Podcasts about tba

TBA

TBA

Poor old Seleucus IV. Quite a contrast from the jam-packed reign of Antiochus III. But did he start out from a worse position- or did he not have that certain je ne sais quoi? Let's unpack that in his recap.Sources for this episode:TBA

TBA

TBA

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

In the latest episode of BarBuzz, the TBA recognizes National Treatment Court Month with a conversation focused on Tennessee's recovery courts, mental health courts and veterans treatment courts. We are joined by Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Judges Tim Easter, Tom Greenholtz, Steven Sword and Stacy Street to discuss how treatment courts are helping address substance use and mental health challenges through accountability, rehabilitation and long-term recovery. The judges share insight from their experiences in prosecution, private practice, education and the trial bench while exploring the structure of treatment courts, the role attorneys play in advocating for participants and the challenges and successes facing recovery-focused programs across the state.    CLE course for "Drug Court 101" -  https://cle.tba.org/catalog/course/6793  

AI. You may have noticed it's everywhere now — in your phone, your fridge, the suspiciously enthusiastic email your boss "wrote" last Tuesday. And cinema, bless its little reactive heart, has been trying to warn us about this for fifty years. The problem is we keep not listening, partly because the warnings have so often arrived in the shape of a sexy lady robot, which is its own diagnosis of the problem.This week, Pete is joined by Chelsea Stardust and Tommy Metz III for a triptych spanning five decades of artificial intelligence horror: Demon Seed (1977), Cam (2018), and Companion (2025). Three films, one increasingly nervous question: what exactly are we asking of AI, and what does it keep becoming anyway?The conversation runs the lineage of synthetic women in cinema — a trope factory that stretches from Metropolis through The Stepford Wives, Blade Runner, Weird Science, Her, Ex Machina, M3GAN, and Subservience, with a foundational-film round that lands on WarGames and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Along the way: the paperclip maximizer as a way of understanding what Proteus actually is, the cultural weight of releasing a forced-pregnancy AI horror four years after Roe v. Wade, platform terms-of-use as the modern book of the vampire, and the genuinely surprising argument that the most hopeful film in the set is the one where a robot drives off into the sunset with all the money.There are detours, because of course there are: villain-era Jack Quaid, Lukas Gage doing the robot, Sophie Thatcher sliding her own intelligence to one hundred percent, and Tommy's new and frankly concerning bedtime ritual.The films:Demon Seed (1977), dir. Donald Cammell, adapted from the Dean Koontz novel, starring Julie ChristieCam (2018), dir. Daniel Goldhaber, written by Isa Mazzei, starring Madeline BrewerCompanion (2025), dir. Drew Hancock, produced by Zach CreggerAlso referenced: Colossus: The Forbin Project, Westworld (1973), Rosemary's Baby, The Omen, Get Out, Promising Young Woman, The Invitation, Assassination Nation, Barbarian. (00:00) - Welcome to Sitting in the Dark (01:29) - The AI Experience (04:26) - Foundational AI Films (05:42) - Demon Seed (25:55) - Cam (42:16) - Companion (01:04:46) - Coming Attractions ... TBA! Support The Next Reel Family of Film Shows:Become a member for just $5/month or $55/yearJoin our Discord community of movie loversThe Next Reel Family of Film Shows:Cinema Scope: Bridging Genres, Subgenres, and MovementsThe Film BoardMovies We LikeThe Next ReelSitting in the DarkConnect With Us:Main Site: WebMovie Platforms: Letterboxd | FlickchartSocial Media: Facebook | Instagram | Threads | Bluesky | YouTube | PinterestYour Hosts: Chelsea | Kyle | Kynan | Pete | Tommy Shop & Stream:Merch Store: Apparel, stickers, mugs & moreWatch Page: Buy/rent films we've discussed

We go flying through the years, all the way down to 175 BCE. Seleucus IV has to deal with financial troubles, his son being held hostage in Rome- and his own assassination. Really? That was fast. Oh well, best bring out the recap campfire again next time!Sources for this episode:TBA

