokemon Legends Arceus [NSW] :: GameChops) 25:06 - The Emulators - Chemical Plant Zone BUT it's extremely funky (Sonic the Hedgehog 2 [GEN] :: YouTube) 29:15 - Brendan Vavra - Another Termina on Button Accordion (Chrono Cross [PS1] :: YouTube) 31:36 - gabocarina96 - Crash Site (Astro Bot [PS5] :: YouTube) 34:54 - Lord Bif Music - Terran 4 Folk Rock Cover (StarCraft 2 [PC] :: YouTube) 44:17 - WarMachine Studios - The Monsoon (Shinobi III: Return of the Ninja Master [GEN] :: YouTube) 47:55 - MetalLegend64 - Mute City (F-Zero X [N64] :: YouTube) 51:48 - Ferdk - Wicked Child (Castlevania [NES] :: YouTube) 55:14 - BadHairlineProductions - Splash Woman [Groovy Guitar] (Mega Man 9 [WII] :: YouTube) 1:01:00 - Ottawa Guitar Trio - Village of Dali Theme Classical Guitar (Final Fantasy IX [PS1] :: YouTube) 1:05:26 - Super Guitar Bros - Battle With the Four Fiends (Final Fantasy IV [SNES] :: YouTube) 1:07:40 - Alina Gingertail - Tristram Theme (Diablo [PC] :: YouTube) 1:12:32 - ACappellaVGM, Sab Irene - Beautiful Ruin [A Cappella] (Danganronpa 2 [PSP] :: YouTube) 1:20:36 - Tremendouz - Rock It [Symphonic Metal Cover] (Crash Bandicoot 2 [PS1] :: YouTube) 1:23:27 - Banjo Guy Ollie - Exploring Secret Dungeons (Turrican II [AMI] :: Bandcamp) 1:26:48 - KB - Theme of Captain Falcon [KB Remix] (F-Zero GX [GCN] :: YouTube) 1:30:12 - TheTaskmaster - Hammer Bros Battle Theme ["Sockhop" Rock N' Roll Cover] (Super Mario Bros. 3 [NES] :: YouTube) 1:35:09 - RoboRob, DeBisco - Go Straight (Streets of Rage 2 [GEN] :: Firaga Records) 1:38:52 - Qumu - Song of Storms (Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time [N64] :: YouTube Music) 1:42:40 - yell0 - DIAMOND IN THE SKY ft. Hatsune Miku (Sonic R [SAT] :: YouTube) 1:56:00 - Triple B Music - AQUATIC AMBIANCE Prog Rock/Metal Cover (Donkey Kong Country [SNES] :: YouTube) Keith the Funny Raccoon, Lucas Spindola - We Are Number One but performing the Hammer Bros. Theme (Super Mario Bros. 3 [NES] :: YouTube)

Yes, very sufficient. PLAYLIST: 1:04 – Vikas Music – Pokemon Theme Eurobeat Remix (Pokemon [ANI] :: YouTube) 7:31 – 8-Beats VGM – Big Apple 3 AM (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time [SNES] :: YouTube) 11:03 – Orchestral Fantasy – Fossil Falls Famicom Disk System version (Super Mario Odyssey [NSW] :: YouTube) 15:06 – ...Continue reading ‘Nitro Game Injection #573: Sufficiently Pleased’ »

The EPA has stated that 90% of American homes have inadequate insulation. That's a big number! Here to talk with John Williams about how to find out if you're in the lucky 10%, and how to get properly insulated, is Roy Spencer, President of Perma-Seal. Visit PermaSeal.net or call 800-421-SEAL to schedule an attic insulation […]

The EPA has stated that 90% of American homes have inadequate insulation. That's a big number! Here to talk with John Williams about how to find out if you're in the lucky 10%, and how to get properly insulated, is Roy Spencer, President of Perma-Seal. Visit PermaSeal.net or call 800-421-SEAL to schedule an attic insulation […]

The EPA has stated that 90% of American homes have inadequate insulation. That's a big number! Here to talk with John Williams about how to find out if you're in the lucky 10%, and how to get properly insulated, is Roy Spencer, President of Perma-Seal. Visit PermaSeal.net or call 800-421-SEAL to schedule an attic insulation […]

This week, Danielle covers the murder of Megan Barroso and Zee finishes the story of Beautiful Stranger - Kate Morgan - and the haunted Hotel Del Coronado.Stalk us here!Merch - ghosts-n-heauxsTwitter - ghostsnheauxsInstagram - ghosts_n_heauxsFacebook - GhostsnHeauxsPodcastAnd don't forget to send your stories to ghostsnheauxs@gmail.com

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Friendship is transactional, unconditional friendship is insurance, published by Ruby on July 18, 2024 on LessWrong. It feels a little icky to say, but we befriend people because we get something out of it. We enjoy the company, the conversation, the emotional support, the activities, the connection, etc. It's not a coincidence people don't befriend brick walls. (The same is true in romantic relationships, except we expect even more.) Granted, friendship is not an explicit transaction that's negotiated, quantified, legally enforceable, etc. It's fuzzy, which helps it work better for reasons I won't really get into here[1]. However it's crucial to recognize that if your friend (or partner) didn't provide or promise you some kind of value[2], you wouldn't have become friends in the first place. And yet, people valorize the notion of loyalty in relationships: continuing to be there through thick and thin, good and bad, health and illness. "Unconditional friendship" and "unconditional love". Conversely "fair weather friendship" is denigrated. People hope to be loved even if they were worms. What gives? How do we reconcile friendships and relationships arising due to receiving some value with the aspiration or even expectation of unconditionality? My model here is something akin functionally to mutual insurance. While I became your friend because we spent years playing basketball together, I stay by your side even when you're recovering from a broken leg, or even if you were injured so badly as to never play again. Someone initially enticed by their partner's beauty, stays with them even after a horrific burn to the face. I do this because I expect the same in return. You might argue that in these cases, you're still receiving other benefits even when one of them is lost, but I argue back that we see ongoing care even where there's almost nothing left, e.g. people caring for their senile, bedridden partners. And more so, that we judge people who don't stick it out. Friendship is standardly a straightforward exchange of value provided. It is also an exchange of insurance "if you're not able to provide value to me, I'll still provide value to you" and vice versa. Like the other stuff in friendship, it's fuzzy. The insurance exchange doesn't happen in a discrete moment and its strength is quantitative and expected to grow over time. People expect more "loyalty" from friends and partners of years than weeks. In the limit, people reach "unconditional love", meaning something like from this point on, I will love you no matter what. However, reaching that willingness was very probably tied to specific conditional factors. It's notable that for many people love and security are connected. Sufficiently loving and supportive relationships provide security because they imply an unconditionality on circumstances - you'll have someone even if fortune befalls you and you lose what makes you appealing in the first place. I think this makes sense. Seems like good game theoretic trade even with a willing partner. "Till death do us part." Possibly worth making a little more explicit though, just to be sure your friends and partners share whatever expectations of loyalty you have. Note that I don't think this dynamic needs to be very conscious on anyone's part. I think that humans instinctively execute good game theory because evolution selected for it, even if the human executing just feels a wordless pull to that kind of behavior. In this context, "attachment to others" feels like a thing that humans and other animals experience. Parents, perhaps especially mothers, are very attached to their children (think of the mother bear), but we tend to form attachments to anyone (or thing) that we're persistently around. When I stick with my friend of many years through his illness, it might feel ...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Individually incentivized safe Pareto improvements in open-source bargaining, published by Nicolas Macé on July 18, 2024 on LessWrong. Summary Agents might fail to peacefully trade in high-stakes negotiations. Such bargaining failures can have catastrophic consequences, including great power conflicts, and AI flash wars. This post is a distillation of DiGiovanni et al. (2024) (DCM), whose central result is that agents that are sufficiently transparent to each other have individual incentives to avoid catastrophic bargaining failures. More precisely, DCM constructs strategies that are plausibly individually incentivized, and, if adopted by all, guarantee each player no less than their least preferred trade outcome. Figure 0 below illustrates this. This result is significant because artificial general intelligences (AGIs) might (i) be involved in high-stakes negotiations, (ii) be designed with the capabilities required for the type of strategy we'll present, and (iii) bargain poorly by default (since bargaining competence isn't necessarily a direct corollary of intelligence-relevant capabilities). Introduction Early AGIs might fail to make compatible demands with each other in high-stakes negotiations (we call this a "bargaining failure"). Bargaining failures can have catastrophic consequences, including great power conflicts, or AI triggering a flash war. More generally, a "bargaining problem" is when multiple agents need to determine how to divide value among themselves. Early AGIs might possess insufficient bargaining skills because intelligence-relevant capabilities don't necessarily imply these skills: For instance, being skilled at avoiding bargaining failures might not be necessary for taking over. Another problem is that there might be no single rational way to act in a given multi-agent interaction. Even arbitrarily capable agents might have different priors, or different approaches to reasoning under bounded computation. Therefore they might fail to solve equilibrium selection, i.e., make incompatible demands (see Stastny et al. (2021) and Conitzer & Oesterheld (2023)). What, then, are sufficient conditions for agents to avoid catastrophic bargaining failures? Sufficiently advanced AIs might be able to verify each other's decision algorithms (e.g. via verifying source code), as studied in open-source game theory. This has both potential downsides and upsides for bargaining problems. On one hand, transparency of decision algorithms might make aggressive commitments more credible and thus more attractive (see Sec. 5.2 of Dafoe et al. (2020) for discussion). On the other hand, agents might be able to mitigate bargaining failures by verifying cooperative commitments. Oesterheld & Conitzer (2022)'s safe Pareto improvements[1] (SPI) leverages transparency to reduce the downsides of incompatible commitments. In an SPI, agents conditionally commit to change how they play a game relative to some default such that everyone is (weakly) better off than the default with certainty.[2] For example, two parties A and B who would otherwise go to war over some territory might commit to, instead, accept the outcome of a lottery that allocates the territory to A with the probability that A would have won the war (assuming this probability is common knowledge). See also our extended example below. Oesterheld & Conitzer (2022) has two important limitations: First, many different SPIs are in general possible, such that there is an "SPI selection problem", similar to the equilibrium selection problem in game theory (Sec. 6 of Oesterheld & Conitzer (2022)). And if players don't coordinate on which SPI to implement, they might fail to avoid conflict.[3] Second, if expected utility-maximizing agents need to individually adopt strategies to implement an SPI, it's unclear what conditions...

