Podcast appearances and mentions of tim berners lee

Adam swaps the studio for the galleries as he heads to the National Portrait Gallery, right in the heart of London — just around the corner from Trafalgar Square and Leicester Square. It's a place that tells the story of Britain through portraits, and Adam's there to find out exactly what's on offer for families. He's joined by Juno, the gallery's Families and Young People's Programme Manager, who takes him from the Tudors all the way through to the present day. Along the way they puzzle over the beautifully ornate frame around Sir Anthony van Dyck's self-portrait (see if you can spot the hidden sunflower!), meet a painted bronze sculpture of World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, and talk all things Henry VIII and his six wives — the stars of the gallery's Six Lives exhibition. Adam also catches up with some of the families exploring the gallery, having a go at trails like History Detectives — cracking word puzzles and hunting for tiny details hidden in the paintings.Join Fun Kids Podcasts+: https://funkidslive.com/plusSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For a few terrifying hours in the summer of 1955, two Kentucky families emptied their guns into small, glowing creatures that swarmed their farmhouse and simply would not die — and to this day, no one agrees on whether they fought off aliens, owls, or something the mind conjured out of the dark.EPISODE BLOG PAGE (includes sources): https://weirddarkness.com/kellyhopkinsvilleREAD or DOWNLOAD the full transcript of this episode: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p86wb4mFEATURED STORIES IN THIS EPISODE: It's considered one of the most bizarre and convincing extraterrestrial events ever reported… we'll look at the alien encounter in 1955's Hopkinsville, Kentucky that was experienced by two terrified families. (The Hopkinsville Encounter) *** In the deep jungles of the Congo, natives tell of a giant creature that, once described, sounds exactly like a long-necked dinosaur. But how could this be? And is it pure legend? Perhaps not, as one noted biologist from the area saw it with his own eyes and reported it. We'll look at the supposed real sighting of Mokele-Mbembe, the living dinosaur of the Congo! (Dinosaur Observed In The Congo) *** Running a club during prohibition was extremely lucrative… and extremely dangerous, as one Theodore Lakoff would've learned… had he been awake when he was murdered. (The Mysterious Death of Theodore Lakoff) *** Benjamin Franklin was known not just as one of the father's of the United States of America, but also as an inventor, a womanizer, and a man with a bit of an ornery streak in him – as is evidenced by a series of letters he wrote to the New England Courant, where he pretended to be a woman. (Who Was Mrs. Silence Dogood?) *** The internet is a vital part of modern life. Without web access, all kinds of businesses and jobs would be unable to function. So, as you can imagine, there are plenty of people who would love to see the internet crumble. And many have tried. (Taking Down The World Wide Web) *** In 1983 sightings poured in from people on the California coast who claim they saw a sea monster. (The California Sea Monster)CHAPTERS & TIME STAMPS (All Times Approximate)…00:00:00.000 = The Foreboding00:01:10.244 = Show Open00:03:40.994 = The Hopkinsville Encounter00:13:15.837 = Dinosaur Observed in the Congo ***00:27:07.561 = Taking Down The World Wide Web ***00:36:42.752 = The Mysterious Death of Theodor Lakoff00:43:15.319 = Who Was Mrs. Silence Dogood?00:49:11.286 = The California Sea Monster00:55:29.517 = Show Close*** = Begins immediately after inserted ad breakLISTEN ON PODCAST APPS: Look for this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart Radio, Amazon Music, Pandora, TuneIn Radio, and other podcast apps. Get a list of free listening apps here: https://weirddarkness.com/wdapps*No AI Voices Are Used In The Narration Of This Podcast*SOURCES and RESOURCES:“The Hopkinsville Encounter” by Hannah Collins for Ranker.com's Graveyard Shift:https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/yp8pnfx7“Dinosaur Observed in the Congo” by Richard Greenwell for the ISC Newsletter: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/yc3r3mpp“The Mysterious Death of Theodore Lakoff” by Kathi Kresol for HauntedRockford.com: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/ku5x3cat“Who Was Mrs. Silence Dogood?” by Bipin Dimri for HistoricMysteries.com: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p868eac“Taking Down the World Wide Web” by Benjamin Thomas for ListVerse.com: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/c85j5cau“The California Sea Monster” by Malcom Smith for Malcom's Cryptids: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/yc2wts7h(Over time links may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2026, Weird Darkness.Originally aired: December, 2021Weird Darkness pulls together a farmhouse siege by little gray creatures in Kentucky, a biologist's claimed sighting of a living dinosaur in the Congo, decades of attempts to knock the internet offline, an unsolved Prohibition murder in Illinois, a teenage Benjamin Franklin's literary hoax, and a hundred-foot sea serpent sighted off the California coast.It opens on August 21, 1955, when Billy Ray Taylor stepped out to the well at Glennie Lankford's farmhouse in Kelly, outside Hopkinsville, Kentucky, and watched a bright object drop behind the trees. Two families spent the night barricaded indoors, firing a 12-gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle at short gray creatures with spindly legs and glowing eyes that peered through windows and swiped at Taylor from the roof, yet the buckshot rang off them like sheet metal before they floated away unharmed. Skeptics later blamed an aggressive great horned owl or a green glow of bioluminescent foxfire, while the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book dismissed the case as a hoax and filed it under C.P., for crackpot.From there the episode reaches the Likouala swamps of the People's Republic of the Congo, where in 1983 biologist Marcellin Agnagna became the first trained scientist to claim he had seen Mokele-Mbembe, the long-necked animal described as a surviving dinosaur for over two centuries. At remote Lake Télé on May 1, 1983, he watched a creature with a long neck, small head, and broad back rising some fifteen feet above the water, judged it a Mesozoic sauropod, and waded out to film it — only to find he had left the lens cap on, and his last roll of film later developed black.Next comes a survey of attempts to knock the internet offline since Tim Berners-Lee launched the World Wide Web. A man named Liu in Weifang, China tore apart four China Telecom junction boxes in 2016 to bury footage of himself joining a public "granny dance," while the Mirai botnet's 2016 assault on the firm Dyn took down Twitter, Netflix, and CNN, and Cornell student Robert Tappan Morris had loosed the first such attack by accident in 1988. It ends on Seth Aaron Pendley, a Texas man arrested in 2021 for plotting to blow up a Virginia data center with C-4 in hopes of crippling most of the web.The show then drops back to January 1931, when roadhouse owner Theodore Lakoff was shot once through the top of the head as he slept in his own Rockford, Illinois resort, a Prohibition den of liquor, gambling, and women he ran under the alias Tony Evanoff. His wallet lay emptied while far more cash sat untouched, and suspicion fell on twenty-year-old Viola Hunsficker, said to be extorting him, until ballistics cleared the pistol found in her apartment. Investigators then turned up five other women who each believed she was his only sweetheart, and the killing was never solved.Then it reaches back to 1722 Boston, where a witty widow named Silence Dogood published letters in the New England Courant skewering religious hypocrisy, Harvard, and fashion, charming readers so thoroughly that several men wrote in offering to marry her. She was the invention of sixteen-year-old Benjamin Franklin, an apprentice in his brother James's print shop who slipped the letters under the door at night for six months before revealing himself, then carried his taste for hoaxes to Philadelphia and a fabricated 1730 account of a Mount Holly witch trial.The episode closes off the California coast, where on October 31, 1983 a highway crew above Stinson Beach watched a dark, slender animal roughly a hundred feet long swim toward shore, trailed by about a hundred birds and two dozen sea lions. Crew member Matt Ratto described three humps rising straight from the water before a head lifted to look around, and days later, near Costa Mesa, a surfer named Young Hutchinson reported a long black eel-like animal with no dorsal fins surfacing ten feet from his board — though a Caltech spokesman offered that the witnesses might have seen a whale or a line of porpoises.

Thierry Weber revient sur les récentes préoccupations de Tim Berners-Lee concernant l'utilisation des données personnelles à l'ère de l'intelligence artificielle. Selon lui, les modèles d'IA ajoutent une nouvelle couche au Web qui s'alimente massivement des informations publiées en ligne, souvent sans que les utilisateurs conservent un réel contrôle sur leurs données. Pour répondre à cet enjeu, Tim Berners-Lee a cofondé Inrupt, qui développe des outils permettant de filtrer et de protéger les informations personnelles avant leur transmission aux systèmes d'IA. Il déplore également l'absence d'un organisme de gouvernance comparable au World Wide Web Consortium pour encadrer le développement de l'intelligence artificielle. Au-delà des aspects techniques, cette réflexion relance le débat sur la souveraineté numérique et sur la place de l'individu dans un écosystème numérique de plus en plus dominé par les grandes plateformes technologiques.

Harry Halpin, CEO of Nym Technologies, shares why the surveillance Web is more dangerous than most people realize, and why most privacy tools aren't enough. He explains how traditional VPNs still leave you exposed, why metadata is more revealing than the content of your messages, and how Nym's decentralized mixnet offers unique protection. Key Takeaways: Why encrypting your data isn't enough and what metadata reveals that most people don't consider What a mixnet is and why it's built differently than Tor Why age verification mandates could be the real turning point for Internet freedom How Nym is bringing device-level privacy protection to everyday users Ways we can make agents and LLMs more private and safe to use The new integration between Nym and Brave Guest Bio: Harry Halpin is CEO and co-founder of Nym Technologies. He completed his Ph.D. in AI at the University of Edinburgh under Andy Clark, and then led standards around cryptography and social networking at the World Wide Web Consortium at MIT under Tim Berners-Lee (although he left due to the standardization of DRM). Harry is now focused full-time on preserving privacy and freedom of speech with NymVPN. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About this Show: The Brave Technologist is here to shed light on the opportunities and challenges of emerging tech. To make it digestible, less scary, and more approachable for all! Join us as we embark on a mission to demystify artificial intelligence, challenge the status quo, and empower everyday people to embrace the digital revolution. Whether you're a tech enthusiast, a curious mind, or an industry professional, this podcast invites you to join the conversation and explore the future of AI together. The Brave Technologist Podcast is hosted by Luke Mulks, VP Business Operations at Brave Software—makers of the privacy-respecting Brave browser and Search engine, and now powering AI everywhere with the Brave Search API. Music by: Ari Dvorin Produced by: Sam Laliberte  