TBA

Weniger Wein, besserer Wein – so lässt sich der Jahrgang 2025 auf eine Formel bringen. Das dritte Jahr in Folge mit unterdurchschnittlicher Weltproduktion, aber gleichzeitig einer der qualitativ spannendsten Jahrgänge seit Jahren. Lou und Jonas schauen heute zurück: Was hat den Jahrgang 2025 weltweit geprägt? Und wie war es konkret in Deutschland, Österreich, der Schweiz und Südtirol? Dazu gibt es O-Töne direkt aus den Weinbergen – von Sophie Christmann, Wickhoff vom Weingut Bründlmayer und Clemens Lageder von der SUMMA. Ein Rückblick auf ein Jahr der Extreme, der kleinen Beeren und der großen Weine. Wein der Woche Wein-Genuss Riesling feinherb, 1 Liter – Rheinberg Kellerei, Deutschland Ein unkomplizierter Alltagsriesling, der zeigt, was deutsche Riesling-Klassiker können: fruchtig, frisch, mit feiner Restsüße und der typischen Säure, die den Wein so lebendig macht. Feinherb bedeutet hier: nicht trocken, nicht lieblich – sondern genau dazwischen. Ideal als Einstieg in die Welt des deutschen Rieslings und perfekt zu asiatischer Küche, Spargel oder einfach pur zum Feierabend. Erhältlich bei EDEKA. Weinlexikon: O wie Oechsle Oechsle ist die Maßeinheit für den Zuckergehalt im Traubensaft – und damit der erste Hinweis auf die spätere Qualitätsstufe eines Weins. Benannt nach dem Pforzheimer Erfinder Ferdinand Oechsle, der im 19. Jahrhundert eine Waage zur Messung der Mostdichte entwickelte. In Deutschland bestimmt der Oechsle-Wert die Prädikatstufe: Kabinett startet bei etwa 70 Grad, Spätlese bei 80, Auslese bei 90 – und Trockenbeerenauslese bei über 150. Wenn Lou also sagt, die Ahr hatte 2025 Spätburgunder mit 100 Grad Oechsle oder im Rheingau gab es TBA mit über 200 – dann wisst ihr jetzt: das sind außergewöhnliche Zahlen für einen außergewöhnlichen Jahrgang." Weinmesse – klingt nach Fachpublikum, Anzug und Profi-Vokabular? Von wegen. Wer einmal auf einer Messe war, weiß: Es ist eines der aufregendsten Weinerlebnisse überhaupt. Lou war kürzlich auf der SUMMA beim Weingut Alois Lageder in Südtirol – einer der schönsten und persönlichsten Weinmessen der Welt – und hat dort nicht nur verkostet, sondern auch die Winzer:innen direkt befragt: Was wünschen sie sich von Besucher:innen, und was sind die absoluten No-Gos? Die Antworten hört ihr heute im Original. Dazu gibt's Lous 6 praktische Hacks für eure erste Weinmesse – von der Vorbereitung bis zum richtigen Timing. Und ja, ihr dürft spucken. Ihr sollt sogar. Wein der Woche Den verraten wir diesmal nicht – Lou hat ihn direkt von der SUMMA mitgebracht. Hört rein! Weinlexikon: M wie Masterclass Eine Masterclass ist eine geführte, moderierte Verkostung zu einem bestimmten Thema – geleitet von Sommeliers, Weinjäger:innen oder den Winzer:innen selbst, meist zwischen 45 und 90 Minuten. Fast jede Weinmesse bietet Masterclasses an, oft sogar im Ticketpreis inbegriffen. Tipp: Frühzeitig anmelden – die beliebten Slots sind schnell ausgebucht. Lust auf den perfekten Weinmoment? Mit den Cheers! Weinplaylisten findest Du tolle Musik zu jeder Flasche Wein https://open.spotify.com/user/31umv65e2qkqtw3xamou2qwcoska Möchtest Du uns eine Frage stellen, etwas loswerden oder ein Thema vorschlagen? Dann schreib uns gerne an cheers@edeka.de. Wir freuen uns, von Dir zu hören – Cheers! Weitere Infos zu unserem Podcast findest Du unter edeka.de/cheers. Besuche uns auch gerne auf Instagram https://www.instagram.com/cheers_weinpodcast/. Altershinweis: Dieser Podcast beschäftigt sich mit Wein und hat einen Bezug zu Alkohol. Der Inhalt ist ausschließlich an Personen ab 16 Jahren gerichtet. Lust auf den perfekten Weinmoment? Mit den Cheers! Weinplaylisten findest Du tolle Musik zu jeder Flasche Wein https://open.spotify.com/user/31umv65e2qkqtw3xamou2qwcoska Möchtest Du uns eine Frage stellen, etwas loswerden oder ein Thema vorschlagen? Dann schreib uns gerne an cheers@edeka.de. Wir freuen uns, von Dir zu hören – Cheers! Weitere Infos zu unserem Podcast findest Du unter edeka.de/cheers.

With Numa gone, we now see the election of Tullus Hostilius- the grandson of Sabine war hero Hostius Hostilius- to the Roman throne. He is a lot more belligerent than old Pompilius ever was, and immediately sets about engineering a war with Alba Longa.Time period: c. 672- 671 BCERelevant individuals: Tullus Hostilius, Gaius CluliusSources for this episode:TBA

Shavuot Sermon by TBA member Rachel Rubin Green, at Temple Beth Am, Los Angeles, May 22, 2026. (Youtube)Special Guest: Rachel Rubin Green.

TBA

TBA

The second king of Rome may be dead, but his story isn't quite. Today, we scrape together the crumbs of evidence our primary and secondary sources give us concerning Egeria. Is she a nymph? A goddess? Is she Numa's second wife or his lover? And what's the deal with her maybe turning into a spring? Let the defence and prosecution assemble!Time period: 716- 627 BCERelevant individuals: Numa Pompilius, EgeriaSources for this episode:TBA

In the spirit of having fun with the show, here's another Imperial Edict sorting out the year count for the empire. 2026 is now also Year IV/V...Sources for this episode:TBA

The best thing about this show is for the first time in 3 weeks we haven't had to think about animal songs. It's a standard show with the usual stuff. Gig reviews, stuff we've heard on other shows, general bad mixes and handbrake segues.There may or may not be a show on Sunday… we're out on Friday night and we're getting older so it takes longer to recover!As always though, get in touch with requests, recommendations and guest mix inquiries!https://www.instagram.com/radionighttrain/https://bsky.app/profile/thenighttrain.co.ukDon't forget, we're also available for family functions, weddings, funerals, boat launches and more.SHOW NOTESWE INTEND TO CAUSE HAVOChttps://weintendtocausehavoc.vhx.tv/We Intend to Cause Havoc (W.I.T.C.H.) | Official Trailerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdvE8QcKQsAEpisode 86: “LSD-25” by the Gamblershttps://500songs.com/podcast/episode-86-lsd-25-by-the-gamblers/Egon (@nowagain)https://www.instagram.com/nowagain/La Rumba 9th Birthday x Dub Shack: Nightmares On Wax + more TBA | Electric Studios Sheffield Fri 12 June 2026https://www.skiddle.com/whats-on/Sheffield/Electric-Studios/La-Rumba-9th-Birthday-x-Dub-Shack-Nightmares-On-Wax--more-TBA/42284744/Blake Rhein (@snoobz)https://www.instagram.com/snoobzTRACKLISTINGBob Dylan - IsisKing Curtis - Night TrainWITCH - IntroductionThe Coral - A Warning To The CuriousGamblers - LSD-25Frankie Beverly and The Butlers - Love (Your Pain Goes Deep)The Knights - Tipping StringsMartyn - ef40Comb Edits - Honey DubNightmares on Wax - JorgeT. Rex - Mambo SunEdmond Hall's Celeste Quartet - Profoundly Blue No. 2Cedric IM Brooks & The Light of Saba - Peanut VendorVal Bennett - The Russians Are ComingAnthony Johnson - Equal RightsSir Coxsone Sound - Poor Man's StoryDr.Octagon - I'm DestructiveIkebe Shakedown - No Answer (TNT's Optimistically Extended Mix)Q-Tip - Lets RideThe Lovelites- You Said You Wouldnt Break My HeartAquarius - Drift To The CentreJohnny and the Expressions - Now That You're MineThe Andre Tanker Five – LenaDr. Octagon - Girl Let Me Touch You (Instrumental)cLOUDDEAD - Apt. A, Part 2Eliana Glass - Good Friends Call Me EBeck - Thinking About YouBoards of Canada - Tape 05Aphex Twin - XtalSynkro - Look At Yourself (Djrum Remix)