The bitcoin ‘ossification' debate continues with a discussion on the key considerations. What makes Bitcoin special? What improvements are necessary to retain sufficient decentralisation, if any?  Vijay Boyapati and Brandon Black (aka reardencode) rejoin me for a special episode to discuss:  What makes Bitcoin special?  Defining ‘ossification' How many users is ‘enough'?  Unknown unknowns Addressing centralising MEV concerns Soft forks and hard forks Economic nodes and who holds the power Where to from here Timestamps: (00:00) - Intro (01:54) - What makes Bitcoin Special? ft. Vijay (09:37) - Verifiability & decentralisation of Bitcoin ft. Brandon (14:31) - When do we stop ‘changing' bitcoin? (15:17) - Revisiting the blocksize wars & importance of self sovereignty (20:45) - Libertarian principles of Bitcoin (23:48) - ‘Sufficiently decentralised' Bitcoin (26:42) - Defining ‘Ossification' of Bitcoin (30:56) - Sponsors (34:11) - Economic interests in upgrading Bitcoin nodes (43:40) - Bitcoin is a Trojan horse (47:15) - Can we rule out ‘Unknown unknowns'? (50:49) - Concerns over centralising MEV (1:00:17) - Whose chain is it anyway? (1:05:14) - Resisting soft forks and hard forks (1:16:49) - Closing Thoughts Links: X: @real_vijay Bullish Case for Bitcoin: Swan.com/bullish X: @reardencode Prior episodes: Rusty - Great Script Restoration Brandon Black - Are Covenants necessary for Bitcoin TXHASH Steven Roose Matt Corallo and Steve Lee Great Consensus Cleanup Sponsors: Swan.com (code LIVERA) CoinKite.com (code LIVERA) Mempool.space Stephan Livera links: Follow me on X: @stephanlivera Subscribe to the podcast Subscribe to Substack

RI Philharmonic Executive Director David Beauchesne joins the show to offer his advocacy for significant increases in the allocation of dollars for arts organizations in Rhode Island's forthcoming budget.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In recent years, the Second Amendment has been the subject of intense debate and interpretation. Legal battles, court cases, and policy changes are reshaping the landscape of gun rights and regulations in the United States that affect our every-day lives. To dissect these complex issues, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions is proud to launch "Sufficiently Analogous," co-hosted by the Center's law and policy director, Kelly Roskam, JD, alongside law and policy advisors Tim Carey, JD and Kari Still, JD. Episode 0 introduces the hosts, explains Second Amendment legal precedent and court cases shaping today's legal landscape    ### Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 3:17 - Gun Violence Data 5:31 - Second Amendment Case History 11:55 - Conclusion

Remember all the hot starts to begin the season that were 'too small a sample size'? They aren't just small sample sizes anymore. Looking at the start of the season for Javier Assad and more, on this week's episode.

Are the Tennessee women's basketball Volunteers in a position to improve over their last season under Kellie Harper? John Adams of the Knoxville News Sentinel joins to discuss.The Dave Hooker Show airs weekdays at 10am EST weekdays. Please turn notifications on! WATCH/SUB: https://linktr.ee/offthehooksportsSUPPORT OUR SPONSORSThe Dave Hooker Show. Represented by Banks and Jones. Tennessee's Trial Attorneys. Play to win. banksjones.com. Why Banks and Jones? Other lawyers say they'll go to trial. They won't. They'll settle. And settle for less. Banks and Jones is ready to go to trial for you. Truly Tennessee's trial attorneys. Why settle? Banks and Jones, led by T. Scott Jones. https://www.banksjones.com/Apex Apparel Group DesignCall to action - 15% off your first orderApex Apparel, but they do so much more. A one-stop shop for all brand supply products. Not just clothes. Design. Brand. Market. Your Way! Unique products to promote your business with unparalleled customer service. A full-on brand supply company. https://Orderapexapparel.com/ Call Tyler! (865)-919-3001BetUS is your college basketball betting home. Get 125-percent bonus on your first three deposits. Plus 10-percent gambler's insurance. https://bit.ly/OffTheHook125SU3XBoundless MovingFrom our 2 hour Minimum to Turn Key Operations - We have You Covered!Brainerd Golf Course and Brown Acres Golf Course Golf Chattanooga's best public courses. Tee times available! Just click below. https://secure.east.prophetservices.c...Chattanooga MortgageCongratulations! Your home search just got easier. Buying a home in Chattanooga has never been easier with Chattanooga Mortgage. https://chattmortgage.com/City Heating and Air50 years in East Tennessee. Integrity Matters! Don't trust a fly-by night HVAC company to tell you that you need a new unti that could cost thousands or more. http://www.cityheatandair.comDon Self - State FarmCUSTOMER SERVICE STILL MATTERS! For forty years, they have built their business on taking care of their customers. In the greater Chattanooga area. Call (423)396-2126 or go to http://www.donself.netDynasty Pools and SpasImagine having the best spas - made right here in the USA - in your backyard. Well, they're here! Now open, Dynasty Pools and Spas has their brand new showroom open in Athens with the best hot tubs and spas on the market. Delivery? Yes, they can do that. Complete support, spa cover and chemicals to keep your spa bubbling at it's best. That's Dynasty Pools and Spas. http://www.dynastypoolsandspas.comHemp HouseThe premier hemp dispensary online with a wide variety, great selection and strict standards to ensure you only receive the best in CBD or Delta products. https://hemphousechatt.com/ Use promo code "HOOKED" for 10-percent off.Quality Tire ProThe Eberle family has been serving Chattanooga community since 1957. All major brands of tires. Full Service Automotive. Brake, Alignments, Oil Changes and more. All work is covered by a nationwide warranty! Cherokee Blvd or online at qualitytirepros.com. Say OTH said “Hey Bo!”Ray Varner FordLocal you Trust. Innovation you can afford. http://www.rayvarnerford.comRick Terry Jewelry DesignsWe want to be your Jeweler! Looking for affordable game-day jewelry. How about the fire opals? A Tennessee tradition. https://rickterryjewelry.com/Sports TreasuresCarrying Over 5-million Sports Treasures….and so much more! Follow on Facebook for the best sports memorabilia. Daily updates! / sportstreasurestnTri-Star HatsFor the latest in Tri-Star Hats, go to the orginal. Hats, apparel and more!!! http://www.tristarhatsco.com