National Name your poison day. Entertainment from 1994. Bill of Rights proposed to US Constitution, Vacuum cleaner invented, Worlds 1st auto theft. Todays birthdays - Jerry Stiller, Joan Rivers, Nancy Sinatra, Chuck Negron, Boz Skaggs, Bonnie Tyler, Tim Berners-Lee, Keenen Ivory Wayans, Rob Pilatus, Julianna Margulies, kanye West. Andrew Jackson died.Intro - God did good - Dianna Corcoran             https://www.diannacorcoran.com/Name your poison - Ted NugentI swear - All 4 OneThat aint no way to go - Brooks & DunnBirthdays - In da club - 50 Cent      http://50cent.com/These boots were made for walkin - Nancy SinatraJoy to the world - Three Dog NightLook what you've done to me - Boz SkaggsTotal eclipse of the heart - Bonnie tylerIn Living Color TV themeGirl you know its true - Millie VanilliStronger - Kanye WestExit - You aint no match - Lena Paige        Lena on facebookHistory & Factoids about today Playlist on SpotifyHistory & Factoids about today webpagecooolmedia.comcountryundergroundradio.comNational Days - May Puzzle BookGrace & Grit Christian Country Radio

La vita di Steve Jobs, tra cadute, ossessioni e fallimenti, fino alla sua consacrazione e a quella di Apple.Ne parliamo con Diego Piacentini, manager italiano ed esperto di tecnologia che ha lavorato in Apple al fianco dello stesso Jobs e che ha scritto l'introduzione all'edizione italiana del volume di Geoffrey Cain, Steve Jobs. L’esilio. La storia mai raccontata di NeXT e la rinascita di un visionario americano (Egea).Queste le altre recensioni e segnalazioni della puntata:- Tim Berners-Lee, Questo è per tutti, Mondadori- Michele Ciliberto, Il cerchio delle umane cose. 1494-1527, crisi e decadenza dell'Italia, Laterza- Jonathan Wilson, La grande storia della Coppa del Mondo, Limina- Giuseppe Culicchia, La mia Germania, Neri Pozza- Uah! Vita e opinioni di Franz Zazzi, gentiluomo, MondadoriIl confettino, i consigli di lettura per i più piccoli, di questa settimana:- Alessandro Aresu, Virginia Volpi, Non è intelligente ma si applica. Alla scoperta dell'intelligenza artificiale, Feltrinelli.

On this episode of Think Theory Radio we discuss real life Sci-Fi!!! What modern technologies and innovations were inspired by stories from science fiction? From submarines to smart phones many inventions were depicted in the genre. Which Arthur C. Clarke story motivated Tim Berners-Lee to develop the World Wide Web? What current tech came from Star Trek, The Jetsons, and other such works? Plus, how did the writings of Philip K. Dick lead to many of today's machinations?!

You might be surprised to learn that the famous “www” in website addresses didn't originate in Silicon Valley or New York, but at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, known as CERN for short, which is situated on the French-Swiss border close to Geneva.  It was 1989 when British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee came up with the idea for a hypertext system. Essentially, it was a way to connect different pieces of data through links, creating something like a giant web that would work via the internet. Aren't internet and web the same thing?  What about the other parts of a web address then, like https or “.com” at the end? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions! To listen to the last episodes, you can click here: ⁠⁠How to protect your art from AI exploitation?⁠⁠ ⁠⁠What is the internet of senses?⁠⁠ ⁠⁠What is Web 3.0?⁠⁠ A podcast written and realised by Joseph Chance. First Broadcast: 30/9/2024 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nach unserer obligatorischen Bierverkostung dreht sich in dieser Folge vieles um die Frage, wie uns digitale Helfer den Alltag wirklich erleichtern — und wo sie uns in neue Abhängigkeiten führen. Ausgangspunkt ist eine Mischung aus Wandern und Karten-Apps und der Erfahrung, dass Karten mehr sind als nur Orientierungshilfen – sie spiegeln unsere Gesellschaft, ihre Werte und ihre Digitalisierung wider. Es geht um Daten, Plattformen und Geschäftsmodelle. Besonders spannend ist dabei der Blick auf Komoot und das alternative, community-basierte Kartensystem OpenStreetMap. Gamification im Harz Ein zweiter Schwerpunkt ist das Wandern im Harz und die dortige Gamification-Kultur: Stempelhefte, Wanderabzeichen und clevere Wege, um Touren spielerisch zu strukturieren. Die Folge zeigt, wie solche Systeme Menschen in Bewegung bringen, Familien organisieren und auch bei Kindern erstaunlich gut funktionieren. Staubsaugroboter, China und Standards Gordian hat einen neuen Saug- und Wischroboter und wir stellen Fragen nach Komfort, Datenschutz, chinesischen Produkten und europäischen Standards. Der Roboter wird nicht nur als Haushaltshelfer beschrieben, sondern als Symptom einer größeren Entwicklung: Technik nimmt Arbeit ab, erzeugt aber zugleich neue Abhängigkeiten, neue Datenflüsse und neue Unsicherheiten. Die Folge streift dabei auch Prüfverfahren und die Frage, ob Produkte hierzulande wirklich ausreichend kontrolliert werden. Dazu kommen Verweise auf Nico Semsrott, auf die PRÜF-Demos und auf den Leitsatz „Prüfen rettet übrigens Leben“, der die sehr deutsche Eigenart, Dinge zu prüfen, auch auf politische Parteien ausweitet. Internet, Regeln und Verantwortung Die Folge landet bei Tim Berners-Lee, beim Gedanken des universellen Netzes und bei der Frage, wie offen technologische Systeme eigentlich gedacht waren — und wie sehr Konzerne, Plattformen und Geschäftsinteressen diesen Anspruch inzwischen umformen. Nicht alles, was bequem ist, ist auch folgenlos. Die Episode verbindet Alltagsbeobachtung, Medienkritik und Kulturgeschichte mit einer gesunden Skepsis gegenüber technischer Selbstverständlichkeit. In dieser Episode erfährst du: - Wie Kartensysteme wie OpenStreetMap und Komoot das Wandern in der Natur verändern. - Warum Gamification auch Draußen und gerade auch für Kinder so gut funktioniert. - Was ein Staubsaugroboter über Datenschutz, Standards und chinesische Produkte verrät. - Warum Prüfen, Regulieren und kritisches Denken auch in der Politik zentral bleiben. - Welche Rolle Tim Berners-Lee und das „universelle Internet“ in der Debatte spielen. Abonnier unseren Podcast hier oder auch auf Spotify, Apple oder YouTube. Teile diese Folge mit Freund:innen und erzähle uns in den Kommentaren auf YouTube oder auf Bluesky von deinen eigenen Technik-Erfahrungen zu Hause oder unterwegs. Denn gute Geschichten beginnen beim Zuhören.

Il divulgatore digitale Gabriele Gobbo introduce viaggi nel tempo della rubrica "Indietro nel futuro" con attori digitali generativi creati con l'AI all'interno di ambientazioni ricostruite. Con contributi video di Marco Camisani Calzolari dalla sua serie "Decisioni Artificiali" su Tim Berners-Lee e Alessandro Curioni sul peccato del gratis in rete. Nel 1976 Steve Wozniak e Steve Jobs vendettero furgoncino e calcolatrice per raccogliere 1300 dollari e fondare Apple. Tim Berners-Lee creò il web al CERN nel 1989 e nel 1993 lo rilasciò libero senza brevetti, rinunciando a miliardi. Nel 1950 Eugene McDonald inventò il Lazy Bones, primo telecomando con cavo da sei metri. In questo episodio di FvgTech emerge come il peccato originale di internet non sia stato l'odio ma il gratis: abbiamo barattato con un'app la nostra anima. La visione celebra invenzioni che oggi diamo per scontate.

When he launched the World Wide Web in December 1990, how did its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee, think it would all go? 

Teachers spend years learning to coach people. Ask questions, not give answers. Build trust before expecting vulnerability. Hold space. Stay quiet when staying quiet is the hardest thing.Then they get promoted. And most of it disappears.Chris Scorer — school leader, data specialist, and co-host of Education Leaders Live — said it plainly this month: "You'd never walk into a classroom and tell kids to do something just because you're telling them to. Yet leadership very often does exactly that."If you've ever watched that gap open up — between what you know good leadership looks like and what actually happens under pressure — you're in the right place. You're not the only one who's seen it.This is Education Leaders Live, the monthly companion show to the Education Leaders podcast. Each month, host Shane Leaning and Chris Scorer sit down with the listeners who show up live to unpack the best conversations from the feed. This month they hit a milestone — Episode 150 — and three conversations that kept pulling at the same uncomfortable question.Why coaching programmes fail If you've ever launched a coaching initiative in a school and watched it quietly dissolve, Gene Tevonetti's research will probably explain why. After working with hundreds of schools, he found it's almost never the method that fails. It's one unresolved question that nobody answered at the start: what gets shared, what stays private, and who actually agreed on that before the coaching began? Confidentiality isn't just a detail. It's the foundation — and most schools pour it last.Why smart leaders make terrible decisions You're not irrational. You're human. Shane walked through five cognitive biases that show up constantly in school leadership — anchoring, availability, the endowment effect, groupthink, and optimism bias. Chris brought an unexpected angle: Richard Thaler built behavioural economics to help people understand how we actually make decisions, not the tidy rational-actor fiction economists had been selling for decades. Then it came out he'd run workshops for Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk on how to use that same understanding to manipulate people through their websites. Chris was genuinely heartbroken. He contrasted it with Tim Berners-Lee, who simply gave the internet to the world with no IP, no commercial conditions, nothing. "With great power comes great responsibility," Shane said. It might be the most honest five seconds of the month.The future of British international schools (Episode 150 milestone) Simon Probert introduced an idea that's quietly reshaping how the best international schools think: rooted cosmopolitanism. There's a difference between raising students to be "global citizens" — a well-meaning idea that can leave young people belonging to nowhere — and students who are deeply anchored in their own culture and genuinely open to the world. As demographics shift in international school cities like Shanghai, this stops being philosophical. What is your school actually for? Do all your stakeholders agree? And if they don't, whose job is it to sort that out?Chris also had his "Chris Solves the World" moment. One practical step that any international school could take tomorrow. It involves language. Worth staying for.You can join Shane and Chris live every last Thursday of the month at educationleaders.live, on LinkedIn, or on YouTube — 6pm Shanghai / 10am UK. Bring your thoughts, your pushback, and your own stories from the field. That's what this show is built for.If this is your world, we'd genuinely love to have you in the room.