In today's episode, we go through what to look forward to from MBA's Annual Secondary and Capital Markets conference in New York. Plus, Robbie sits down with Eris Innovations' Geoffrey Sharp for a discussion on how to hedge non-Agency production, which has historically been difficult because these loans lack a liquid, standardized forward market (like the TBA market for agency loans) and carry high levels of prepayment, credit, and basis risk. And we close by examining reaction to non-farm payrolls as it pertains to U.S. economic growth.Welcome to The Chrisman Commentary, your go-to daily mortgage news podcast, where industry insights meet expert analysis. Hosted by Robbie Chrisman, this podcast delivers the latest updates on mortgage rates, capital markets, and the forces shaping the housing finance landscape. Whether you're a seasoned professional or just looking to stay informed, you'll get clear, concise breakdowns of market trends and economic shifts that impact the mortgage world.Today's podcast is brought to you by nCino. As the mortgage industry prepares for nSight 2026 this week, lenders are looking for new ways to work more efficiently and intelligently across the homeownership journey. The nCino Mortgage Suite — including Mortgage Point of Sale, Mortgage Analytics, and Incentive Compensation — helps unite the people, systems, and stages of modern mortgage lending. Learn more at nCino.com/mortgage.

From the Media, to the Workplace - even in our homes and social spaces; Healthcare, Finances, Dating, Addiction, and more... the target isn't something we're creating; it's something society places on us through ableism and exploitation.It's time to remove the target TOGETHER at this EMPOWERING, Educational and Entertaining Event! You are invited to the pilot of a ADHD Easy Target on Sunday 6th September 2026, from 10am - 5pm at Nostell, West Yorkshire...Thanks to The National Lottery Community Fund and The National Trust - this event is FREE! But there are limited tickets available - so grab yours HEREADHDAF+ Charity was inspired by the connection and empowerment I witnessed at the three unique live tours of this podcast. I'm so excited for our first live event as a charity! If you can't make this first one, there will be more - but not for nearly a year - and this first one will shape how all the others run; so I hope you can come along to this gorgeous location for a full day of speakers, workshops, craft, dancing, yoga and more! Including very special guests: Dr Helen Wall, Lu in Lu Land and many more TBA...full lineup coming soon and full details and tickets HEREThis episode is the Most ADHD Thing I've done this week! I'm joined by my Husband Big and ADHDAF+ Manchester Peer Support Group Facilitator Gill in the stunning grounds of The National Trust's Nostell, in Wakefield to share some big news and a brand new era for ADHDAF+ Charity!Alongside September's Live EVENT - ADHDAF+ Charity continue to facilitate the free monthly in-person ADHD Peer Support GROUPS. May's Groups focus topic is: ADHD Burnout, Meltdowns and Shutdowns as disussed with Rach Idowu in THIS EPISODE The final 5 groups are THIS WEEK: Wed 13th May: Manchester & OxfordThur 14th May: Edinburgh, Blackpool and London- Find out more about the EVENT here and the GROUPS hereTRIGGER WARNING: This episode contains swearing, loud laughter, gallows humour, some high pitched sounds, and mentions of very sensitive topics including; trauma, anxiety, depression, relationship and work struggles, medical mistreatment, mental health struggles, finance struggles, addiction and workplace and media ableism,If you are struggling, lo siento. YOU ARE NOT ALONE! Please REACH OUT FOR HELP ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠There WILL be a long awaited 'Most ADHD Thing' Episode VERY soon! I hope you enjoyed this outdoor chinwag and I hope to meet you here at Nostell in September at THE EVENT!Big Love and thanks for listening!LEOPARD PRINT ARMY!Laura, Big & Gill xxYou can follow all things ADHDAF on Socials:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@adhdafpodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@adhdafplus⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@lauraisadhdaf⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

John Pollock & Wai Ting review WWE Backlash Tampa featuring Roman Reigns vs. Jacob Fatu for the World Heavyweight Championship.They also discuss John Cena's “History-Making News”, the future of Asuka, and headlines from AEW Collision: Fairway to Hell.Ad-free & timestamped version available for patrons at POSTwrestlingCafe.comWWE Backlash TampaMay 9, 2026Benchmark International ArenaTampa, FLWorld Heavyweight Championship: Roman Reigns © vs. Jacob FatuUnited States Championship: Trick Williams vs. Sami ZaynDanhausen & TBA vs. The Miz and Kit WilsonIYO SKY vs. AsukaSeth Rollins vs. Bron BreakkerAd Inquiries: info@truenativemedia.comBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/postwrestling.comX: http://www.twitter.com/POSTwrestlingInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/POSTwrestlingFacebook: http://www.facebook.com/POSTwrestlingYouTube: http://www.youtube.com/POSTwrestlingSubscribe: https://postwrestling.com/subscribePatreon: http://postwrestlingcafe.comForum: https://forum.postwrestling.comDiscord: https://postwrestling.com/discordSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