Are the Tennessee women's basketball Volunteers in a position to improve over their last season under Kellie Harper? John Adams of the Knoxville News Sentinel joins to discuss. The Dave Hooker Show airs weekdays at 10am EST weekdays. Please turn notifications on! WATCH/SUB: https://linktr.ee/offthehooksports SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS The Dave Hooker Show. Represented by Banks and Jones. Tennessee's Trial Attorneys. Play to win. banksjones.com. Why Banks and Jones? Other lawyers say they'll go to trial. They won't. They'll settle. And settle for less. Banks and Jones is ready to go to trial for you. Truly Tennessee's trial attorneys. Why settle? Banks and Jones, led by T. Scott Jones. https://www.banksjones.com/ Apex Apparel Group Design Call to action - 15% off your first order Apex Apparel, but they do so much more. A one-stop shop for all brand supply products. Not just clothes. Design. Brand. Market. Your Way! Unique products to promote your business with unparalleled customer service. A full-on brand supply company. https://Orderapexapparel.com/ Call Tyler! (865)-919-3001 BetUS is your college basketball betting home. Get 125-percent bonus on your first three deposits. Plus 10-percent gambler's insurance. https://bit.ly/OffTheHook125SU3X Boundless Moving From our 2 hour Minimum to Turn Key Operations - We have You Covered! Brainerd Golf Course and Brown Acres Golf Course Golf Chattanooga's best public courses. Tee times available! Just click below. https://secure.east.prophetservices.c... Chattanooga Mortgage Congratulations! Your home search just got easier. Buying a home in Chattanooga has never been easier with Chattanooga Mortgage. https://chattmortgage.com/ City Heating and Air 50 years in East Tennessee. Integrity Matters! Don't trust a fly-by night HVAC company to tell you that you need a new unti that could cost thousands or more. http://www.cityheatandair.com Don Self - State Farm CUSTOMER SERVICE STILL MATTERS! For forty years, they have built their business on taking care of their customers. In the greater Chattanooga area. Call (423)396-2126 or go to http://www.donself.net Dynasty Pools and Spas Imagine having the best spas - made right here in the USA - in your backyard. Well, they're here! Now open, Dynasty Pools and Spas has their brand new showroom open in Athens with the best hot tubs and spas on the market. Delivery? Yes, they can do that. Complete support, spa cover and chemicals to keep your spa bubbling at it's best. That's Dynasty Pools and Spas. http://www.dynastypoolsandspas.com Hemp House The premier hemp dispensary online with a wide variety, great selection and strict standards to ensure you only receive the best in CBD or Delta products. https://hemphousechatt.com/ Use promo code "HOOKED" for 10-percent off. Quality Tire Pro The Eberle family has been serving Chattanooga community since 1957. All major brands of tires. Full Service Automotive. Brake, Alignments, Oil Changes and more. All work is covered by a nationwide warranty! Cherokee Blvd or online at qualitytirepros.com. Say OTH said “Hey Bo!” Ray Varner Ford Local you Trust. Innovation you can afford. http://www.rayvarnerford.com Rick Terry Jewelry Designs We want to be your Jeweler! Looking for affordable game-day jewelry. How about the fire opals? A Tennessee tradition. https://rickterryjewelry.com/ Sports Treasures Carrying Over 5-million Sports Treasures….and so much more! Follow on Facebook for the best sports memorabilia. Daily updates! / sportstreasurestn Tri-Star Hats For the latest in Tri-Star Hats, go to the orginal. Hats, apparel and more!!! http://www.tristarhatsco.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Byron Beck | April 21, 2024 | Fellowship Church | Poplar Bluff, MO

Main Idea: The Death of Christ Provides Atonement and CleansingText: John 19:31–37Outline: 1) To fulfill Scripture2) As the sacrificial lamb3) Sufficiently

Main Idea: Christ Died for Your SinsText: John 19:28–30Outline: 1) To fulfill Scripture2) As the sacrificial lamb3) Sufficiently

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A lot of EA-orientated research doesn't seem sufficiently focused on impact, published by jamesw on March 4, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Cross posted from: https://open.substack.com/pub/gamingthesystem/p/a-lot-of-ea-orientated-research-doesnt?r=9079y&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web NB: This post would be clearer if I gave specific examples but I'm not going to call out specific organisations or individuals to avoid making this post unnecessarily antagonistic. Summary: On the margin more resources should be put towards action-guiding research instead of abstract research areas that don't have a clear path to impact. More resources should also be put towards communicating that research to decision-makers and ensuring that the research actually gets used. Doing research that improves the world is really hard. Collectively as a movement I think EA does better than any other group. However, too many person-hours are going into research that doesn't seem appropriately focused on actually causing positive change in the world. Soon after the initial ChatGPT launch probably wasn't the right time for governments to regulate AI, but given the amount of funding that has gone into AI governance research it seems like a bad sign that there weren't many (if any) viable AI governance proposals that were ready for policymakers to take off-the-shelf and implement. Research aimed at doing good could fall in two buckets (or somewhere inbetween): Fundamental research that improves our understanding about how to think about a problem or how to prioritise between cause areas Action-guiding research that analyses which path forward is best and comes up with a proposal Feedback loops between research and impact are poor so there is a risk of falling prey to motivated reasoning as fundamental research can be more appealing for a couple of different reasons: Culturally EA seems to reward people for doing work that seems very clever and complicated, and sometimes this can be a not-terrible proxy for important research. But this isn't the same as doing work that actually moves the needle on the issues that matter. Academic research far worse for this and rewards researchers for writing papers that sound clever (hence why a lot of academic writing is so unnecessarily unintelligible), but EA shouldn't be falling into this trap of conflating complexity with impact. People also enjoy discussing interesting ideas, and EAs in particular enjoy discussing abstract concepts. But intellectually stimulating work is not the same as impactful research, even if the research is looking into an important area. Given that action-guiding research has a clearer path to impact, arguably the bar should be pretty high to focus on fundamental research over action-guiding research. If it's unlikely that a decision maker would look at the findings of a piece of research and change their actions as a result of it then there should be a very strong alternative reason why the research is worthwhile. There is also a difference between research that you think should change the behaviour of decision makers, and what will actually influence them. While it might be clear to you that your research on some obscure form of decision theory has implications for the actions that key decision makers should take, if there is a negligible chance of them seeing this research or taking this on board then this research has very little value. This is fine if the theory of change for your research having an impact doesn't rely on the relevant people being convinced of your work (e.g. policymakers), but most research does rely on important people actually reading the findings, understanding them, and being convinced that they should take an alternative action to what they would have taken otherwise. This is especially true of resea...