Who dares to make predictions in the current landscape? We do!  Our Predictions are back. Will our track-record continue on a high or will we be fundamentally wrong? Listen in to our Predictions for 2026 Navigation: Intro What will 2026 be all about? AI, AI and … more AI The big Hardware movements Of Start-ups and VCs Regulatory & Geopolitical Headwinds… and the Wars Fintech, Crypto and Frontier Tech Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show:   Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Schmitt Introduction Welcome to Tech Deciphered Episode 74. That would be an episode about some predictions about 2026. What will be 2026 all about? I guess this year is probably starting with a bang. We saw the acquisition of xAI by SpaceX. We saw an acquisition from Grok by NVIDIA. What’s your take about what would be the big themes in 2026? I guess it would be for sure about AI and space. Nuno Goncalves Pedro What will 2026 be all about? Yeah. I predict a year that will be a little bit more of a year of reckoning in some way. There will be a lot of things that I think we’ll start seeing through. The fact that we are in the midst of an amazing transformational era for technology, the use of AI, but at the same time, obviously, a ridiculous bubble that is going alongside it as we’ve discussed in previous episodes. I think that we’ll start seeing some early reckonings of that, companies that might start failing, floundering, maybe a couple of frauds along the way, etc. I’ll tell you what I will not make many predictions about today, which is geopolitics. Geopolitics, I will not make predictions at all. Who the hell knows what’s going to happen to the world this year in 2026? I don’t dare making any predictions on that. Back to things where I would make predictions. I think on AI, we’ll have a little bit of reckoning. We’ll talk about it a little bit more in detail during this episode. Interesting elements around the hardware and physical space. Physical space, we just dedicated a full episode to it. We won’t go into a lot of details on that, but definitely on the hardware side, we’ll talk a little bit more about it. The VC landscape is going through an incredible transformation. We’ll talk about it today as well and some of our predictions for this year. What will happen to the asset class? It seems to be transforming itself dramatically. Obviously, that has a very direct impact on startups, so we’ll talk about that as well. And then to close a little bit the chapter on this, we will address some regulatory and geopolitical, let’s call it, headwinds without making maybe too many complex predictions. We shall see. Maybe by that time of the episode, we will be making some predictions. You guys should stay and listen to us, and maybe we will actually make some predictions about the geopolitical transformations that we will see this year in the world. Then last but not the least, we’ll talk about fintech, crypto, frontier tech, and a couple of other areas before concluding the episode. A classic predictions’ episode. We normally have a pretty good track record on some of these, but right now, the world is going a bit interesting, not to say insane. Bertrand Schmitt Yes, and going back to some news, Groq technically was not acquired, but, practically, it’s as if it got acquired. I’m talking about Groq, G-R-O-Q. The AI semiconductor company focused on inference AI, and it was late December. It was a way to end the year. This year, we started again with an acquisition of xAI by its sister company, SpaceX. I guess that’s where we are starting. AI, AI and … more AI We are going to start on AI. That’s definitely the big stuff. Everything these days, I guess, is about AI or has to have some connection with AI, or it doesn’t matter. I think every company in the world has seen that. You have to have the absolute minimum on AI strategy. You better execute on this strategy and show results, I would say. For the companies that were not AI native, you truly have to have a way to transform yourself. I guess at some point, the stretch might be too much, and it’s not really reasonable. Then you maybe better stay on what you are doing, especially if you’re in tech, you better be moving faster to AI. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Just to highlight, and I think throughout the episode, you’ll see that there’re obviously a lot of implications that would manifest themselves into capital markets. I mean, we’ll specifically talk about VCs and startups later on. But the fact that everything needs to be AI, the fact that there’s so much innovation happening right now, in my opinion, and this is maybe the first pre-topic to AI, is we’ll see a tremendous increase in M&A activity this year across the board. I mean, we’ve seen already some big acquihires we mentioned in some of our previous episodes, but we’ll see a lot more activity on M&A this year. Normally, that’s a precursor to the opening of capital markets. I predict also that there will be a reopening of the IPO market that never really reopened last year, to be honest. M&A, a lot more, reopening of the IPO market. Normally, it happens in the second or third quarter of the year. That’s what my M&A friends tell me. First quarter of year, everyone’s figuring out stuff. Then last quarter of the year, things should be more or less closed. Maybe the third quarter is the big quarter. We shall see. But definitely, as a precursor to our conversation today, I think we’ll see a lot of M&A, and we’ll see reopening of the IPO mark. Bertrand Schmitt I guess last year was not as big as you could expect on M&A given the tariff situation announced in April and May. I mean, it became quite tough to do IPO in such market conditions. Definitely, we can hope for something dramatically different in 2026. I guess talking about public markets and IPO, I guess the big one everyone is waiting for is SpaceX. SpaceX getting even more interesting with its xAI acquisition. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Do you think that because of the acquisition, it’s more likely that it will happen this year, or because of the acquisition, it’s less likely that it will happen this year? Bertrand Schmitt That’s a good question. My guess is the acquisition of xAI is all about xAI needing more financing and cheaper financing. This acquisition is a pathway to that. SpaceX being a much bigger company, a company that is also making much more revenues. I could bet that there is higher probability that, actually, SpaceX will go public in order to finance itself. At the same time, will it have enough time to prepare itself for the IPO given this acquisition just happened? Can they do that in 6 months? I mean, if anyone can do it, I guess it’s Elon Musk. It’s a strategy to present an even more attractive company with an even more interesting story, a story of vertical integration from AI to space. I guess the story as it’s presented itself right now, it’s one about having your AI data centers in space. Because in space, you have much better solar energy production with solar panels. You have a perfect cooling situation because you are in space. Thanks to Starlink, you have the mean to communicate between the satellites and with Earth itself. I think if someone can pull up a story like AI data center in space, I guess Elon Musk can. There is, of course, a lot of questions about is it practical? Is it economical? Yes. I certainly agree. I’m not clear on the mass, and can you make it work? Again, I mean, Elon Musk single-handedly, with SpaceX, managed to transform the space market on its head. I mean, they are the biggest satellite launching company in the world. They have the most satellites in the world. I mean, I’m not sure I would bet against him, and I guess I would probably believe that he could pull up something. Time frames, different story. The 2-3 years data center in space for AI as cheap as on Earth, I have more trouble with that one. I mean, it’s a usual suspect with Elon Musk. You promise something unachievable in a few years, but, ultimately, you still manage to reach it in 5 or 10. Again, I would not bet against the strategy. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yeah. I’ve talked to a couple of space experts, people that have launched rockets, and have worked JPL, NASA, and a couple of other places, etc. For what it’s worth, their feedback is, “No way in hell, and we’re decades away.” We’ll see. I mean, to your point, Elon has pulled very dramatic stuff. Not as fast as he normally says he’s going to pull it, but within a time span that we all see it. Difficult to bet against him. In terms of actually the prediction, maybe to respond to the prediction as well, will SpaceX IPO? I’m going to make a prediction that has a very high likelihood of missing the mark, but I think Tesla’s going to buy and merge them both into it. It’s going to become a public company through Tesla. That’s my hypothesis. Bertrand Schmitt No. That’s supposed to be it. That’s how you solve that. Nuno Goncalves Pedro And Elon controls the whole universe. X, xAI, Tesla, SpaceX, all under one umbrella beautifully run. And SolarCity is well in there, of course, so wonderful. Bertrand Schmitt That’s possible. Certainly, you are not the only one thinking Tesla will acquire or merge with SpaceX. To remind everyone, Tesla is around 1.3, 1.5 trillion market cap. Depending on the day, SpaceX seems to be valued at similar range, 1.2, 1.3 trillion. It looks like it’s the most valued private company at this stage. These are companies of similar size, so that’s one piece of the puzzle. When you think about the combined company, we could be talking about a 3 trillion entity. Playing right here with the biggest companies in the marketplace today. Nuno Goncalves Pedro With a couple of tweets from Elon, it will rapidly get to 4 to 5 trillion. Bertrand Schmitt That’s so tricky. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yes. On AI and back to AI, one thing I think that we’re about to see is this will probably be the year of agentic AI. Obviously, we predict a lot of growth on that side of the fence, in particular on the enterprise B2B side. We see a lot of opportunities coming through. From our perspective, at least at Chamaeleon, we generally believe that there’s going to be a lot of movements on agentic AI. It’s also going to be probably the year of the first big fails of agentic AI that will be newsworthy. There will be some elements about that loop and how it gets closed that will happen. I think we might see some scandals already. We’re already seeing the social network of bots talking to bots. We will see other scandals going on this year even in the consumer space and in the bot to bot space, which we now can talk about or in the AI agent to AI agent space. My prediction is we will see some move forwards. There’ll be some dramatic funding rounds along the way. We’ll see a couple of really cool things out of the gates coming out that are really impressive, but we’ll also see the first big misses of the technology stack. I don’t think we’ll go fully mainstream yet this year, so it’s probably maybe something more for 2027 along the way. That would be my prediction again. I think enterprise will lead the way. We’ll definitely see a lot of stuff on consumer as well that is cool. Then we’ll all have our own personal assistance in our hands, basically, literally in our phones. Bertrand Schmitt Going back to agentic AI, we also started the year with some pretty dramatic move. I mean, the launch of Clawdbot, renamed OpenClaw. I mean, this stuff took fire in like a week or 2. It was coded by just one person who actually didn’t even code the product but used AI to build the product, 100% used AI, proposing some new ways also to leverage AI to do coding. He has a pretty unique approach. It’s not vibe coding. I would say it’s a better way to do that. Then the surprising evolution with the launch of a social network for AI agents, Moltbook. I mean, this stuff, probably there is some fake in it. But at the same time, I think it’s quite impressive because it’s the first time we see truly 100,000 plus agents communicating directly to each other. Yeah. I mean, that’s the first time we see surfacing the possibility of some sort of hive mind on the Internet. It’s pretty surprising. Right now, all of this is a hack done in a few days. By end of year, by 2 years, 3 years, we might discover that, actually, the best approach to AI might not be the AI assistant like we are doing today, but a combination of hundreds of thousands of AI working closely together. We might be witnessing the first sign of new intelligence in a way. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Things like this social network might either be Skynet, the beginning of Skynet. They might be the beginning of Her, or they might just be a fad and nothing really happens. It’s just interesting to see what these agents are doing. Bertrand Schmitt Totally. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Obviously, there are real and clear and present dangers of some of the integrations of AI we’re seeing in the market. Interesting enough, and I’ll ask you for your prediction a bit, Bertrand. I think we’ll probably see the first big mishap of AI being used in some infrastructural decision in the age of AI. I mean, we’ve seen AI issues in the past and software issues in the past. We talked in previous episodes about that as well. Mishaps of software that have led to people dying. But I think probably the first big mishap will happen this year as well. Very public mishap of the use of AI and serve its interactions with infrastructure or something that’s very platform related, etc, that will have big impact that everyone will notice. That’s my prediction for the year as well. We’ll have the first big oops moment, as I would call it, for AI in this new age of full on AI. Bertrand Schmitt I would say first some perspective. I think today, people are not using AI directly for life and death decision, at least not that I’m aware. We’re not going to let AI fly a plane, for instance, tomorrow so you can be, reassured. At the same time, given there is such a race to AI, there definitely might be some mistakes. We were talking about the social network for AI agents, Moltbook. Apparently, all the keys used to secure the AI were shared by mistake because it was not properly locked down. We can see that indirectly, mistakes will be made for sure. Two, it’s highly probable that some people will trust AI too much to do some stuff, and this stuff might not work and might have some grave consequence. Hopefully, there is not so much of this. Hopefully, it’s mostly AI used for the good. But you’re right. I mean, at some point, the more we use the technology, the more there would be issue. I mean, it’s highly probable. Nuno Goncalves Pedro That will lead me to another prediction, which is, and we’ll talk about more of it later, but it probably will lead to the first significant movement in terms of regulatory environment certainly in the US at some point if it happens in the US in particular, where there will be some movement that will be like, “Hey, you guys can’t do this anymore.” Because this will probably emerge from mismanaged interfaces. From systems having access to stuff that they shouldn’t have access to in the first place. Talking a little bit more about what’s happening in AI. You’ve already mentioned some of the issues that relate actually to security and cybersecurity. We keep talking about AI. We keep talking about all these infrastructure pieces and platforms that are being built. I think we’ll have a lot more incidents like the one you just mentioned where things will be shared that shouldn’t have been shared, where people will break systems and get into it, etc. Let’s see where that takes us, which is a little bit ironic because, obviously, with AI, the promise is that cybersecurity becomes more robust as well because there’re agents working on our behalf on the cybersecurity side. There’s also agents working on the other side. Bertrand Schmitt It’s a constant race. It’s the attackers, defenders. Each time you have new technology, you have a new race to who is going to attack or defend the best. Each new wave of technology, it’s an opportunity to challenge the status quo. Nuno Goncalves Pedro The attackers have been winning, and I feel they’ll continue winning in 2026. I think it’s going to still be a year of attack. We’ll see more and more breaches, more and more stuff that will happen. Bertrand Schmitt I don’t know if they will win. I mean, it’s normal that they win once in a while. For sure, some infrastructure is not updated as it should. Some stuff are not managed as it should, so there will always be breaches. I don’t know if things are dramatically going to change because, again, everyone who cares who is going to update his infrastructure with AI for defense. There is no question that you have no choice. We will see. That I don’t know. For sure, AI will be used to attack directly with AI. Maybe you’re able to do bigger, larger scale attack. Or thanks to AI, you are simply able to create new type of attacks more easily. AI can be used behind the scene as a way to prepare and organise new type of attacks, even if it’s not used directly live in the battle. Nuno Goncalves Pedro One topic that we’ll come back to later is the geopolitics of everything, but maybe more broadly. On the geopolitics of AI, it’s very clear that we have an arms race going on. Obviously, the US on the one hand, China on the other hand is the two extremes, putting tremendous amount of capital into data centers just at the base of that infrastructure. Chipset development, chipset access, a huge theme in terms of the export restrictions, etc, that are being forced by the US. I think it will continue. From a European standpoint, obviously, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place, to be very honest. Let’s see what happens on that side of the fence. My view of the world is that certainly from a US and China perspective, we’re going to see a lot more movements in 2026, like big movements. The Chinese movements we always see in delay.  It takes us a couple of months, sometimes even more than that to understand exactly what’s going on. I think we’re going to see some huge moves this year in terms of the States, the United States of America, and China really pouring capital into the creation of the next big winners around AI. I think the US is obviously more visible. We see a lot of these companies. We’ve just discussed xAI and its acquisition by SpaceX or merger. I don’t know what they’re calling it exactly. Effectively, on the China side, the movements I think are already very big. As I said, it will take a while to figure out exactly what those moves are. One thing that I propose is that at some point, China will have very little dependency on chipsets from the US. I’m not sure it’s going to happen this year, but I think the writing is on the wall. Irrespective of any other geopolitical issues that is coming to the fore at this moment in time. That’s one of the key areas or in arenas of fight. Bertrand Schmitt It makes sense. If you are China, you will look at what happened. You would think that you cannot just depend on the largest of one country. It makes rational sense, the same way it makes rational sense for the US to limit exports to China because there is value to delay some peer pressure that could use these technologies for good but also for bad. If you were an ally of the US, that would be one thing. But when you are not an ally of the US, that certainly should be a different perspective. Maybe one last point concerning agents, I think there will be a lot that will revolve around coding. We can see OpenAI with Codex. We can see Cloud with code. There was, of course, [inaudible 00:18:28] that was trying to be big on agentic coding. I think agentic coding was one of the big transformation in 2025 and is going to get bigger in 2026. I think for a lot of people who do coding, there was a radical transformation in terms of what you can achieve, what you can do, how much you can trust AI to help you code. I start to think we might see this year, the replacement of not just one AI replace one coder, but one AI replace a full team because of the new ability to manage that at scale. Coding might be a common activity where you are going to think about outcomes, think about objective, think about how you organise, but not really coding by itself anymore. A big change, like you used to code, directly your hand on the stuff, but step by step, everyone is going to become a manager of agent. I think in one year, we saw enough transformation to think that in the coming year, the transformation can be even more dramatic. Nuno Goncalves Pedro The big Hardware movements Now switching gears to hardware. Obviously, a lot of movements in 2025 and over the last few years. One piece of thesis that we’ve had long-standing at Chamaeleon is that we will see the emergence of AI devices. Some of them have been tremendous failures as we discussed in the past. I predict that we’ll have a couple of really interesting full stack AI devices in the market this year. Why does that matter? Because, as many of you know, obviously, there’s compute that can happen in data centers and cloud infrastructure all over the world, but also there’s compute that can happen at the edges. The more you can move to the edges and the more you can create devices that actually allow you to have user experiences that are very distinctive at the edge, the more powerful some of these devices might become. I predict Apple will not be the first to launch anything on this. I predict probably OpenAI, after the acquisition of IO, will maybe not launch something this year, but will announce something this year. I’ll step back on that prediction. They’ll announce something this year, but maybe not launch. But we’ll start seeing some devices that have some interesting value in the market, probably devices that are AI devices, but they are very focused on very specific user flows, and so very much adequate to specific activities. I won’t make a prediction on that, but I think areas that would make sense for that to happen would be obviously around fitness, health, et cetera, et cetera, where we already have the ascendancy of products like Oura Ring and others out there. Definitely, that’s one area that might have quite a lot of developments. I think AI-first devices, devices that are very focused on compute at the edges, providing user flows that are AI-enabled to end users, we’ll see a lot more of that and a lot more activity this year. Again, I don’t think Apple will be necessarily ahead of the game. Again, maybe OpenAI will give us something to at least think about and look forward to. Bertrand Schmitt First, I’m not sure it will be that transformational because if it’s not in your phone, in your pocket, there is only so much you can do with it, and there is only so much computing power you will have. I’m doubtful it would be really impactful this year. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I feel we’ve been discussing this shift of paradigm in input and output. For me, some of these devices could lead to that shift. Because, again, a mobile phone is not a great long-term paradigm for the usage that we have because it’s really constrained by the screen. The screen is really what takes most of the battery life away. If we didn’t have that screen, what could we do? If we have the block that is as big as a mobile phone, and it didn’t have a screen, it was just compute, that’s a mini computer, a microcomputer. Bertrand Schmitt That’s a fair point, but I don’t see that transformation this year. That’s really more my point. I can see that you can have AI-enabled smart glasses, and it’s clear there is a race to AI-enabled smart glasses. My point is more to go beyond the gadget, it would take quite a while. It would need to have cameras. It would need to analyse what you see. It would need to hear what you hear. Again, it might come, but then at some point, it would be okay, what do you do with it? We have the example of the movie Her. That’s showing Her what it could be. There are definitely possibilities. It’s clear that if you take the big VR headset like the Apple Vision Pro, there is a failure from that perspective in the sense that I think it’s a great, amazing device. The big problem is that it’s doing way more that makes sense. I think there will be a clearer separation between your smart AR glasses that has to be light, that has to be always unconnected, and that’s primarily there to help you make sense of the world around you. The true VR headset that doesn’t really require much in terms of AI, and it’s just there to immerse you in a different world. For this, we know, unfortunately, in some ways, that there is not a lot of demand for it. Maybe there is little demand because you are too hidden in your own world. The technology is not working well enough yet. There are a lot of reasons. But I think Apple trying to do both at the same time, AR and VR, with the Vision Pro, was a pretty grave structural mistake. I think we would see a clearer line of separation between the two. There is bigger market opportunity for AR glasses. That, I certainly agree. There is opportunity to connect that to a computing device. As you talk about, your glasses are your screen, your phone becomes something in your pocket connected to your glasses. Nuno Goncalves Pedro For me, Apple has their way of doing things. From the perspective of what you said, they normally really plan their devices. Even if it’s a big shift in terms of a new area, like they tried with the Vision Pro, and we criticised them for launching it as a device that should have been more of a dev device that they really launched as a full-on device, but that’s their playbook, classically. I think Apple needs to change how they put products out and how they experiment with those products, et cetera. I think they have enough money to be doing everything all the time and figuring it out. If they don’t want to put it out, then they need to do a lot more hell of testing internally with their silos, but they should be playing across all these arenas, VR, AR, everything. They just should put devices out that are either ready for prime time, or they should call it something else. They should call it like this is a dev device or whatever it is. Bertrand Schmitt I agree with you. My complaint is more that it was marketed as a consumer device when it was not. It was a true developer device. Two, they tried to mix the two at once, and it made no sense. No one is going to walk in their home or in the street with their Vision Pro on their head. You have to be deranged, quite frankly, to have use cases like this. I think that for me is a crazy mistake from a company like Apple that prides itself in pure UI, pure user interface, very well-designed device for one specific use case, not mixing the two use cases. We still don’t have Macs with a touchscreen, you know?  We still don’t have an iPad with a good OS that makes use of this great hardware. For some strange reason, they decided to mix everything in the Vision Pro with a device that weighs a ton on your head and is so uncomfortable. That’s why, for me, I’m like, “Guys, what is wrong? Why did you let this team run crazy?” I hope at some point, Apple will go back to the drawing board. My understanding is that that’s what they are doing. They are going to have two devices, one smart glasses, an evolution of the Vision Pro, just focus on VR. They might actually abandon the concept of the pure VR-oriented headset. Because, from a market size perspective, it might not be big enough for Apple, quite frankly. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I read on all of the above, and people at this point was like, “Why are then players like Samsung and others not doing it. LG, et cetera?” Because those players historically have not invented new categories. They’re amazing at catching up once the category is invented, and then they scale the hell out of it, and that’s what these companies have been exceptional at. I wouldn’t see a dramatic innovation, I think, in terms of devices coming from any of the big ones on that side of the fence. Not to disrespect them in any way, but I think that’s not been their playbook ever. Again, if the origination doesn’t come from a start-up or from an Apple, I don’t see those guys going after it. My bet is that we’ll see some start-up activity and, again, hopefully, some announcement from IO now within the OpenAI world. Bertrand Schmitt I would slightly disagree with you. I see where you are coming from. But take the Samsung Galaxy Note, that sudden much bigger headphone that no one was doing that was launched by Samsung, at some point, it forced Apple to launch an iPhone Max. Let’s look at the Z Fold that Samsung launched 7 years ago, copied by everyone. Now Samsung launching a trifold. Apple has still not launched their foldable phone. I think there is a mix, actually, of sometimes- Nuno Goncalves Pedro For me, that’s not a proper new category. It’s still a mobile phone. It just happens to have a screen that folds in half. Bertrand Schmitt The iPhone was still a mobile phone, you could argue.  