TBA

Last week we introduced some discussion on bee/pollinator declines. This week, we will discuss a perspective by Jaboury Ghazoul- a professor at ETH Zurich- who argued in a 2005 paper that labelling a pollinator decline crisis was, in fact, premature.Sources for this episode:TBA

TBA

PreviewWe're back and ready for a massive weekend of title bouts in Japan and Las Vegas and we have fight news, as well on the newest "Big Fight Weekend Preview Podcast!"This addition orginally aired as a live Youtube show Thursday afternoon on our BFW Page.Host T.J. Rives and insider Dan Rafael return went over it all with their insight and analysis.First, they preview the Saturday U.S. a.m. Ohashi Promotions card at Tokyo Dome on DAZNNaoya "The Monster" Inoue vs. Junto Nakatani, for Inoue's undisputed junior featherweight title. Tremendous build up and this will be in front of 50,000+ in the Tokyo Dome too. The guys have takes.Also, Takuma Inoue (Naoya's younger brother) vs. Kazuto Ioka, for Inoue's WBC bantamweight title. Then, the Saturday night PBC Prime Video & DAZN PPV at T-Mobile in Las Vegas  Gilberto “Zurdo” Ramirez vs. David Benavidez, for Ramirez's WBO/WBA cruiserweight title. Another intriguing bout, as Benavidez moves up looking for a third world title in three divisions. Will Zurdo off shoulder surgery be able to handle him?In the co-feature- Armando Resendiz vs. Jaime Munguia, for Resendiz's WBA super middleweight title. Underrated fight of the weekend? Also, Oscar Duarte vs. Angel Fierro, 10 rounds, junior welterweights and Isaac Lucero vs. Ismael Flores, 8 rounds, junior middleweights on the PPV, too.Then, NewsThe long-awaited heavyweight showdown between former champions Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua is signed, but just not next. Turki Alashikh announced atwo-fight deal with Joshua to fight Kristian Prenga on July 25 (DAZN PPV) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and then Fury. That is November on Netflix, site TBA. The guys discuss the risk Joshua is foolishly taking by having a fight in between.Next, the Xander Zayas-Boots Ennis PPV undercard was announced, and will include two of boxing's elite prospects, junior welterweight Emiliano Vargas and light heavyweight Ben Whittaker in 10-rounders. Dan has more. Also, Top Rank announces it has done a multi-year contract extension Zayas, whom they've promoted since he was 17 years old.Zuffa Boxing announces U.K. debut: former WBO titleholder Chris Billam-Smith vs. Ryan Rozicki on June 6 in Billam-Smith's hometown of Bournemouth, England  Next, WBC junior welterweight titleholder Dalton Smith has suffered an undisclosed training injury that has forced him out of his first defense vs. former titlist Alberto Puello on June 6 (on DAZN) in Smith's hometown of Sheffield, England. Show goes on with the original co-feature moving up to the headliner — a mandatory bout between WBC/WBA flyweight titlist Ricardo Sandoval and WBC interim titlist Galal Yafai. We have the latest.And, updates for the May 9 Fabio Wardley- Daniel Dubois card- American heavyweight Jared Anderson is off with a torn biceps; But, light heavyweight contender David Morrell is added to fight Zak Chelli; two-time Olympic super heavyweight gold medalist Bakhodir Jalolov also added to the show.It's all part of the "Big Fight Weekend Preview Podcast" and make sure to follow/subscribe to us on Apple/Spreaker/Spotify, etc.! 

TBA's Legislative Updates podcast is new with TBA attorneys and lobbyists, Berkley Schwarz, Pier Strategies LLC, and Brad Lampley and Ashley Harbin, Adams and Reese. This week they discuss the possibility of a special session to redistrict the state's congressional map, the 2026 legislative session winding down, and a look forward to the 2026 election cycle. Support the TBA's lobbying efforts by contributing to LAWPAC.