Meagan and Julie went Live in The VBAC Link Community Facebook Group answering your questions. They recorded the conversation to share with you on the podcast today. Topics include: Risks of VBAC, Repeat Cesarean, and CBACCook versus Foley CathetersCervical lipsMembrane sweepsVBA2C and VBAMCCPDThank you for sending in your questions! An educated birth is an empowered one. You've got this, Women of Strength!Additional LinksThe VBAC Link Blog: VBAC vs Repeat CesareanCook versus Foley Catheter StudyEBB 151: Updated Evidence on the Pros and Cons of Membrane SweepingACOG Article: VBACThe VBAC Link Blog: VBA2CNeeded WebsiteFull Transcript under Episode Details Meagan: Hey, hey everybody! Guess what? It's November which is one of my favorite months because it is my birthday month. I have forever and ever loved birthday months so this is going to be a great month because it is my birthday month. Today we are kicking it off with questions and answers with myself and Julie. Hey, Julie. Julie: Hey, I'm so excited to be here. Meagan: Welcome back. We're going to get right into this review and get some of these great questions answered. We know you guys have so many questions. This review is from bunnyfolife777. It says, “So much hope.” It says, “I'm 16 weeks pregnant and shooting for my VBAC. I've been in The VBAC Link group on Facebook for over a year, but I've only just started listening to the podcast. I don't know why I waited. I'm bawling now just two episodes in. The statistics and advice you share are golden. I'm going to listen to it again and take notes this time. I'm scared about having to advocate for myself living abroad where most doctors push for C-sections so I'm thankful I can arm myself with the knowledge through The VBAC Link. Thank you.”Oh, that makes me so happy. We're going to be talking about statistics on this podcast episode today. Julie: You know I love a good statistic. Meagan: I know. You are the statistic junkie. Julie: I'm a nerd. Meagan: Okay, okay Julie. I love having you back on the show. It just feels so natural. Julie: It's fun. Meagan: It is fun. It's so fun so thank you for being willing to join me again on these random episodes. As we were saying, we are really just wanting to answer some of these questions. So yeah. What is one of the questions right here that you love that you are like, “Let's start this off with”?Julie: Okay, so gosh. I mean, there are so many good ones. I feel like we've talked about a lot of these things many, many times over the years, but I feel like every time we talk about them, we get a new perspective in. There is new information and new evidence. Not everyone goes and listens to every single one of the episodes although lots of people do, but I think it's fun to revisit some of these things. I don't know. There are so many that stuck out to me. VBAC vs Repeat Cesarean vs CBACOne thing that we haven't really talked about directly in this way is, is it really safer to give birth vaginally? I mean, yes. It is. We can go over that but I really like the second part of that question which is, “What if that labor doesn't work and goes to a C-section? Is that more dangerous?” I want to talk about that because we talk about VBAC is safer than a repeat Cesarean statistically. We are talking about all of the numbers when we talk about all of the different things that could go wrong between vaginal birth and Cesarean birth then actually, for the second, whether you choose VBAC or repeat Cesarean, the statistics are actually not that much different as far as safety goes. VBAC is slightly safer overall, but there really isn't a big enough difference to say, “You should absolutely do this.” Right? That's where your intuition comes in. But if you want more than two kids, the more C-sections you have, the higher the chance you have of having severe complications. By the time you get to your fourth or fifth C-section, you have a 1 in 3 chance of having a major medical intervention during your Cesarean. I feel like so many times we as people educating about birth or talking about birth talk about just those two things. VBAC and repeat Cesarean, but there's actually a third thing that's worth talking about. That is a TOLAC– I know it's kind of a trigger word for some, but it's just a medical term we're going to use here– that ends in a repeat Cesarean. Meagan: Yes, because we know that happens. Julie: We know it happens. It does happen. Meagan: It happened with me. Julie: Sometimes it's medically necessary. Sometimes it's not, and you just don't know. We've got to put it in the order of three things. First, the safest is VBAC or a vaginal birth. Second is a scheduled C-section and the third is a VBAC attempt or a TOLAC that ends in a repeat Cesarean. We also call that a CBAC or a Cesarean birth after a Cesarean. Now, if you labor and then have to have a C-section for whatever reason, there are more risks with that including postpartum hemorrhage or bleeding, and needing a blood transfusion. Obviously, the risks to baby are pretty similar but it's just harder to operate on a uterus that is contracting. You're more likely to bleed because that uterus is contracting. Sometimes, if it's an emergency situation, the providers have to do things like a special scar or a special type of incision or they have to put you under general anesthesia. That has more risks in and of itself. I feel like that's a really valid question that she asked. What if? What if? There are always what if's, but what is safer? Meagan: Right, right. For patients or parents that are going for a TOLAC, a trial of labor after a Cesarean, and then may require or end up going to have that Cesarean, there is also a slightly increased risk of postpartum infection. Julie: Yes. Meagan: And also some possible complications. You just touched on it a little bit, but when a uterus is already contracting– so I'm going to backpedal a little bit. When we go in for an elective Cesarean, typically we are not already in labor. We're not already having contractions so performing a Cesarean on a contracting uterus can possibly cause some issues there as well. That is sometimes why a lot of providers don't want an elective Cesarean to even go to 40 weeks or past. They want to have an elective earlier on. That may also help give you some understanding of why providers are saying that. But yeah, it just slightly increases in other ways. Yeah. Anyway, keep going. Julie: No, I love that. I just don't think we've ever– I mean, we do in our course and things like that. We talk about it directly, but that's something to consider. I think that's also really important. I feel like it adds the extra layer of where you want to make sure you have a really good provider because if you have a provider who is not really supportive or who is giving you tons of red flags or who is saying that you have to induce because of a big baby– I'm surprised that big baby isn't in some of these questions, to be honest. We can talk about that a little bit later, but it's really important. That's something to consider. It's all about weighing the risks and what risks are you more comfortable with taking on? Are you more comfortable taking on the risk of going into a vaginal birth attempt– you want to try for a VBAC– and having the possibility of it ending in a repeat Cesarean? The possibility of it ending in a repeat Cesarean varies depending on where you are birthing. If it is a home birth, you have a 10% chance of it ending in a Cesarean. Statistically, nationwide, you have a 30-40% chance of it ending in a repeat Cesarean. But if you have a really good provider, there's probably only a 10-20% chance of it ending in a repeat Cesarean. Sometimes, if you have a really bad provider, you might be looking at a 50 or 60 or 70% chance of having a repeat Cesarean. So what is an acceptable risk for one person is not for another. If that just sounds too scary for you or are risks that you are not willing to take, then maybe scheduling a repeat Cesarean is the right choice for you and that's okay. But if you're a diehard and want to fight the system to prove everybody wrong no matter what the costs are, then maybe you just want to have a VBAC and that's okay. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's also probably not a very healthy way of thinking. I was like that. I'm like, “I'm getting my VBAC and I'm going to do everything I can to safely set up the best chances for me and my baby.” That's why I ultimately chose an out-of-hospital birth with a really amazing provider who had tons of experience in all types of birth situations. But I don't know. I think that's super important and something to consider. We're not trying to scare anyone here, but we are never going to lie to you. We're never going to dance around the issues. We're never going to sugarcoat things. Meagan: Yeah. Yeah. I think that was a good question. Okay, well if it really is safer to have a vaginal birth, what's the safety here? Yeah. I really loved that question a lot. Julie: I wish I had some statistics off of the top of my head, to be honest. I'm pretty sure we wrote a blog about it. VBAC versus a repeat Cesarean. Meagan: Okay. I'm going to bounce to this next question– Julie: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I have something. Meagan: Did you find a stat? Julie: No. Well, yes actually. I found the blog. If you guys want to know more about the blogs, I'm not going to get into it because we want to move on to all of these other questions. Our wonderful transcriber, Paige, is going to put a link to the blog in the show notes so make sure you check it out and it goes in super, really big detail about all of those statistics, and pros and cons for all of those things. I say our transcriber, but you know what I mean. I feel like it's still us. It's still we, right? I don't know. I'm never going to not feel like that. Maybe one day. No, probably not. I miss it so much. Meagan: Probably not. No, probably not. Julie: Sorry, let's go on. Cook vs Foley CatheterMeagan: No, you're fine. So I want to talk about catheters. Not catheters to drain urine, but the catheters to help with an induction. Someone asked, “What's the difference?” We'll even hear in Utah a Cook versus a Foley. A Foley catheter can also be the type that actually goes into your bladder through your urethra and drains urine but there's also a Foley catheter that can help induce labor. There's Cook and Foley. One of the questions was, “What is the difference between the two?” Really, the only difference is that a Cook has a double-balloon and the Foley is not a double. There's just one. If you can– I don't even know how to give this image. How would you give this image of what a Cook catheter is like? The catheter with two balloons on it? I don't know, like ice cream? Oh, you're muted. Julie: I'm sitting over here dancing. Meagan: She's dancing in this image and I'm like, “She's saying something.” I'm thinking of a double scoop of ice cream.Julie: I'm thinking it's kind of like a barbell. Yeah. Or like a barbell, right? If you think of a cartoon barbell with the balls on the end but much shorter. Meagan: Yeah. Both of them are inflated with saline. It's inserted through the cervix, the balloons are inflated, and then they put pressure mechanically onto the cervix which causes pressure and dilation and effacement and things like that. Yeah. It's been a really long time since these