Nuno Goncalves Pedro No. I think the iPhone was…  I could actually agree with you on that point. Maybe Apple is not as innovative in that case. I think what Steve Jobs was exceptionally good at in terms of his ability as this master product manager was to be an exceptional curator of user flows and user experiences, and creating incredible experiences from devices based on that. That was his secret sauce. Could you say, “Wasn’t all of this stuff already around?” It was. You just put it all together very neatly and very nicely. But if you’re talking about significant shifts in how a category is done, the iPhone was a significant shift in how the category was done. The Fold is still an interesting device. I actually have a Fold right now in front of me. The 7 that you highly recommended to me that we both got, the Z Fold 7. I think they do amazing devices. I don’t think they normally are the most innovative players. Then, when they come to innovation, it comes from technology edges. Obviously, they have Samsung Display, there’s a bunch of other things. They had the ability to do foldable screens in-house themselves. Bertrand Schmitt I don’t disagree with you. I think there is an interesting situation where some companies have some strengths, another one has some strengths. My worry with Apple is that this was not demonstrated with the Vision Pro. The Vision Pro was a hot pot of technologies barely integrated together, with use cases absolutely not well-defined and certainly not something that makes sense for most of us. There is a question of has Apple lost it? While Samsung actually keeps doing their own stuff, that, yes, might be more minor improvements, but at least they are doing it. Because it looks like Apple is missing the train on even the minor improvements. By the way, you might not be aware, but Samsung launched its Vision Pro competitor. Interestingly enough, it might be a better product in some ways, being much lighter and much more comfortable. Nuno Goncalves Pedro We should play around with that and report back to our listeners. Of Start-ups and VCs Moving to venture capital and the startup ecosystem and what’s happening there, I think it is very much a bifurcated environment, and it’s bifurcated for both VCs and for startups. If you’re a startup in the AI space, and you have the hottest team since sliced bread, and you can create FOMO at the speed of light, you can raise ridiculous rounds. Five hundred million at the $3 billion, or $4 billion, or $5 billion valuation, and you still haven’t really even started. First round, you can raise 500 million. That’s back to the whole discussion on Bubble and where are we, et cetera. Some of these companies might actually become huge, some of them might not. But definitely, we are seeing really the haves and have-nots on the startup ecosystem with incredible teams raising a lot of money very, very early on or mid-stage if they’ve already existed for a while, and then the rest not being able to raise. We see a lot of non-necessarily AI sectors, some of the areas of SaaS that don’t necessarily have AI in it, or fintech, or the consumer space that are really, really struggling. If you don’t have an AI story for your startup right now, it’s extremely difficult to raise money unless your numbers are just the best numbers ever. That’s, I think, the first part of the element of bifurcation that we’re seeing today. The second element of bifurcation that we’re seeing today in terms of fundraising is for VCs themselves, and really propelled by the large VC firms raising more and more capital in recent orbits, announcing 15 billion across funds raised. Lightspeed, I think, had made an announcement a couple of weeks ago as well. They’ve raised a bunch of money as well. The big guys are all raising a lot of money. At some point in time, the question some of you might ask is, “These VCs are redeploying more and more money if they have a couple of billion for a VC fund. How does that look like? Is that still VC?” My perspective, I’ve shared before in some of our previous episodes, is that that’s no longer venture capital. At that point in time, we’re talking about something else. Private equity hedge funds, if you want to call them, maybe funds that are really driven by growth investment or late-stage investment. If you have a couple of billion under management, you’re not going to make your returns by writing a $3 million check in a series seed and leading that round.  That has implications for everyone in the ecosystem. It has implications for smaller funds that obviously have a lot more difficulty in raising capital. It’s difficult to differentiate. Last but not least, also for startups that really continue searching for that capital that is out there. Andreessen Horowitz, for example, runs Speedrun, which is a great program for companies around consumer in particular. Initially, it was a lot for gaming. But at some point in time, Andreessen Horowitz could decide that they don’t want to invest more in you. They just put money from Speedrun, which is obviously a very small check compared to the very large checks they could write mid to late stage and that will have an effect on you as a startup. What happens at that point in time if Andreessen Horowitz is not backing you up in later stages? More than that, what happens if I can’t get these big funds interested in me? Are the small funds still valuable to me? Punchline, my view is yes. Obviously, we’re a smaller fund, so there’s parochial interest in what I’m saying. Small funds can still create a ton of value for you, also in terms of credibility, ability to accompany you in those first stages of investment, and the ability to bring other larger investors later down the road as well. There’s definitely a big movement happening in terms of the fundraising for VC funds, which we shouldn’t neglect, which is the big guys are raising a lot more capital and are therefore emptying the market to smaller funds that are having more and more difficult raising at this point in time. We had discussed that there would be a need for concentration in the industry, that micro funds would need to concentrate, and we didn’t have the space for so many micro funds as we had around. But the way it’s happening is extremely dramatic at this moment in time. I think it will continue through 2026. Bertrand Schmitt Remember a few years ago, with the rise of AI, there was more and more of the question about, “What’s the point of SaaS at this stage?” Because SaaS was around for 15 years. Basically, how do you come up with something new that was not already tested, validated by the market? How do you bring something new? We say this was reinforced to the power of 10. If your product is not clearly built from the ground up for a new use case enabled by AI, anyone could then might have built your product 5, 10 years ago, and therefore, why now has no clear answer, and it’s a big problem. I’m still surprised myself to still see some entrepreneurs where you talk to them about AI because you don’t see them in the deck, and they explain to you, “It’s not yet there,” and you’re like, “What’s wrong with you guys?” Fine. Do whatever you want. Do a small business and whatever, but don’t think you can come up pitch and raise without an AI story. The second category is people who come with an AI story, but you can feel very quickly, I guess you saw that many times, Nuno, where just a story layered on top with little credibility. It’s not better. It’s not enough to just have a story. Your business needs to be radically built differently or radically proposing some brand-new use cases that were impossible to solve 5 years ago. Nuno Goncalves Pedro To stack up on that, absolutely in agreement. If you’re just adding to the story, and it’s an afterthought, and you’re just trying to make the story somehow gel, once you go into one or two layers of due diligence, your investors will very quickly realise that you’re not really AI-first or dramatically AI-enabled or whatever. It’s just you’re sort of stacking something on top of another thesis. It needs to make sense from the product onwards. It’s not just, let’s just put it together with chewing gum, and magically, people will give you money. It was true also if we remember the good old crypto blockchain days, where everyone’s investing in crypto. A lot of stories that didn’t make much sense. In that sense, it’s not very different. I would go one step further. I think in the world of the VC winter that we’re a little bit in, where it’s more and more difficult if you’re a smaller fund to raise your fund at this moment in time, there’s a lot of sources of distinctiveness still talked about, like proprietary networks, access to deal flow, fast track record, all that stuff that really, really matters. But our bet continues at Chamaeleon continues being that you need to be AI-first as a VC fund yourself. You need to have core advantages in using not only readily-available AI tools or third-party available AI tools, data sources, technology stacks, but actually building your own stack over time, which is what we did with Mantis at Chamaeleon. Again, just to reinforce that, I think we’re at the beginning of that stage. We, Chamaeleon, are ahead of the game, but we think that the rest of the market will have to move towards that as well. Still, to be honest, very surprising to me to see that many significant large players are doing very little still around some of these spaces. They have data scientists. They’re running some tools. They’re running some analysis and all that stuff, but it’s still, again, back to the point I was making for startups, all glued up with chewing gum. It doesn’t all come together nicely, which it does need to from a platform standpoint. Bertrand Schmitt It’s quite surprising. I agree with you that some VC funds might think that they can do business as usual in that brand-new world. It’s difficult to believe. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Maybe moving a little bit toward the capital formation piece. We already discussed the M&A space really accelerating. We’ve also discussed the IPO market and some predictions on that. Secondaries, there’s obviously a lot of liquidity coming from secondaries from mid to late stage. I think it will continue throughout the rest of 2026. A lot of activity in buying, selling in secondaries as some asset managers are becoming more distressed, as some very high net worth individuals and family offices are becoming more distressed as well, at the same time, where there’s a lot of opportunities to potentially arbitrage around some investments. I believe a lot of money will be made and lost this year by decisions made this year, just to be very, very clear in terms of equity, purchases, et cetera. Exciting year ahead of us. Definitely a very, very interesting market ahead of us. Secondaries, M&A, growth, and late-stage investing, also, early-stage investing will continue just for those that were wondering. Last but not least, the public markets, the IPO market as well. Bertrand Schmitt One of the big questions for the IPO market would be, will SpaceX go public? Would it be good for the startup ecosystem? Because suddenly that they go public, it would be to raise money. If they raise money, will there be any money left for anybody else? That would be an interesting test of the market. For sure, it would be proof that market are risk on financing a new IPO like this one. Or as you said, maybe there is no IPO, and it’s a merger with Tesla. Time will tell. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Regulatory & Geopolitical Headwinds… and the Wars Moving maybe to our topic of regulation and geopolitical headwinds, as we’re seeing … definitely not tailwinds. The Google antitrust verdict and, obviously, the remedies are expected to come forward now, and a lot of people are saying, “There are some risks of structural separation.” What do you think? Is it cool, but nothing will happen in the end dramatically? Alphabet or Google? I’m not sure, actually. It’s Google LLC. I think that’s the case. It’s The United States versus Google LLC. Bertrand Schmitt I’m not sure. Personally, I’m not a big fan. I think there needs to be a better way to manage some anticompetitive behavior. I’m not a big fan. There was this temptation to do that for Microsoft 25 years ago. Look at what happened. No one needed to buy Microsoft to leave space for others. I see the same with Google, and I guess they are happy to not be the number 1 in AI today, but to have an open AI in front of them. Even if they are doing a great job, by the way, to move forward and go faster and faster. Personally, quite impressed now with some of what they have released. Gemini 3 is doing great from my perspective. I’m not a big fan of this. I think to be clear, it’s important that bigger companies don’t behave anticompetitively, but at the same time, we need to find the right approach where it’s not about breaking these companies, and it’s also not about forbidding them to do acquisitions. Because then you end up with what NVIDIA just did with a $20 billion acquihire IP licensing type of acquisition, because they didn’t want to have the uncertainties. They didn’t want to wait 1–2 years in order to acquire the people and the technology, so they organised it in a different way. But I don’t like that. I think they should be able to acquire companies without facing so much uncertainty. To be clear, it’s not new. Uncertainty when you are Google, NVIDIA, or others, it happens. It has happened for a decade plus, 2 decades. I think there needs to be, for sure, some safety valves. At the same time, we want an efficient capital market. An efficient capital market need companies that can acquire other companies. If you don’t do that efficiently, it will be worse for the entrepreneurs, it will be worse for the investors, it will be worse for everybody. I think we have not reached a good equilibrium from my perspective. We need more efficient acquisition process. And at the same time, we need to also enforce faster anticompetitive behavior. Because what you talk about concerning Google, this is a case that was what? That is 10 years old. You see what I mean? This is way too long. If you’re a startup, you are dead by then. It’s like the story of Netscape facing Microsoft. They were dead long after the fact. I think we need a different approach. I’m not sure the best answer. I’m not sure we’ll get a better approach. There are probably too many vested interest. My hope is that it will get better with this current administration because, certainly, the past administration was very anti acquisition and efficient markets. Nuno Goncalves Pedro We’ve talked about the European Union AI Act a bunch of times, so I don’t want to spend too many cycles on that. The only effect that I would say is we are seeing in very slow motion the splitting of the Internet. I once had Tim Berners-Lee, by the way, shouting at me that we were going to break the Internet when we were applying for the .mobi top-level domain. I was part of that consortium that eventually did get the .mobi top-level domain, and I had him shouting at us. But, apparently, this is going to split the Internet, Tim. So in case you’re listening. Because it will create all these different rules. If your data is relating to consumers there, then it’s treated in a different way, and The US is… Well, obviously, we have the case of California with its own rules and laws. I don’t know. I feel we’re having a moment of siloing that goes beyond economic and geopolitical siloing. It will also apply to the digital world, and we’ll start having different landscapes around it. We’ll see how this affects global expansion of services, for example, around AI, particularly for consumer, but I don’t foresee anything dramatically positive. Recently, we had the whole deal around TikTok finally having a solution for their US problem where there’s now a US conglomerate magically that owns it. The conglomerate doesn’t magically own it, they just straight up own it for the US. But it was driven by many of these concerns around data ownership. Where’s the data? Where is it based? I think a lot of other concerns that have to do with the geopolitics of China, obviously, being the basis of ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, that still is a significant owner, by the way, in TikTok in US. Then also the interest in the economics of making money out of something as powerful as TikTok, to be honest, in The US. Just to be clear, I don’t think this was all about the best interests of consumers. It was also about money. Just follow the money. Bertrand Schmitt There are for sure, some powerful interest at play. But let’s be clear. I think one is data, as you rightfully said, but the other one is algorithm. It’s not as if China is authorising any competitor on its territory. They have blocked access to most of the Internet platforms from the US, either finding new rules or just trade blocking them. So I don’t think it’s fair competition. You don’t want some of that data in China about the US or European consumer. Three, it’s about the algorithm. If suddenly, you are a foreign power, and you can as we know in China, you better follow what’s required of you from the Chinese Communist Party. You cannot take a chance with influencing other stuff like elections in other countries. It’s fair from the US perspective. One could even argue it’s fair from a Chinese perspective to want that. I think the only one in the middle who doesn’t really know what they want is Europe because on one side, they want to benefit from American platforms, on the other end, they want to have some controls. On the other end, they don’t create the environment for startups to flourish. So in that weird situation where they have to accept some control by the big US providers and either provider of underlying infrastructure or provider of consumer business facing services. Then they try to regulate them. But I think they are misunderstanding the power relationship, and I think some of this regulation would get some blowback, at least by the current administration. Just, I believe, this morning, there was some news around X being under a criminal investigation in France. This is not going to end well for the French startup and VC ecosystem. This is not going to end well for France and Europe when you depend so much from your American friends. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Regulation will be weaponised. Regulation constraints around exports, all of this will be weaponised geopolitically, and the bigger guys will normally win. I think that’s normally what we’ve seen. Just on TikTok just to… And you guys, if you’re listening to us, just see if you see a pattern here, but obviously, 19.9% still owned by ByteDance of the TikTok entity in the US. It was initially said that 80% of the TikTok entity is owned by non-Chinese investors. Initially, people were saying US investors, and then they changed it to non-Chinese because MGX, I think, has 15% of it. MGX is based in the UAE, connected obviously to Mubadala, the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund. Silver Lake is in there, I think, with 15% as well. Oracle as well with 15%. Those three are the big bucket owners together, 45%. Silver Lake having collaborated with MGX before, and I’m sure a lot of connectivity there. Then you still see a pattern in this in terms of shareholders. If you don’t, then just Google it. Dell Family Office, Vastmir Strategic Investments, which is owned by billionaire Jeff Yass, Alpha Wave Partners, obviously involved with a bunch of things like SpaceX and Klarna, Virgoli, Revolution, which is Steve Case’s, a former founder of AOL, is also in there. Meritway, which is managed by partners, I think, of Dragonair. Vinova from General Atlantic, an affiliate of General Atlantic. Also, NJJ Capital, which I believe is Xavier Nil, the French billionaire that founded Iliad. Mostly American, I think, if the math is correct. 80% non-Chinese, which was what mattered, I think, in many cases. But do see if you saw a pattern in most of those investors. I won’t say anything more than that. Maybe moving to other topics, maybe just to finalise on regulation and geopolitics. In geopolitics, we should talk about wars if we predict anything. Not that we are nasty and one want to be negative, but what the hell is going on? Will we have ending to the wars we already have ongoing or not? But before that, the struggles on the App Stores, I think, will continue both for Apple and for Google Play Store. The writing’s on the wall, the EU keeps pushing it dramatically and Apple keeps just doing stuff. I’m on the board of an App Store company. Apple just creates all these things that basically make you not really… It doesn’t work. You can’t provision then an App Store on Apple devices. On iPhones, et cetera. We’ll see how that will continue going, but I feel the writing’s on the wall. Both Apple and Google will have to open up a bit more of their platforms. I’m not sure it will have a huge impact in the medium to long term, but definitely we need to see more openness in access to apps as given by the two big platform owners, Apple and Google, out there. Bertrand Schmitt Let’s be clear. Google is way more open than Apple. We both have Android devices. You can install alternative app stores. It’s a different ballgame by very far. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Google does other nasty stuff. It’s public. You can check which board I’m a part of. You can see what that company has done towards Google over time. But to your point, yes. It is true that Google has been more open than Apple, but Google has done their own things. Just to be very clear, so I’ll just leave that caveat bracketed there for people to think about it and maybe read a little bit about it as well. Bertrand Schmitt I can say that, me, from my perspective, that path of total control that Apple has been going through on all their devices, that includes macOS, pushed me to, over the past 2, 3 years, to completely live and abandon the Apple ecosystem. I just couldn’t accept that level of control, that golden handcuff approach of the Apple ecosystem, each their own obviously, they are golden, their handcuffs, but they are still handcuffs. Personally, that pushed me way more to Linux, Android, Windows, back to Windows after all these years. I just couldn’t stand it anymore. I want to pick my devices. I want to pick what I install on them, and I don’t want to be controlled like this by just one entity for all my tech devices. For me, at some point, it was just not acceptable anymore. It’s still very warm, very golden handcuffs, but for me, they were just handcuffs at this stage. Yes, what they are doing with the App Store is very typical of that mindset. I think it’s quite sad because I think it started with good intention in some ways. “We need a new computing paradigm, we need to make things smoother and safer,” but it has really become a way to control your clients. For me, it has reached a point where it’s just way too much. Nuno Goncalves Pedro There’s obviously the great power comes great responsibility that uncle Ben told Spider-Man or Peter Parker. But there’s also with great power comes shitload of money, and control. So it’s like, “Yeah. Should we open the server? Do we want to delay opening it up?” “Yeah.” Anyway, it is what it is. Maybe let’s end on the more difficult note of the episode, which is going to be around wars. What’s our prediction? Will we have an end to the Gaza situation with Israel? Will we have an end to Ukraine and, obviously, Russia? What will happen in Iran? Those are the three big, big conflicts right now. Then, obviously, if we want to add just bonus points, what’s going to happen to Greenland, and what’s going to happen to Taiwan, and what’s going to happen to Venezuela? Let’s throw the whole basket in there. We’ve never had like… Let’s talk about all these territories and all these countries. At some point in time, I’m saying this in a light manner, but it’s obviously more tragic than it should be light, and people are dying, and there’s a lot of implications of all of that that is happening right now. Do you have any predictions, Bertrand, for this year? Bertrand Schmitt No. It’s tough to predict on an individual basis. I think on a more bigger picture basis is on one side, obviously, the rise of China on one side. You have also the rise of other countries like India, while very indirectly connected to some of these conflicts are still part of the game, buying oil from Russia, for instance. At the same time, I think overall, the US is more clear about with the sheriff in town. I think it’s good because in some ways, you cannot pay for the goods, you cannot have such a massive advantage versus nearly every other country on earth and just not be clear about who is the boss in some ways. As a result, what are the rules of the game and how it should be played? The US is not alone, obviously, you have China, you have Russia, you have India, you have Europe. You have different other countries. But at some point, it’s not good when countries are not rational and are not clear. I think I prefer the current situation where things are more clear and where you have to assume responsibilities about what you are doing. It’s time to be rational again about how the world behave. Yes, the concept of power and balance of power. I think there has been that dream, maybe mostly coming from Europe, about the end of history. I think that’s simply not the case. It’s not the end of history. It’s still about the balance of power. It has always been about the balance of power. If you are dumb enough to think it was not about that anymore, I just have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. I don’t have specific prediction, but I think it’s clear there is a new sheriff in town. There is a new doctrine about the Western Hemisphere that has been in some ways resurrected on the [inaudible 00:51:35] train, and I think we’ll see more of it. I think at this point, the biggest question is for the Europeans. What do they want to do? Because right now, their position of being a dwarf militarily while being a pretty big giant economically, I don’t think it works. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I agreed on everything that you said. I do have predictions. I’ll stick a flag on the ground just with my predictions. Bertrand Schmitt Good luck. Nuno Goncalves Pedro They are mostly positive. I do think we’ll see an end or, for the most, end to the two big conflicts, the one in Gaza and the one in Ukraine. I think Ukraine will end up in readjustment of territory and splitting between Russia and the Ukraine, but the end of hostilities, I think that we will see an end to the conflict in Gaza also with a readjustment on what that will mean for the Palestinian territories and the Palestinians in general. That I’m not sure, but I feel that there will be an end to those two big conflicts. Iran, I have no clue. I will not put a stick on the ground that I have no clue. There are so many things that could go wrong there. I’ve been reading some really interesting thoughts about even some aggressive thoughts that this might be the time to really change regimes in Iran and for the US to have a bit more of an aggressive stance. I really don’t have a perspective. Obviously, there’s a lot at stake there. Then, if we talk about the other parts, Greenland, I will not opine too much on. Maybe we’re done for now. Maybe there’ll be some other concessions to the US that weren’t already there in the ’50s. Taiwan, I won’t bet either. I’m sad to say I think it might happen at some point in time, but I’m not sure when and what would drive it. Last but not the least, Venezuela is my only really negative prediction. I feel it will continue to be a significant dictatorship as it was before managed enough by other people with the difference now that it has a tax to be paid to the US in the form of oil of some sort, etcetera, and maybe gas, maybe other things as well that it didn’t have before. That’s probably my most negative prediction for the coming year on the geopolitical side. Bertrand Schmitt Without going into detail, I would mostly agree with what you shared. At least that makes sense. But as we know, it’s not always what makes sense, but what might happen. I can tell you 100% I would not have guessed this operation against Maduro. This was so well done, well executed, and shocking at the same time that it’s… I think it shows that it’s hard to guess some of this stuff because there are certainly some new ways to wage limited war, for instance. So it’s certainly interesting, and we certainly need to get used to pretty bombastic statements. But for Venezuela, I don’t think it can be worse than what it was before. I’m probably more optimistic that gradually it can get better. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Just to put perspective on why we’re not making predictions on some of these elements, I think this is a funny story, but I was in Madeira. Actually, first time I was in Madeira, although I’m originally from Portugal. I’ve never been to the islands. Obviously, as you guys know, or some of you might know, there’s a lot of connection between Madeira and Venezuela. There’s a lot of immigration from Madeira Islands to Venezuela. One of my Uber or Bolt drivers there in Madeira was Venezuelan. Was born in Venezuela, but Portuguese descent, et cetera. He was telling me this was still last year. Late last year. Because I told him I lived in US, et cetera, and he was like, “Oh, hopefully, Trump will get Maduro out of there.” In my mind, I was like, “Dude.” No disrespect to the gentleman, but it’s like, “Okay. Mike, your perspective on geopolitics is maybe a little bit exaggerated.” And a couple of days later, we know what happened. When geopolitical decisions are better predicted by some probably very astute Uber drivers, you’re like, “Maybe I shouldn’t make a bet. I have no clue what’s going to happen, no clue what’s going to happen in Greenland, et cetera.” Anyway, a couple of predictions on that element. Bertrand Schmitt That’s why it’s so right. You have to be careful with the prediction, but it doesn’t remove the fact that I think nations and companies that have to play a global game have to understand in some ways what is the game, what are the powers in place, what could happen potentially, but also be realistic. Not be about wish and dreams, but more about, what’s the power relationship? Who has the money? Who has the means? Who has the capacity to do this or that? Because if you start that way, at least the scope of what’s possible, what’s reasonable is more and more clear more quickly. Some stuff like happened with Maduro, I would never have predicted, but for sure, if there’s one country that can do this sort of stuff, it’s the US. I’m not sure anyone has a technology and the means in terms of support infrastructure to do something like this. It’s tough to predict what will happen a year from now for any specific country, but I think that even trying to get a better understanding about the forces in play and their capacity and understanding and accepting that at some point, it’s all about real politic and relationship of power, the more your eyes would be wide open about what’s possible versus simple, wishful thinking. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Fintech, Crypto and Frontier Tech Moving maybe to our last section around fintech, crypto, and frontier tech. For me, just two very quick predictions, views of the world. I think on the frontier tech side, I won’t make a prediction. I will just tell you all to go and listen to our episodes, the one on infrastructure, which is immediately prior to this one, and the episodes that we’ve had around a couple of other topics including AI, what’s the future of your children, because I think they illustrate a lot of the points that we’re seeing and manifesting themselves over the next year and over the next 2 or 3 years as well beyond that. I feel those tomes are complete in and out of themselves, so you can just go and listen to them. Then my second comment is on crypto. I feel crypto has become of the essence, particularly under the current administration in the US, very favored. Obviously, we are now in a world where crypto is just part of the economic system, and I think we’ll see more and more of that emerging, and in some ways, crypto is becoming mainstream. Question is what blockchains will be the blockchains of the future? Obviously, there’s a bunch of bets put out there. We, ourselves, as Chamaeleon, have one investment in one of the significant bets in the space. But besides that, who’s going to win or not, we feel that we’re past the crypto winter. It’s now mainstream days, and we’ll see a lot more activity in there. Bertrand Schmitt I must say with crypto, I’m a bit confused. As you say, we are past the crypto winter. There is much less uncertainty in regul