PreviewWe're back and ready for a massive weekend of title bouts in Japan and Las Vegas and we have fight news, as well on the newest "Big Fight Weekend Preview Podcast!"This addition orginally aired as a live Youtube show Thursday afternoon on our BFW Page.Host T.J. Rives and insider Dan Rafael return went over it all with their insight and analysis.First, they preview the Saturday U.S. a.m. Ohashi Promotions card at Tokyo Dome on DAZNNaoya "The Monster" Inoue vs. Junto Nakatani, for Inoue's undisputed junior featherweight title. Tremendous build up and this will be in front of 50,000+ in the Tokyo Dome too. The guys have takes.Also, Takuma Inoue (Naoya's younger brother) vs. Kazuto Ioka, for Inoue's WBC bantamweight title. Then, the Saturday night PBC Prime Video & DAZN PPV at T-Mobile in Las Vegas  Gilberto “Zurdo” Ramirez vs. David Benavidez, for Ramirez's WBO/WBA cruiserweight title. Another intriguing bout, as Benavidez moves up looking for a third world title in three divisions. Will Zurdo off shoulder surgery be able to handle him?In the co-feature- Armando Resendiz vs. Jaime Munguia, for Resendiz's WBA super middleweight title. Underrated fight of the weekend? Also, Oscar Duarte vs. Angel Fierro, 10 rounds, junior welterweights and Isaac Lucero vs. Ismael Flores, 8 rounds, junior middleweights on the PPV, too.Then, NewsThe long-awaited heavyweight showdown between former champions Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua is signed, but just not next. Turki Alashikh announced atwo-fight deal with Joshua to fight Kristian Prenga on July 25 (DAZN PPV) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and then Fury. That is November on Netflix, site TBA. The guys discuss the risk Joshua is foolishly taking by having a fight in between.Next, the Xander Zayas-Boots Ennis PPV undercard was announced, and will include two of boxing's elite prospects, junior welterweight Emiliano Vargas and light heavyweight Ben Whittaker in 10-rounders. Dan has more. Also, Top Rank announces it has done a multi-year contract extension Zayas, whom they've promoted since he was 17 years old.Zuffa Boxing announces U.K. debut: former WBO titleholder Chris Billam-Smith vs. Ryan Rozicki on June 6 in Billam-Smith's hometown of Bournemouth, England  Next, WBC junior welterweight titleholder Dalton Smith has suffered an undisclosed training injury that has forced him out of his first defense vs. former titlist Alberto Puello on June 6 (on DAZN) in Smith's hometown of Sheffield, England. Show goes on with the original co-feature moving up to the headliner — a mandatory bout between WBC/WBA flyweight titlist Ricardo Sandoval and WBC interim titlist Galal Yafai. We have the latest.And, updates for the May 9 Fabio Wardley- Daniel Dubois card- American heavyweight Jared Anderson is off with a torn biceps; But, light heavyweight contender David Morrell is added to fight Zak Chelli; two-time Olympic super heavyweight gold medalist Bakhodir Jalolov also added to the show.It's all part of the "Big Fight Weekend Preview Podcast" and make sure to follow/subscribe to us on Apple/Spreaker/Spotify, etc.! 

TBA

In this episode of BarBuzz, Communications Coordinator Azya Thornton sits down with Jennifer Vossler, director of education and professional development, and Jarod Word, senior education and professional development coordinator, to discuss how the Tennessee Bar Association continues to expand and adapt its CLE programming. The conversation highlights the success and growth of the Estate Planning & Probate Forum, which recently drew more than 250 attorneys, and offers insight into how large-scale programs are developed, including selecting timely topics and engaging speakers. The episode also previews upcoming CLE opportunities and new programs the TBA has to offer. Listeners will also learn about the TBA's robust on-demand catalog and opportunities to get involved as presenters, underscoring the organization's commitment to supporting attorneys at every stage of their careers. To access TBA's on demand library or see upcoming CLE events visit our website at https://cle.tba.org/

TBA

Nick is joined by Rishi Persad to cast eye over Friday's racing news and talking points. Eve Johnson Houghton opens the show, hoping that her stable star Zavateri can better another Ballydoyle hotshot in tomorrow's Greenham Stakes at Newbury. Also today, owner-breeder Emma Banks talks about those twin passions, her guest starring role in the upcoming TBA webinar, and Princess Petrol in tomorrow's Fred Darling. James Willoughby looks ahead to the clash between Sovereignty and Journalism in the Oaklawn Handicap, while Dan Skelton tells us that there are still goals to achieve this season, runs through his team for Ayr this weekend, and reflects on a record breaking purchase at Tatts Cheltenham yesterday.

Nick is joined by Rishi Persad to cast eye over Friday's racing news and talking points. Eve Johnson Houghton opens the show, hoping that her stable star Zavateri can better another Ballydoyle hotshot in tomorrow's Greenham Stakes at Newbury. Also today, owner-breeder Emma Banks talks about those twin passions, her guest starring role in the upcoming TBA webinar, and Princess Petrol in tomorrow's Fred Darling. James Willoughby looks ahead to the clash between Sovereignty and Journalism in the Oaklawn Handicap, while Dan Skelton tells us that there are still goals to achieve this season, runs through his team for Ayr this weekend, and reflects on a record breaking purchase at Tatts Cheltenham yesterday.

TBA's Legislative Updates podcast is new with TBA attorneys and lobbyists, Berkley Schwarz, Pier Strategies LLC, and Ashley Harbin, Adams and Reese. This week they discuss the 2026 legislative session winding down, the passing of the state's budget, and what's left before the legislators hit the campaign trail. Support the TBA's lobbying efforts by contributing to LAWPAC.  

TBA's Legislative Updates podcast is new with TBA attorneys and lobbyists, Brad Lampley and Ashley Harbin, Adams and Reese. This week they discuss a Family Law Bill SB2324/HB2429, Governor Lee's amended budget, the legislature's final budget debates, and they look toward the end of the 2026 legislative session.  Support the TBA's lobbying efforts by contributing to LAWPAC.

TBA

TBA's Legislative Updates podcast is new with TBA attorneys and lobbyists, Berkley Schwarz, Pier Strategies LLC, and Brad Lampley, Adams and Reese. This week they discuss TBA's Day on the Hill, Extrajudicial Adoptions, HB1263/SB1238, Real Estate Bills, HB569/SB394, HB1970/SB1985, HB1762/SB1707,  Adoption Bill SB2165/HB2350 ,Probate Bill SB2184/HB2451, and a Family Law Bill SB2324/HB2429.  Support the TBA's lobbying efforts by contributing to LAWPAC.