have been being used. We will see, once in a while, providers say that a catheter, Cook or a Foley, is a contraindication for someone who wants to have a VBAC. That is kind of hard. It's really interesting. It's just a balloon that goes in. There's no medicine that is put in at all. It's just saline and like I said, it's a mechanical dilation. So if you are curious about methods of induction that your provider is comfortable with, I would encourage you before you get to the 37th, 38th, 39th, 40th, 41st, and 42nd week of pregnancy to discuss with your provider more about a Cook catheter and what they are comfortable with. It is really hard because sometimes, those catheters can be one of the best ways to help induce a cervix or a TOLAC for someone who is wanting to go for a VBAC because they can't always just do other ripening aids and this can definitely help with the cervical ripening to help get to that further progress of having a baby. Julie: I love it. I think it's silly sometimes how providers will not induce with a Foley for VBAC. I just don't get it because there's no solid evidence that supports not doing that. I just think– me and you, we've seen so many VBACs induced with that. It's been fine and healthy. There is just not anything out there. I know every provider has their things that they will and won't do. If you have a provider that won't do that, then you might want to talk to another provider. Meagan: Now that we kind of know that there are two different types, let's talk a little bit about the differences. There is a difference in what they do. Why would we even use them? Which one is better? I think that is a big question. Which one is better to use? I'm just going to tell you after some evidence that a Cook catheter for cervical ripening has greater results. What have you seen, Julie? What have you seen in the past?Julie: Honestly, I'm trying to think if I've ever seen anybody use the Cook catheter. I think I've only seen Foleys to be honest. I'm trying to think back. Maybe there has been one but I just can't think of any. Meagan: I've only seen one. Yep, I've only seen one and it was up at the University Hospital here in Utah. They used that. She was barely half of a centimeter dilated and 30% effaced, very little. They used that for softening really, but the Cook catheter, I think, through studies has shown that it is more effective or has greater cervical ripening compared to the Foley. However, in fact, I'm going to hurry and pull this up. I'm just going to read this. It shows, “The duration from the balloon insertion to it exiting and delivery was significantly shorter using a Foley catheter.” Julie: Interesting. Meagan: Yeah. So Cook catheter has a greater result of actually ripening the cervix, but the Foley has a greater success rate overall from start to finish. I mean, I have seen so many people with Foleys. It sounds weird because sometimes, everyone is like, “You're suggesting Pitocin?” I'm not suggesting it. I'm just saying that I have seen a Foley placed with Pitocin at 4mL, just a little bit, and it is insane sometimes how great the result is. Sometimes when the Foley comes out– maybe you've seen this– it's a mechanical dilation so it kind of relaxes just a little. It's not like we go backward. It just kind of relaxes like it's overstretched and it relaxes. Then we have to catch up, right? But I have seen where with there is a tiny, tiny lift of Pitocin being involved–Julie: You don't have that relaxing as much, yeah. Meagan: Yeah. I don't see where it's like, “Oh, you're a 4,” and then they check and they're like, “Well, you're kind of a 3.” Listeners, I just want you to know that that's a thing too. If a Foley comes out, remember that it's a mechanical dilation in your cervix. It may be stretchy-stretchy, but you might not be a full 4 or whatever. So talking about top to bottom, Julie you just mentioned that a little bit ago. With me, do you want to talk about that?Julie: Yeah. Well, I mean, the Cook catheter has two balloons essentially that they fill up with saline. The Cook has two balloons. The Foley has one. The idea with the Cook catheter is that it puts pressure on both ends of the cervix. My gosh, I don't know if we even said how they put it in. You insert a catheter in through the cervix and then the Cook has two balloons on either end that they inflate so it pushes to soften and open the cervix. Then, the Foley only has one balloon that they put. They insert it into the top through the cervix inside of the uterus and inflate it there with the balloon. They tape it to your leg and it pulls. Meagan: They tug it. Julie: You've got to tug it and it pulls down. It provides a lot of pressure so that the cervix can soften and open. All of my clients have just been pretty uncomfortable with it in. They feel some relief when it comes out because then it just falls out. It pulls out at some point. Honestly, I don't know. This is maybe making me sound like an idiot but do they tape the Cook catheter to the leg or not? I don't know. Meagan: I did not see it taped to the leg. Julie: I'm wondering if maybe that's why the Foley is more successful because you're having just one downward motion instead of two pressures going toward each other. I don't know. I don't know. Meagan: Yeah, maybe. It's kind of interesting because with the Foley, every 20-30 minutes, they're wanting you to pull on it. Julie: I don't know if they do that with the Cook. Meagan: I don't either because we haven't seen enough. Julie: Yeah. Meagan: So if you're listening today, go comment in today's episode. If you had a Cook catheter, let us know what happened. Tell us about it. Tell us what your experience was. I think they said in the study that really, there was no significant difference in the outcomes specifically between the two having more Pitocin or the mode of delivery or anything like that. It's just that the Cook catheter had a greater result of cervical ripening and the Foley catheter maybe shortened the duration but there wasn't any crazy, significant difference of mode of delivery or your for sure had to use Pitocin with a Cook or anything like that. So that's interesting. Julie: Yeah, interesting. The point is that it is safe for VBAC. This is another thing. I'm going on a teeny little soapbox that I'm going to get off really fast, but why does it take the burn of proof to show that something is or is not evidence-based or is a reasonable patient? Rely on the patient. If your provider says, “No, it's dangerous. We can't do Foley for a VBAC,” make them show you why. Ask them where the source is coming from. I don't understand why we have to bring the stuff to show that it is safe. Why? It's stupid. Meagan: I don't know. I don't know. Why? Julie: Why? Meagan: I mean, even the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology says– Julie: Yeah, and that's ACOG's journey. Meagan: They say, “Foley catheter did not increase the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC.” It says that. “Similar, uterine scar dehiscence was not associated with a Foley catheter.” I don't ever want to make it sound like we are bashing a provider or it's a show bashing providers, but we're having providers tell people that they have zero option to be induced especially if there's a medical reason. Sometimes there's a medical reason. We've got preeclampsia or something is going on, but this mom wants to have a trial of labor and a VBAC, but then her cervix isn't super great for induction. We're being robbed of these options. They even say, “The data shows the Foley catheter is a safe tool for mechanical dilation in women undergoing a trial of labor after a Cesarean.” If your provider is saying that you're not a candidate or it's a contraindication for VBAC, then maybe I invite you to have a discussion with them. Right? An open discussion of, “Okay, what I have learned is that it's not necessarily a contraindication. Is there new evidence that we're not aware of?” Maybe there is. Maybe there's new evidence. Julie: There's not. Meagan: I know, but right? Maybe they have secret evidence. Julie: Give them the benefit of the doubt, right? Meagan: Is there new evidence that we're not aware of and is there any way that we can have a conversation about it? Can we talk about this because if it is, then okay? But if not–Julie: Well, and honestly, gosh. I just think that it's just something that they've heard or something that their practice does or something that the hospital says. You know, I mean, we all do it in our lives. Our mom says, “Oh, this and this. Oh, you should never cook with refined sugar. You should always use granulated sugar.” I don't know. I'm not a baker so it's probably not a good example. But you know, and then you go throughout your life like, “Oh, my mom says you should never cook with this type of sugar,” but that type of sugar is totally fine. Someone you trust had told you that so it's just ingrained in your belief. I have those things. Meagan: It's like the trans-fat argument. Julie: Yes. It's like, my gosh. How many beliefs do we hold that maybe we know they're just silly, but it's just something we've known for so long that doing it otherwise would feel so foreign to us. There are so many things in the system like that where the providers aren't meaning to do harm, it's just the way that they've been taught. It doesn't give them an excuse. Oh my gosh, there was a quote the other day that popped up in my feed. I was arguing online with some photographer about birth photography and I got a little heated because I was super tired because I'd been to three births in four days and I was awake for 16 hours through the night. Anyway, but a little while later, some unrelated person posted this quote in their stories and I like it because it goes along with what I was just talking about. It says, “Don't assume malice. Assume ignorance. Life is easier. The world is kinder and you can educate. Actual malice is pretty rare, I find.” Then somebody else commented and said, “I always remember Hanlon's Razor. Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice as an explanation. With that said, never forget Fred Clark's lot either. Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. There is a certain point at which ignorance becomes malice at which there is simply no way to become that ignorant except deliberately and maliciously.” I'm going to forward this to you. Meagan: I was just going to say will you forward that because that is amazing. Never just assume malice. Julie: Assume ignorance. They just don't know. It's okay because there are lots of things we don't know too but when it gets to the point where you're just completely refusing to see that there's any other way, then that's where it gets to be malice and aggressive. But I love a provider or a nurse when I'm in the delivery room doing peanut ball or Spinning Babies and the nurse is like, “Oh, tell me more about that.” That is a position of maybe ignorance and they want to learn and do better. They just don't know those things. But when you have a nurse come in who says, “Oh, we don't use the peanut ball before 7 centimeters because it doesn't do anything,” that is a malicious form of ignorance. Meagan: Yeah. Yeah. Okay, I love that so, so much. Thank you for sharing that. Julie: You're welcome. I'm glad I screenshotted it. Cervical LipsMeagan: Me too. Okay, one of the questions is about cervical lips. Julie: Mmm. Meagan: I know, it's a good question. It's hard because it happens and it's frustrating if it doesn't go away. Right? It's like, if I make it to 9.5 centimeters and I have this lip that will not go away, one– why doesn't it go away? Why does it happen? Two– how can I get it away? What are some ways? It sucks if that is the only reason why a Cesarean happens. Julie: Well, first do you want to say what a cervical lip is just in case people don't know? Meagan: Yep, yep. Julie: Oh, me? Well, a cervical lip is just where your cervix is almost fully dilated, but there is just a little sliver of it, or part of it– so if you imagine a crescent moon shape, where part of your cervix is all the way gone behind baby's head and there is just a little sliver of it on some part of the baby's head coming over. Just a teeny bit. Just like a lip. Just like a little lip. Meagan: Yes. So when we have cervical lips, sometimes pressure on that part of the cervix helps it melt away and thin. We work through positions like what Julie was saying by using a peanut ball or we make you more central through a squat or sitting on the toilet. Sometimes it's an anterior lip. Sometimes it's way on the side. Sometimes it's a little puffier in the back. Sometimes we will use positions to help get rid of that lip.But it's really hard because sometimes even through positions, that lip sometimes doesn't go away. Sometimes it can be massaged or it can be advanced. I'm happy to continue but I want to give you an opportunity to talk too. Julie: No, you're good. Meagan: But advancing, right? Julie: The provider will hold it during a contraction and push it back. That's really painful if you don't have an epidural. If you have an epidural, that's a good way to do it. The medical system is going to hate me for saying this, but I've also seen people push through a contraction when they have a cervical lip and it slips right over baby's head. You don't want to push too much with a cervical lip also because it can cause the cervix to swell if it's a positional issue. There are a whole bunch of things you can do, but Meagan, I think you were right on track when you were talking about movement, positions, squatting, and all of those things to help put that pressure on and help straighten baby's head out. I mean, it's not always because of the baby's head, but it could be. Squatting and putting that pressure down is just going to really help. Meagan: Yeah, so when a provider is holding it and helping it, I call it an advance. Advancing it over the baby's head. Sometimes it just needs to slip over the baby's head. It's so stretchy. Julie: It will stay there. Meagan: Sometimes, it's so stretchy that it will just go away. I'm always giving sound effects on this podcast. Sometimes it's like we're trying, trying, and trying, but then we have possible issues because then we're swelling. We're aggravating it. It's tissue. It's the cervix so it can get bogged and it can swell. So if that is happening and your provider is like, “Yes. I think through this push, I can push it. I can help advance it over this baby's head and it's going to go away and we're going to have a baby,” great. It's worth trying. But if it's over and over and over again and we're advancing it and it's just not going, we are risking it to swell. So yeah. Movement. This sounds weird too. Here I am suggesting Pitocin again. Sometimes a little stronger of a contraction, just a little bit stronger of a contraction and a little bit of a lift can just put the amount of pressure on the cervix or cause the cervix to continue dilating. Then the cervix is done and you can turn the Pitocin off. That's always an option to say, “Okay. We've done this, this, and this. Let's move on.” Some providers, usually out-of-hospital providers– Julie, I don't know if you've seen this– will place Arnica. Julie: Yeah. I have seen that. Meagan: If it's starting to feel puffy or maybe have done advancing a couple of times. Julie: I love Arnica, man. It is my favorite. Arnica gel. Meagan: I love it too. Julie: Love it. Meagan: Yes. I love it. Sometimes providers will do some Arnica up there to help reduce inflammation and swelling and things like that. Cervical lips can happen for no reason really other than just it's happening. People say, “Oh, sometimes it's baby's position.” Again, maybe we want more pressure. Sometimes it's the lack of intensity. If I remember right, if you've ever had a LEEP procedure–Julie: Yeah, like some scarring on the cervix can cause that. Meagan: Yes. Yeah. So a LEEP procedure or maybe really bad cervical tearing or trauma to the cervix can create less elasticity. I don't know if that's the right word. But it can cause a cervical lip. I've also seen– this is more for the edema again on the Arnica– Benadryl. Providers give someone Benadryl because it's an antihistamine for swelling. Yeah. There are so many things that you can talk to your provider about. If you have a cervical lip, oh. Go ahead. Julie: I was going to say that sometimes, just doing nothing. Meagan: Just waiting, yes. Julie: Sometimes in labor, even us as doulas, we see, “Oh, well it looks like contractions are coupling. Let's do some abdominal lifts.” But sometimes, that's an intervention. It just is. Spinning Babies® is an intervention. It's a more natural intervention, but sometimes, maybe a lot of the time, you just need to leave it alone. I don't know. I saw this post on social media the other day that was talking about, “I hate Spinning Babies® because it's an intervention and all of these doulas and midwives are like, ‘Oh, let's do Spinning Babies®. Let's do Spinning Babies®.' It's an intervention just like Pitocin or whatever.”I don't think it's just like Pitocin, but it kind of takes away from the trust of the natural labor process when you're like, “Oh, you've got to fix this.” It's kind of, in a way, saying that we don't trust the natural labor process as much. But there are some times when it is good and beneficial to do those things. There are some times when you can't just trust the natural labor process alone, but a lot of times, you can. A lot of times, we just need to let these things be and they will resolve themselves. This is a big thing where knowing all of your options then trusting your intuition and having someone to guide you like a doula will help you know which is the right thing for you whether you want to try squatting, try different positions, try Arnica gel, or just leave it be for a little while. There's no right answer. Meagan: There is no right answer and there are these things that we can do. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't, but we want you to know that there are things you can do. Sometimes those things just do nothing. Absolutely. Membrane SweepsSo let's talk about sweeping membranes. Talking about interventions, sweeping the membranes. I've heard it called a sweep and a scrape. Julie: Ew. Meagan: Yeah. People say “scraping the membrane”. If you don't know what sweeping the membranes is, it's when a provider will insert typically their fingers inside the cervix and separate the membrane of the amniotic sac from the cervix and do a little sweep around. That releases hormones like prostaglandins and things like that. Sometimes, it's used to induce. It's a more gentle– I don't know if that's how you say it– way of inducing. One of the questions, Julie, was, “Does it work? What are the pros and cons? Should I do this?” We do have a lot of providers that will say, “Oh, we can just strip your membranes.” What do you think? What do you say? Julie: Evidence Based Birth® used to have a great article on this. The one thing that I– okay, I love Evidence Based Birth®. Meagan: I think she still does. Julie: This is the thing though, they took away all of their articles and replaced them with just their podcast transcripts. I wish that they would have their regular blog articles still instead of just having the podcast and the transcripts which makes me a little bit sad because then you have to read through the whole thing in order to find what you are looking for. But I do love me some Evidence Based Birth®.Listen, Evidence Based Birth® does say that there is research that shows that starting regular membrane sweeps at 37 weeks of pregnancy and doing them, I think it's twice a week until delivery can shorten your pregnancy by one to two days. Personally, for me, that's not enough evidence to want to do them because you are getting 10+ cervical membrane sweeps. That is a lot for just a one or two-day shorter pregnancy. But for some people, that might be worth it to them. It's just one of those things where there is that evidence that shows, but this is the thing. Doing one membrane sweep at 40 weeks is not going to shorten your pregnancy by one or two days. It's not going to shorten your pregnancy at all. This is what the studies show. There might be some anecdotal things or your water might break prematurely and that might kickstart labor, but the one-off or the one or two membrane sweeps here and there is not statistically proven to shorten that. You have to start super early. Another thing I want to say–Meagan: Two days to have to avoid going in or having it massaged or swept twice a week? Julie: Yeah, one to two days. It would cause you so much pain and cramping and it would make you miserable. Meagan: That's the thing I wanted to say. Sometimes cervical sweeps or membrane sweeps can actually promote prodromal labor. Julie: Yeah. Meagan: Right? We're up there and we're disrupting the cervix and making it think that we need to start contracting, but our body is not really ready to labor so we're contracting, contracting, contracting, and getting exhausted, but labor is not happening. Then the next day, we're sweeping again or we're contracting again, but then really, we don't have a baby for 2-3 weeks. Right? We're exhausted when labor starts. Julie: Yeah. Meagan: Like you said, they can hurt. If our cervix is posterior, especially at 37 weeks, it's a lot more likely for our cervix to be posterior than it is anterior, they have to go in, back, and around to get to the cervix and sweep. It's not just in and out. That can cause a lot of discomfort that's really unnecessary. One of the questions is, “Does it possibly increase infection?” We are inserting something into the cervix and sweeping around, maybe yeah. Julie: Well, here's the thing though. I'm just skimming through this podcast article on Evidence Based Birth®'s website. If you want to find it, it's super easy. Just Google “Evidence Based Birth® Membrane Sweeping” and it will pop up right there for you. Meagan: They give you updated evidence on it. Don't they have it updated? It was in 2020. Julie: Yeah. It's in 2020 for sure. They break it down. There are 44 studies that they look at. Some of them show no difference. Some of them show 9% increase in artificial rupture of membranes. Premature and accidental. There are a whole bunch of varying interpretations here, but none of them are too conclusive as far as it causing that significant of a difference in when labor will start. Yes. Go and read it if you're curious. It's really good. Or you can listen to it, I guess as well. There is great stuff there. Meagan: Yeah. It's Episode 151 on Evidence Based Birth®. Yeah. Julie: Yeah. Meagan: Yeah. So I think just closing out this question as a whole, it's a personal preference. If you