Tällä historiallisella päivämäärällä Robert Watson-Watt esitteli ensimmäisen kerran julkisesti tutkaa, Tim Berners-Lee esitteli ensimmäisen www-selaimen ja Suomi julkaisi ensimmäiset postimerkkinsä.

Today I have the immense pleasure of talking with Carissa Véliz, an associate professor at the University of Oxford, about her new book, Prophecy: Prediction, Power, and the Fight for the Future—from Ancient Oracles to AI.  Linking this work to her previous book, Privacy is Power: Why and How You Should Take Back Control of Your Data, Véliz writes: “ surveillance and prediction are digital technology's original sins.”In our wide-ranging discussion, we talk about how both massive and intrusive invasions of privacy at all levels of society and false claims to be able to predict the future erode democracy, are corrosive to ethics, and undermine people's ability to think for themselves.  Instead, we are conditioned to trust an unregulated band of “effective altruists” who claim to know better than we what kinds of lives we should prefer and the choices we should make.  Véliz argues instead that we should embrace the uncertain to build resilience, to prepare for contingency but not be determined by what we cannot see, and to foster curiosity and imagination.Carissa Véliz is an Associate Professor in Philosophy at the Institute for Ethics in AI, and a Fellow at Hertford College at the University of Oxford. She is the recipient of the 2021 Herbert A. Simon Award for Outstanding Research in Computing and Philosophy. She is a member of UNESCO's Women 4 Ethical AI. She advises companies and policymakers around the world on privacy and the ethics of AI. She is a board member of the Proton Foundation, along with Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Proton's CEO Andy Yen. She is the author of the highly-acclaimed Privacy Is Power (an Economist book of the year, 2020) and the editor of the Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics. Her new book Prophecy was described as “The most important book you will read for years” by Roger McNamee, the tech investor and best selling author.