On this episode, we discuss our March 2026 Book Club Pick, Butter by Asako Yuzuki, a story of food and murder following a Japanese journalist who begins a professional relationship with a convicted serial killer, charged with the murders of three domestic partners, in hopes of getting an exclusive interview. However, she ends up getting more than she bargained for as she gets sucked into the killer's philosophy and worldview that leads her to question amd she knows about the pleasures of food, the importance of friendships, as well as how traditional gender roles makes fools of us all.Books & Boba is a podcast dedicated to reading and featuring books by Asian and Asian American authorsSupport the Books & Boba Podcast by:Joining our Patreon to receive exclusive perksPurchasing books at our bookshopRocking our Books & Boba merchFollow our hosts:Reera Yoo (@reeraboo)Marvin Yueh (@marvinyueh)Follow us:InstagramTwitterGoodreadsFacebookThe Books & Boba April 2026 pick is TBA (check our Instagram or website in a few days)!This podcast is part of Potluck: An Asian American Podcast Collective

With Seleucus IV now in charge of the Seleucid empire, let's see how the rest of the Mediterranean world is getting on. In and around the first few years of Seleucus' reign, we see Philip V attempt to install an Antigonus IV of Macedon instead of his son Perseus, a simmering anti-Roman feeling, and an exchange of hostages. All while Seleucus tries to break the terms of the Treaty of Apamea...Sources for this episode:TBA

TBA

TBA's Legislative Updates podcast is new with TBA attorneys and lobbyists, Berkley Schwarz, Pier Strategies LLC, and Brad Lampley and Ashley Harbin, Adams and Reese, plus intern Aydan Hawk. This week they discuss TBA's Day on the Hill,  Extrajudicial Adoptions, HB1263/SB1238, Real Estate Bills, HB569/SB394, HB1970/SB1985, HB1762/SB1707,  Adoption Bill SB2165/HB2350 ,Probate Bill SB2184/HB2451, and a Family Law Bill SB2324/HB2429.  Support the TBA's lobbying efforts by contributing to LAWPAC.

In episode 128, author Susan Francis joins James and Ashley to share the insidious ways invisible illness and ageism have impacted her sense of self and forced her to reframe her thinking.  At 65 years old, Susan lives with atrial fibrillation (AF), a type of arrhythmia that can lead to heart failure. She shares the challenges of this condition and her creative efforts to be a good (literary) friend despite the limitations of her health.  Susan also discusses her shift from memoir to fiction, and how she crafted her debut historical novel, Revelation Beach, which explores East Timor during the era of the Balibo Five.  Plus, in this month's What Are You Reading segment, Ashley and Susan go deep into Small Things Like These by Claire Keegan (warning: slight spoiler), we return to the frustration/brilliance of Tana French's In the Woods, and James introduces his razor-blade theory of novel endings.  Susan Francis is a writer, teacher and editor. Her memoir The Love that Remains was published in 2020. Her debut novel, Revelation Beach, came out in 2025. Find Revelation Beach and Susan's memoir at Booktopia or from your local bookshop or library.  Books & authors discussed in this episode: Small Things Like These by Claire Keegan So Late in the Day by Claire Keegan The Twenty Days of Turin by Giorgio De Maria, translated by Ramon Glazov The Gambler by JP Pomare Recursion by Blake Crouch In the Woods by Tana French Upcoming events  Central Coast – join Ashley and Anna Downes for the launch of Like, Follow Die on Thursday 27 March, 6pm Sydney – James and Ashley are in conversation with Claudia Karvan for the launch of Like, Follow – Tuesday 31 March, 6pm at Gleebooks, Glebe  Adelaide – join Ashley and Michelle Prak for the launch of Like, Follow, Die on Tuesday 14 April, 6pm Orange, NSW – join Ashley for her first-ever Orange author talk on Thursday 14 May, 5.30pm   Bathurst, NSW –  join Ashley for her first-ever Bathurst author talk on Friday 15 May 14, link to come    Sydney – join Ashley, Pip Drysdale, Hayley Scrivenor and Rachael Johns for Booked for Lunch, a special She Journeys celebration of books and writing, Saturday 16 May, 9am-3pm Sydney – join Ashley at the BAD Sydney Crime Book Club to discuss the spoilers and behind-the-scenes of Like, Follow, Die, Wednesday 27 May, 12.30pm  Darwin – Ashley's first NT author events TBA soon!  Winter Writing Retreat – join Ashley for a multi-day writing retreat from Writers at the Woolshed, 12-17 July in the Southern Highlands  Online – Ashley is teaching Online: Crime Writing for Faber Academy starting 12 May Learn more about Ashley's thrillers, Dark Mode, Cold Truth, and Like, Follow, Die and get your copies from your local bookshop or library.  Learn more about James's award-winning novel Denizen and get your copy from your local bookshop or library. Get in touch! ashleykalagianblunt.com jamesmckenziewatson.com Instagram: @akalagianblunt + @jamesmcwatson

Seleucus IV may be in charge of the empire as of 187 BCE, but he wasn't meant to rule. Instead, we've largely been focussed previously on his elder brother, Antiochus the Young King. So, today, let's explore what we know about the life and times of Seleucus IV before he became sole king, and catch him up to the moment when he got the news his father died.Sources for this episode:TBA

Hosts: Resh (they/them) and Stef (she/her)Episode 30: Filling in the Gaps + Indian Wells 2026 PreviewHey Outwide fam! We're back with episode 30 catching you up on everything since the Australian Open. We open up about the heaviness of the current moment and how we're finding joy anyway — including our Tennis and Tea Dance event on March 7th at Mission Hills Country Club. Live ball tennis, drag queens, cocktails, and a DJ. Come through!Destiny Aeva said what she said. The 25-year-old Australian retired with one of the most explosive farewell statements we've ever seen, calling tennis culture "racist, misogynistic, and homophobic." She ate that retirement statement whole.Jennifer Capriati — full recalibration. Last episode we celebrated her legacy. This episode we go deep on the anti-Obama tweets, Trump-adjacent commentary, a 2013 battery and stalking charge, and Djokovic defense. It's giving unwell. Keep our girlfriends' names out your mouth, Jennifer.The Burlington Bolt is top 10. Victoria Mboko's rise from 333 to the top 10 is the fastest climb since Capriati in 1990. The rankings are shook.Taylor Townsend season is HERE. First ever WTA singles final, doubles title, doing it all after prioritizing time with her son. Drop the merch, TT. We are ready.Venus is returning to Indian Wells and we take a moment to honor how generous she is given everything that happened there in 2001. We should be rolling out the red carpet, full stop.Serena watch is officially on. She re-entered the ITIA drug testing pool February 22nd. One wild card spot at Indian Wells still TBA. We're just saying.Larry Ellison deep dive — Oracle strongarm tactics, millions to Trump PACs and the IDF, swallowing Paramount and potentially Warner Bros. We needed a shower after this one.Our picks: Stef has Coco and Alcaraz. Resh is riding with Mboko and Alcaraz. Let's see!If you're heading to Indian Wells, hit us up — we'll be on the ground. And come to our Tennis and Tea Dance on March 7th. It's going to be everything.Like, subscribe, review, and share. See you out there!