want to try something to encourage labor to begin on more of a natural basis, then it could be worth it. But for my personal suggestion to my doula clients and what I would do– again, I'm me. I'm not you. If I was being faced with a medical reason to induce or a concern, but I was going to be induced anyway, I would maybe try it. Does that make sense? If I was already going to be induced for a medical reason, then I would probably try it. Julie: One or two days might be beneficial for you at that point. Meagan: One or two days might be beneficial. If I can avoid going in and being hooked up to a Pit drip, then that might be better for me. That's one of my things. If I was facing an actual induction, I maybe would try it. For my actual birth, my midwife wanted to. She said, “Hey, why don't you come in and we'll strip your membranes?” I said, “Nope.” I didn't feel like I needed it. I don't know if it would weaken my membranes or accidentally rupture my membranes because that is a possible consequence. We can induce infection. We can accidentally break our water. We can weaken it as we separate it. So those types of things, for me, were not worth it. I was good to just keep going as I was. Julie: Yeah. VBA2CMeagan: Okay. What are some other questions? I know we have a couple more before we end. Julie: There's one about VBAC after two C-sections I know. Meagan: Oh yeah. Yes. Julie: Let's talk about that one. “Why do so many providers not support VBAC after two C-sections? What does the evidence say?” Meagan: Mhmm. Well, the evidence says that it is reasonable. Julie: Yeah. It is. Even ACOG says that it's reasonable. Meagan: Yep. Yep. Yep. Julie: I feel like this goes back to what we were talking to about before with that quote. I feel like most providers have just been told that it is not safe, so they say that it's not safe, so they don't do it and they don't support it. They throw around terms like, “Oh, it doubles your chance of uterine rupture. 50% chance of uterine rupture,” and things like that, right? We have the system that is just content on not wanting to have or support any evidence that will go contrary to the things that they've been taught. You see with the ARRIVE trial. We have been throwing evidence at providers that so many things reduce your chances of C-section for years. Right? Like waiting for labor to start on its own, laboring at home as long as possible, avoiding Pitocin, avoiding elective inductions, and all of those things. We've been throwing these things at providers for years about nice, safe, non-medical ways to avoid Cesareans and providers weren't interested in it all. Then all of a sudden, the ARRIVE trial comes out and they're like, “Oh, inducing at 39 weeks decreases Cesarean rates,” which, it doesn't by the way. As soon as providers are shown something that reinforces things they already know and do, they're like, “Oh, yeah. That's something I can get behind. I can do this because I already do this all of the time anyways. I already schedule inductions. I already do Pitocin. I already do these surgeries.”So when they're shown something that will reinforce their beliefs and things that they already know how to do, they're on board with it. But my gosh, you try and show them these nonmedical ways of improving birth outcomes and nobody wants to buy it because they're like, “Oh well, that's just–”. It's not how they've been trained. Meagan: It's not how they've been trained and sometimes they've seen a scary outcome. Julie: Yeah, of course. Meagan: Studies do say that women requesting for a trial of labor, a VBAC and having a VBAC, should absolutely be counseled and absolutely be offered an opportunity because we know that the success rate is as high of 71%, if not higher. 71% or higher, right? The uterine rupture rate is not much higher and if you compare VBAC after two Cesareans, maternal morbidity is really comparable to a repeat Cesarean. It's low. It's overall safe and reasonable to have a vaginal birth after two Cesareans. Julie: The risks to baby are similar. The risks to mom are actually higher in a repeat Cesarean like increased blood loss, pulmonary embolism, and maternal death is still incredibly low. Maternal death is incredibly low. We're talking about .000-something-percent, but when you're looking at it against VBAC, it's 10 times more likely for a mother to die during a Cesarean birth during a vaginal birth. I don't want to scare you because 10 times more likely sounds like a super scary number like, “Oh, you're twice as likely to have a stillbirth after you're 41 weeks,” but it's an incredibly small increase and incredibly small risk already. It's the same thing with this. It's an incredibly small risk but we don't talk about those things. Meagan: It's even harder to find evidence for vaginal birth after three or more Cesareans. That's where we don't have a lot of information. Most providers out there, to be honest, if you've had three Cesareans, it's going to be harder to find someone that will allow you to give birth vaginally. It's so hard. But it still doesn't mean that you're absolutely not a candidate or that it is a ginormous risk that completely risks everybody out. People do it and again, we were talking about it earlier. If it's a risk that you are willing to take and it's a comfortable risk for you, then that says something. Yeah. VBAC after two Cesareans is totally reasonable and totally possible. We've got lots of stories on the podcast. I'm living and walking proof. Julie: And lots of stories of VBAC after three or four Cesareans too. Meagan: Three or four, yeah. Yeah. It's totally possible. If a provider is trying to tell you that your risk of rupture really is 50-60%, then that is one– not a provider that you should probably be going to for a VBAC, but two– something that probably needs to be changed because maybe they just are really uneducated on the evidence. We're looking at just barely over 1%. It's really low. Julie: And not even that, there are several different studies. ACOG sites two studies in their practice bulletin and one of the studies shows no difference in rupture rates between VBAC and VBAC after two C-sections. The other one shows a slightly higher increase. I don't remember what the numbers are off of the top of my  head, but VBAC Link does have a blog on VBAC after two C-sections. You can probably just Google “VBA2C” and it will pull up in the first or second search results, but I'm sure that Paige will probably also link it in the show notes for us. So take a look at those statistics because even ACOG says that and if ACOG says something, why are we not behind that evidence that ACOG published? Meagan: I know. It's so funny because ACOG goes through a lot to publish these things, these articles and journals, but then we're not having providers– I'm going to say midwives too. We have midwives that don't follow these practices. We have providers that don't follow it. The evidence is there. They're showing that it's there. Why aren't we doing it? CPDI know we're almost out of time, but I just really want to talk about CPD a little bit because lately in our inbox, we have been seeing a lot of people being told that they hear the stories. They see the stories and they wish they could, but they were diagnosed with CPD and they can't. They can't get a baby out of their pelvis. For those who don't know what CPD is, it's cephalopelvic disproportion. It's just pretty much saying that your pelvis is too small. Yeah. Julie and I personally have both been diagnosed. Julie: Told that, yeah, in our op reports. Here's the thing about CPD. It's incredibly rare. It's incredibly rare and most of the time comes from growing up incredibly malnourished like in third-world countries so your bones grow in a deformed way or after a traumatic pelvic injury. It's very rare for a true CPD diagnosis to come from a normal, healthy person. You can't even diagnose it without pelvic imagery exam, like an actual scan. It's not even an x-ray. If you go, “My doctor gave me an x-ray and told me my pelvis is too small.” First of all, that's not the right way to diagnose it. Second of all, pelvises– your body is so pumped full of hormones that our pelvises expand. They literally move around as baby is coming down. Babies' heads overlap, the skulls and these bones in their heads overlap and squish together and smoosh together to come out of that pelvis. Your pelvis is opening in ways that it doesn't normally and babies' heads are smooshing together in ways that they never will again, so how are you even supposed to tell how much a pelvis is going to open and expand and how much a baby's head is going to smoosh together? I will die on that hill. Man, I will die on that hill. No. You were diagnosed with CPD and that's bull crap. That diagnosis was bull crap and unless you grew up in Africa or in these poor countries. All of these African women are still having babies. Sorry, that probably sounded a little bit bad. I didn't mean to say it like that. These women are still having babies even though they were malnourished. You have to have a severe, severe deformity from malnourishment. Rickets is the disease that comes along usually wth CPD or a traumatic pelvic injury like maybe you got in a car accident. Meagan: Thrown off a horse. Julie: Or got kicked hard in there somewhere sometime by something. I don't know. But it's just not as common as people are saying. It's not. Meagan: Right. Yeah. It's just overused. So if you have been told that, I hope that through the evidence– we're going to have links here in the show notes to all of these studies and things. I hope you know that your pelvis is perfect. Julie: Your pelvis is perfect. Let's make a shirt. “My pelvis is perfect.” Make it a shirt. Do it. “My pelvis is perfect. Hashtag why we VBAC.” Meagan: Right. Okay, well thank you for being here. Thanks everybody for submitting your questions. We're going to keep doing these. We're going to bring the questions and answers. We're going to talk about them. We're going to talk about some of the statistics and the evidence behind some of this. So yeah. Make sure to watch out on our Instagram if you haven't followed us on Instagram, and I'll make sure to let you know when the next Q&A with Julie and I will be. Julie: If you're in Utah looking for a birth photographer, come and find me. My Instagram is @juliefrancombirth or you can find me at www.juliefrancom.com. I would love to support you and I would love it even more if Meagan and I could support you. So reach out, we'll give you a deal. We'll hook you up because we love being in the birth space together. Meagan: Yes, we do. We just got our first one the other day and it was awesome. Julie: It was awesome. ClosingWould you like to be a guest on the podcast? Tell us about your experience at thevbaclink.com/share. For more information on all things VBAC including online and in-person VBAC classes, The VBAC Link blog, and Meagan's bio, head over to thevbaclink.com. Congratulations on starting your journey of learning and discovery with The VBAC Link.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-vbac-link/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Oct 27, 2023 – After this week's wrap-up with Ryan Puplava, Financial Sense Newshour discusses the market outlook with Oppenheimer's Ari Wald followed by a wide-ranging tour of the macro landscape with noted strategist Greg Weldon...