February 11, 2026Have you had your dose of The Daily MoJo today? Download The Daily MoJo App! "No Fly Zone | The Daily MoJo Ep:021126"Tim Berners-Lee creates the first website at CERN in 1991, while connectivity issues arise from a router update. Discussions cover airspace restrictions over El Paso, the impact of language in media, and the evolution of song lyrics. The narrative also includes baking anecdotes, health advice, and personal stories about resilience and safety, emphasizing the importance of preparedness and community engagement.Phil Bell's Morning Update It's time for a TAX REVOLT!:  HERERon's The Way I See It: The M1E3 Abrams Tank, America at Its Finest: HEREOur affiliate partners:Be prepared! Not scared. Need some Ivermection? Some Hydroxychloroquine? Don't have a doctor who fancies your crazy ideas? We have good news - Dr. Stella Immanuel has teamed up with The Daily MoJo to keep you healthy and happy all year long! Not only can she provide you with those necessary prophylactics, but StellasMoJo.com has plenty of other things to keep you and your body in tip-top shape. Use Promo Code: DailyMoJo to save $$Take care of your body - it's the only one you'll get and it's your temple! We've partnered with Sugar Creek Goods to help you care for yourself in an all-natural way. And in this case, "all natural" doesn't mean it doesn't work! Save 15% on your order with promo code "DailyMojo" at SmellMyMoJo.comCBD is almost everywhere you look these days, so the answer isn't so much where can you get it, it's more about - where can you get the CBD products that actually work!? Certainly, NOT at the gas station! Patriots Relief says it all in the name, and you can save an incredible 40% with the promo code "DailyMojo" at GetMoJoCBD.com!Romika Designs is an awesome American small business that specializes in creating laser-engraved gifts and awards for you, your family, and your employees. Want something special for someone special? Find exactly what you want at MoJoLaserPros.com  There have been a lot of imitators, but there's only OG – American Pride Roasters Coffee. It was first and remains the best roaster of fine coffee beans from around the world. You like coffee? You'll love American Pride – from the heart of the heartland – Des Moines, Iowa. AmericanPrideRoasters.com   Find great deals on American-made products at MoJoMyPillow.com. Mike Lindell – a true patriot in our eyes – puts his money where his mouth (and products) is/are. Find tremendous deals at MoJoMyPillow.com – Promo Code: MoJo50  Life gets messy – sometimes really messy. Be ready for the next mess with survival food and tools from My Patriot Supply. A 25 year shelf life and fantastic variety are just the beginning of the long list of reasons to get your emergency rations at PrepareWithMoJo50.comStay ConnectedWATCH The Daily Mojo LIVE 7-9a CT: www.TheDailyMojo.com Rumble: HEREOr just LISTEN:The Daily MoJo ChannelBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-daily-mojo-with-brad-staggs--3085897/support.