Kyle and Matt return for Ep. 6 of The Middle 8. They discuss late regular season basketball priorities, disliked opposing coaching roaming TBA, early baseball returns for the casual fan and life without Joey.

Welcome to Dev Game Club, where this week we comment on ten years of doing this podcast. Dev Game Club looks at classic video games and plays through them over several episodes, providing commentary. Note: we recorded our first podcast on Feb 26th, 2016. This episode reflects that date. At the time, we actually banked a few episodes, and decided to hold off a week to do that. We never banked an episode again :)   Issues covered: ten years of podcasting, counting series and games, what kind of gamer are you?, balance in all things, the types of games Brett went deep on, games that exemplify Tim's games, first-person shooters and third-person action adventure, earliest games we played, latest game we played, surprise moments, the butter knife returns, knucklehead stealth, crazy world-altering moments, singing reviews, our longest series, how many interviews, the backstory of Daedalus, cultural sensibility, a grotty fish stew, staying under the radar, cramming features in at the end, pitching vs shipping, how many community episodes we've had, having a community game server, the charity event, getting to understand streaming, praying at the shrine of humility, more than 500 hours of podcasts, keys that aren't keys, the team makes the game, tell them less so they can discover more, the importance of constraints, mortality, letting the player choose, how long are we going to keep this up, knowing when to end, a little thanks each way, fueling us.  Games, people, and influences mentioned or discussed: June, Infinite Backlog, The Evil Within, Resident Evil, Trespasser, Ultima (series), Souls-likes, Bloodborne, MYST (series), Obduction, Cyan, Eye of the Beholder, Might and Magic (series), Kaeon, Kingdom Hearts, Arkham Asylum (series), Halo (series), Shadow of the Colossus, Legend of Zelda (series), Portal, Deus Ex, Thief, Dishonored, Prey, Colossal Cave Adventure, Adventure, Rogue, Fez, Dwarf Fortress, Plundered Hearts, Final Fantasy Tactics, Apocalypse Now, Shenmue, Deadly Premonition, Morrowind, Hitman (series), Clint Hocking, Splinter Cell, Spelunky, Fez, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Metal Gear Solid, Calamity Nolan, Final Fantasy (series), Sebastian Deken, Lani Lum, SW: Republic Commando, Tim Schafer, Dave Grossman, Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, Randy Smith, Greg LoPiccolo,  Sean Vesce, Zack Norman, Janos Flosser, Sam Lake, Ken Levine, Borut Pfifer, Julian Gollop, Fallout, X-COM: Enemy Unknown, Star Wars: Starfighter, Andrew Kirmse, Daron Stinnett, Darren Johnson, Reed Knight, Kim Swift, BioStats, Minecraft, LostLake, Mors, mysterydip, Defeating Games for Charity, Video Game History Foundation, Eternal Darkness, Shigeru Miyamoto, Brad Furminger, Marcus Aurelius, "Jenny," Kirk Hamilton, Aaron Evers, Mark Garcia.  TTDS: 11:15 Next time: TBA! Twitch: timlongojr and twinsunscorp YouTube  Discord  DevGameClub@gmail.com 

Linktree: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠Join The Normandy For Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here: ⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠The latest segment of Notorious Mass Effect hosted by Analytic Dreamz explores BTS's major 2026 comeback announcement: the BTS WORLD TOUR ‘ARIRANG' LIVE VIEWING in cinemas worldwide.Analytic Dreamz covers the official reveal from @bts_bighiton February 25, 2026, featuring the main trailer soundtracked by "Mic Drop." This initiative brings full-length concert broadcasts (~3 hours, NR rating) to theaters in 75–80+ territories through chains like AMC Theatres, Cinemark, Shaw Theatres, and Golden Village.The live viewings kick off with the tour's opening stops: April 11 from Goyang Stadium (South Korea, part of April 9–11 shows) and April 18 from Tokyo (Japan). Tickets went on sale February 25 at 10:00 AM KST via btsliveviewing.com and regional platforms like Fandango in the U.S., with more screenings from later dates TBA.This ties into BTS's broader return post-military service: their 5th studio album ARIRANG drops March 20, 2026, followed by the massive world tour spanning ~34 cities and 82 shows—setting K-pop records—with rapid sellouts in many locations, including upcoming North America stops like Tampa and Los Angeles.The strategy boosts global ARMY access via cinema screenings on a 360-degree in-the-round stage, mirroring past successful models while amplifying engagement across Instagram, Reddit's /r/bangtan, and major outlets like Billboard, Rolling Stone, and Forbes.Analytic Dreamz delivers an in-depth look at this high-scale cultural and commercial rollout, extending the tour's reach far beyond stadiums and marking BTS's triumphant full-group resurgence. Tune in for the complete breakdown and what it means for the future of K-pop dominance. Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/exclusive-contentPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