Scott Duvall shares three things we must “sufficiently retain in remembrance”: the past, the future, and our Savior, Jesus Christ. Click here to view the speech page.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe and review at Apple Podcasts and/or Spotify. Or wherever!This week I welcome back psychedelic film-maker and culture-cultivator Mitch Schultz, Director of the legendary documentary DMT: The Spirit Molecule, alongside our mutual co-conspirator, experience design consultant and psychedelic provocateur Shanta Stevens.  The two of them have formed a nucleus at Uniphi Studio around which a new transmedia documentary project is emerging — The Conscious Molecule — which will reflect on the decade-plus since Schultz's groundbreaking documentary on the science and philosophy of DMT to look at these themes through a MUCH wider aperture. The three of us go deep and broad on a very far-ranging constellation of topics:(0:00:01) - AI, Psychonautics, Digital Media, Language Models, and The Third Western Psychedelic Revolution(0:17:25) - The Future of AI-Human Cooperation(0:26:42) - Consciousness, Complexity, and Panpsychism(0:31:28) - Randomness, Entanglement, Decentralization, and The Conscious Molecule(0:38:46) - Exploring Consciousness and Futures(0:42:23) - The Future of Journalism and The Role of Independent Documentaries(0:47:55) - Psychedelic Therapy and The Overview Effect(0:51:43) - Transcension Hypothesis, UFOs, and Quantum Physics(0:57:43) - Altered States, Self-Reprogramming, Initiations, and Integration(1:03:32) - Technology's Impact on Consciousness and Humanity(1:13:08) - DataViz, Hyperdimensional Passports, The Future of Identity, and The Role of CommunityIf that sounds like a whirlwind, it is!  Find a cozy recliner — and maybe an eye mask — and book an appointment with your favorite peer support/integration counselor, because this is going to be a ride…NOTE: I'm delighted to drop this episode in the midst of a smoking hot debate about what does and does not qualify as “pseudoscience” in the research of consciousness (see coverage by Flora Graham and Erik Hoel).  LOL✨ Support Future Fossils & Feed My Kids:• Become a patron on Substack, Patreon, and/or Bandcamp for MANY extras, including a members-only FB Group and private channels on our Discord Server• Donate directly: @futurefossils on Venmo • $manfredmacx on CashApp • @michaelgarfield on PayPal• Browse my art and buy original paintings and prints (or commission new work)• Buy (NEARLY) all of the books we mention on the show at the Future Fossils Bookshop.org page• Buy the show's soundtrack (recorded live at Psychedelic Science 2023) on Bandcamp• Follow my music and awesome, eclectic playlists on Spotify✨ Special thanks to my friends at Noonautics.org for supporting both the show and pioneering research!✨ Mentions:“Cognition All The Way Down” by Daniel Dennett and Michael Levin James Oroc Seth Lloyd David Chalmers DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Rick Strassman Infoboros: Recursion Across Mind, Matter, and Information by Vidur Mishra Darwin's Pharmacy: Sex, Plants, and The Evolution of The Noosphere by Richard DoyleAlfred North Whitehead Gregory Bateson John Conway Bruce Damer Reggie Watts Melissa Etheridge Tommy Pallotta Klee Irwin ESPD '55 Wade Davis Dennis McKenna Psychedelic Science 2023 “Corporate Metabolism” by Paco Xander-Nathan William Shatner Mark Nelson Alien Information Theory: Psychedelic Drug Technologies and the Cosmic Game by Andrew Gallimore “The transcension hypothesis: Sufficiently advanced civilizations invariably leave our universe, and implications for METI and SETI” by John Smart Ramana Maharshi Ken Wilber The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life by Robert Kegan Michael Persinger Luminarium by Alex Shakar“Why Ibogaine Is Not The Answer To The Opioid Crisis” by Jonathan Dickinson and Dimitri Mugianis R. Buckminster Fuller Liv Boeree Meditation Death Match✨ Keywords:AI, Artificial Intelligence, Consciousness, Reality, Panpsychic Perspective, Materialist Neurobiological Model, Daniel Dennett, Michael Levin, Cognition All the Way Down, Ethical Implications, Human Development, Information Bombs, Digital Media, Psychonauts, Cyber Culture, Third Western Psychedelic Revolution, Kickstarter, Future Fossils, Album, AI Music Videos, Patreon, Substack, Evolution of Human Beings, Data Streams, Complexity of Systems, Empathy, Life System, Documentaries, Journalism, Hollywood Strike, Unions, Documentary Funding, International Multi-Billion Dollar Psychedelic Industry, UFO Phenomenon, Altered States, Self-Reprogramming, Technology Impact, Humanity, Hyperdimensional Passport, Metaphysical Stamps, Media Ecosystem, Visualizing Data Structures, Neurological Alignment, Spirit Taking Form This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit michaelgarfield.substack.com/subscribe

Fugitive arrested… Death Song / My Way… Alien corpses in Mexico… Scissors and Cavalcante… MTV VMA's … Susan Gibson Chaturbate… Pac Man interviewed after arrest… chewingthefat@theblaze.com New Covid Booster not free… FDA / decongestants don't work… www.blazetv.com/jeffy Promo code Jeffy Google monopoly trial… Sage Blair / actual sad story… Love note of the day… Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A listener questions my commitment to decentralization. Am I sufficiently secessionist? https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support http://learntruehistory.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/brion-mcclanahan/support

This week, Mohanad and Kate discuss the East Palestine train derailment. Then, Kate speaks in-depth with author Malcolm Harris on his new book "Palo Alto". show notes:  - https://www.levernews.com/buttigieg-pretends-hes-powerless-to-reduce-derailment-risks/ - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/why-capitalism-needs-sick-people.html Follow Malcolm on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BigMeanInternet Kate and Mohanad can be found on Twitter at @KateWillett and @MohanadElshieky Subscribe to the Patreon here: www.patreon.com/replyguys Hosts: Kate Willett and Mohanad Elshieky Producer: Genevieve Gearity Theme Song: Emily Frembgen and Kate Willett Artwork: Adrienne Lobl