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom Podcast, host Stewart Alsop sits down with Larry Swanson, a knowledge architect, community builder, and host of the Knowledge Graph Insights podcast. They explore the relationship between knowledge graphs and ontologies, why these technologies matter in the age of AI, and how symbolic AI complements the current wave of large language models. The conversation traces the history of neuro-symbolic AI from its origins at Dartmouth in 1956 through the semantic web vision of Tim Berners-Lee, examining why knowledge architecture remains underappreciated despite being deployed at major enterprises like Netflix, Amazon, and LinkedIn. Swanson explains how RDF (Resource Description Framework) enables both machines and humans to work with structured knowledge in ways that relational databases can't, while Alsop shares his journey from knowledge management director to understanding the practical necessity of ontologies for business operations. They discuss the philosophical roots of the field, the separation between knowledge management practitioners and knowledge engineers, and why startups often overlook these approaches until scale demands them. You can find Larry's podcast at KGI.fm or search for Knowledge Graph Insights on Spotify and YouTube.Timestamps00:00 Introduction to Knowledge Graphs and Ontologies01:09 The Importance of Ontologies in AI04:14 Philosophy's Role in Knowledge Management10:20 Debating the Relevance of RDF15:41 The Distinction Between Knowledge Management and Knowledge Engineering21:07 The Human Element in AI and Knowledge Architecture25:07 Startups vs. Enterprises: The Knowledge Gap29:57 Deterministic vs. Probabilistic AI32:18 The Marketing of AI: A Historical Perspective33:57 The Role of Knowledge Architecture in AI39:00 Understanding RDF and Its Importance44:47 The Intersection of AI and Human Intelligence50:50 Future Visions: AI, Ontologies, and Human BehaviorKey Insights1. Knowledge Graphs Combine Structure and Instances Through Ontological Design. A knowledge graph is built using an ontology that describes a specific domain you want to understand or work with. It includes both an ontological description of the terrain—defining what things exist and how they relate to one another—and instances of those things mapped to real-world data. This combination of abstract structure and concrete examples is what makes knowledge graphs powerful for discovery, question-answering, and enabling agentic AI systems. Not everyone agrees on the precise definition, but this understanding represents the practical approach most knowledge architects use when building these systems.2. Ontology Engineering Has Deep Philosophical Roots That Inform Modern Practice. The field draws heavily from classical philosophy, particularly ontology (the nature of what you know), epistemology (how you know what you know), and logic. These thousands-year-old philosophical frameworks provide the rigorous foundation for modern knowledge representation. Living in Heidelberg surrounded by philosophers, Swanson has discovered how much of knowledge graph work connects upstream to these philosophical roots. This philosophical grounding becomes especially important during times when institutional structures are collapsing, as we need to create new epistemological frameworks for civilization—knowledge management and ontology become critical tools for restructuring how we understand and organize information.3. The Semantic Web Vision Aimed to Transform the Internet Into a Distributed Database. Twenty-five years ago, Tim Berners-Lee, Jim Hendler, and Ora Lassila published a landmark article in Scientific American proposing the semantic web. While Berners-Lee had already connected documents across the web through HTML and HTTP, the semantic web aimed to connect all the data—essentially turning the internet into a giant database. This vision led to the development of RDF (Resource Description Framework), which emerged from DARPA research and provides the technical foundation for building knowledge graphs and ontologies. The origin story involved solving simple but important problems, like disambiguating whether "Cook" referred to a verb, noun, or a person's name at an academic conference.4. Symbolic AI and Neural Networks Represent Complementary Approaches Like Fast and Slow Thinking. Drawing on Kahneman's "thinking fast and slow" framework, LLMs represent the "fast brain"—learning monsters that can process enormous amounts of information and recognize patterns through natural language interfaces. Symbolic AI and knowledge graphs represent the "slow brain"—capturing actual knowledge and facts that can counter hallucinations and provide deterministic, explainable reasoning. This complementarity is driving the re-emergence of neuro-symbolic AI, which combines both approaches. The fundamental distinction is that symbolic AI systems are deterministic and can be fully explained, while LLMs are probabilistic and stochastic, making them unsuitable for applications requiring absolute reliability, such as industrial robotics or pharmaceutical research.5. Knowledge Architecture Remains Underappreciated Despite Powering Major Enterprises. While machine learning engineers currently receive most of the attention and budget, knowledge graphs actually power systems at Netflix (the economic graph), Amazon (the product graph), LinkedIn, Meta, and most major enterprises. The technology has been described as "the most astoundingly successful failure in the history of technology"—the semantic web vision seemed to fail, yet more than half of web pages now contain RDF-formatted semantic markup through schema.org, and every major enterprise uses knowledge graph technology in the background. Knowledge architects remain underappreciated partly because the work is cognitively difficult, requires talking to people (which engineers often avoid), and most advanced practitioners have PhDs in computer science, logic, or philosophy.6. RDF's Simple Subject-Predicate-Object Structure Enables Meaning and Data Linking. Unlike relational databases that store data in tables with rows and columns, RDF uses the simplest linguistic structure: subject-predicate-object (like "Larry knows Stuart"). Each element has a unique URI identifier, which permits precise meaning and enables linked data across systems. This graph structure makes it much easier to connect data after the fact compared to navigating tabular structures in relational databases. On top of RDF sits an entire stack of technologies including schema languages, query languages, ontological languages, and constraints languages—everything needed to turn data into actionable knowledge. The goal is inferring or articulating knowledge from RDF-structured data.7. The Future Requires Decoupled Modular Architectures Combining Multiple AI Approaches. The vision for the future involves separation of concerns through microservices-like architectures where different systems handle what they do best. LLMs excel at discovering possibilities and generating lists, while knowledge graphs excel at articulating human-vetted, deterministic versions of that information that systems can reliably use. Every one of Swanson's 300 podcast interviews over ten years ultimately concludes that regardless of technology, success comes down to human beings, their behavior, and the cultural changes needed to implement systems. The assumption that we can simply eliminate people from processes misses that huma...