One more test and we're going IndyCar racing in 2026. Conor Daly is out west at Phoenix International Raceway on site to check out IndyCar's two-day test ahead of the series' return to the famed oval in March. He fills listeners in on the overall speed charts, which are filled with the usual suspects as well as some surprise results. In other news, Dale Coyne Racing finally went official with "TBA" and IndyCar continues to make wise moves for their future with Chevy and Honda.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome back Pauper fam! This week we're joined by our friend Ryan Adams to discuss how to assess different metagames in Pauper using data analysis in new and creative ways. It's not just about winrate and matchups; how granular can we get when we take sideboards and variance into account? You can follow along at home with Ryan's slides linked below (as long as you're not driving!) Thank you as always for listening!Join our Discord! https://discord.gg/kdvSavFkpzCheck out our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@CommonGroundMTGRyan's Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1s7nTnHavgPjCd90cRg6TuX2GStZSL1zTbqfTZC2Bzro/edit?usp=sharingUpcoming Pauper Events:March 7th - Win-Some-Beta-Basics Pauper Tournament @ Hobby Town - Bowling Green, Kentucky: https://topdeck.gg/event/pauper-event-win-beta-landsMarch 21st - The next Court of Commons Quarterly, Western Kentucky area - More details TBA!North Carolina-Area Listeners: Check out the Piedmont Pauper League @ Dragon's Hoard, Greensboro NC! 6 monthly tournaments culminate in a grand prize: travel stipend and entry into CGCup4 this summer! February event registration is now open: https://www.spicerack.gg/events/2941402The Cascadia Pauper Circuit presented by Pauper PNW: www.PauperPNW.org First events are February 21st and March 8th!Nashville-Area Thursday Pauper League @ Middle TN Gaming in Bellevue: https://www.facebook.com/p/Middle-Tennessee-Gaming-61567309793600/Any questions or feedback for us? Email us at: commongroundmtgpod@gmail.comhttps://twitter.com/CamPlaysMagichttps://twitter.com/Hippo_1124Thomas' BlueSky: @thomasdoesalot.bsky.social Hippo's BlueSky: @hippo2112.bsky.social 

I'm in the middle of a big Australasian tour at the moment, although frustrating for you guys I haven't recorded any of the sets, the caveat I've taken the stand out tracks and moments and put them into my one hour mix so you can get a feel for where I am musically at the moment. On the guest mix we have the maestro from Argentina, Mayro. GUEST MIX: Mayro (Argentina) TRACKLIST John 00 Fleming: Kostya Outta, Greta Meier, Alisha - Far Above [Mango Alley] M.O.S. - Nanda [Mango Alley] Digital Mess - Deuterium [Solis Records] Rick Pier O'Neil - A Darker Shine (RPO Part 2) [RPO Records] Messier, SEAN OBRIEN - Xscape [Eat my hat music] Jamie Stevens, Meeting Molly - Illusionist [Mango Alley] Neumann - Je Le Savais [Iboga Tech] E-Clip - Live Your Life [Sounds of Akasha] Zen Mechanics & Avalon - Naked, Stoned & Exalted [Source code] Basil O'Glue - What Never Happened [BAGRUHM] Exotek - Expansion [JOOF Recordings] Guest Mix: Mayro: Tracklist to follow. UPCOMING TOUR DATES Feb 13 - Auckland, NZ - John 00 Fleming: The Lost Tribe Album Tour @ Il Brutto Feb 14 - Brisbane, AU - Lemon & Lime Presents John 00 Fleming - Open to Close @ The Prince Consort Feb 27 - Porto, PT - Treble Pro Feb 28 - Lisbon, PT - Echo Villiage Mar 14 - Mallorca, SP - Balearic Beats Festival Mar 21 - Vaasa, FL - Pitlane Club Mar 26 - Miami, USA - Mazuma Miami Music Week Apr 03 - Liverpool, UK - Trancecoda Apr 05 - Wales, UK - Apr 25 - TBA, TBA - TBA @ TBA May 08 - London, UK - May 10 - Malta, - Rong Festival May 24 - Birmingham, UK - Godskitchen @ Institute Jun 12 - TBA, USA - TBA @ TBA Jun 13 - TBA, CANADA - TBA @ TBA Jun 26 - Zandvoort, NL - B2B with PVD @ Luminosity Festival Jun 26 - Zandvoort, NL - Luminosity Festival Jul 05 - Le park, FR - Ethereal Decibel Festival Jul 11 - Cambridgeshire, UK - Origin Festival Jul 17 - Boom, BE - Tomorrowland Festival Jul 24 - Bryson, CA - Groove & Bass Festival Aug 01 - Ozora, HU - Ozora Festival Aug 09 - Tisno, HR - Balance Festival Aug 12 - Iceland, - Eclipse Festival Aug 14 - Iceland, - Eclipse Festival ...and more to be announced JOOF Merchandise & T-Shirts: https://john00fleming.tmstor.es

Tonight, on Trackside with Curt Cavin and Kevin Lee, they talk about President Donald Trump signing the executive order to add Washington D.C. to the 2026 schedule as part of the America 250 celebrations. They also talk about Arrow McLaren’s livery launch. They later talk about Dario Franchitti and Jackson Lee announcing that they’ll be competing at the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series race in St. Petersburg. In the second segment, they talk about Tim Cindric getting re-hired at Team Penske to be the strategist for Scott McLaughlin. They also talk about Mick Schumacher’s oval test at Homestead-Miami. They also talk about “TBA” (Romain Grosjean) making an appearance at Content Days. They later talk about the possibility of Conor Daly and Dreyer & Reinbold Racing potentially doing more races this season. To wrap up another edition of the show, Kevin talks more about the political nature of the Washington D.C. street race and the latest on the Carb Day concert rumors. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.