This week, Joanna Kavenna explains why she invented a game to write her new novel; how to survive life online; and a new poem.'Seven', by Joanna Kavenna'This Is for Everyone', by Tim Berners-Lee with Stephen Witt'Enshittification: Why everything suddenly got worse and what to do about it', by Cory Doctorow'How to Save the Internet: The threat to global connection in the age of AI and political conflict', by Nick Clegg'The Future', by Jesse NathanProduced by Charlotte Pardy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a computer scientist and the inventor of the World Wide Web. He was born in 1955, a golden year for technology innovators. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were also born in the same year. A curious child, he learned about electronics from his train set and spent his pocket money on transistors. His first significant connecting invention was building an intercom as a teenager for the family home before moving on to build his first computer. His parents were both mathematicians and coders who met whilst building one of the first commercially available computers in the early nineteen fifties. Sir Tim came up with the idea of the World Wide Web whilst working at CERN and insisted that the technology be released to the world without commercial reward so that it would be free for everyone to use. He was knighted for his world changing invention and also appointed to the Order of Merit. In 2016 he was given the Turing Award. Sir Tim Berners-Lee divides his time between the US, the UK and Canada with his wife Rosemary, who is also a technology entrepreneur.Presenter Lauren Laverne Producer Sarah TaylorDesert Island Discs has cast many computer scientists away over the years including Dame Wendy Hall and Sir Demis Hassibis. You can hear their programmes if you search through BBC Sounds or our own Desert Island Discs website.

professorjrod@gmail.comIn this episode of Technology Tap: CompTIA Study Guide, we explore the fascinating evolution of technology from the launch of Sputnik in 1957 to the ubiquitous smartphones of today. Discover how early innovations like ARPANET laid the groundwork for the internet, shaping the landscape of technology education and IT skills development. Whether you're part of a study group preparing for your CompTIA exam or seeking expert IT certification tips, this episode provides valuable insights into the origins of the digital world and how it influences modern tech exam prep. Join us as we connect the dots between history and today's technology challenges to help you succeed in your IT certification journey.We start with Licklider's prophetic vision and the leap from circuit switching to packet switching that made failure-tolerant networks possible. Email gives the net its first social heartbeat. TCP/IP stitches islands into one internet. Tim Berners-Lee's simple stack—HTML, HTTP, URLs—opens the door for everyone. The home dial-up era arrives, and the browser becomes the interface of daily curiosity. Mosaic and Netscape ignite innovation; Microsoft's bundling forces a reckoning; Mozilla and later Chrome reshape standards and speed for the modern era.The dot‑com bubble teaches hard lessons, but Google's PageRank reframes the problem: organize the world's information with relevance, not clutter. Broadband and Wi‑Fi make the net always on, enabling streaming, online gaming, and richer apps. Napster breaks open music, litigation clamps down, and then paid streaming wins on convenience. Social networks shift the center of gravity from pages to people; YouTube turns everyone into a publisher and archivist. E‑commerce perfects logistics, and smartphones put it all in your hand. The cloud becomes the engine behind Netflix, Uber, TikTok, and the systems that silently scale our daily tools.We confront the dark side, too: ransomware, botnets, data breaches, and insecure IoT devices that expand the attack surface. Algorithms now shape what we see and believe, while fiber backbones and 5G push speed and density to new highs. AI becomes the thinking layer of the internet, interpreting, recommending, and generating content at scale. A rising push for decentralization—blockchains, IPFS, self-sovereign identity—seeks to return control to users and reduce dependence on gatekeepers. Where does it all go from here? From ambient computing to satellite constellations and new interfaces, the net may soon fade into the background—omnipresent and invisible.If you enjoyed this deep dive, follow the show, share it with a friend who loves tech history, and leave a quick review so more curious listeners can find us. Your support helps us keep exploring the stories that built our digital world.Support the showArt By Sarah/DesmondMusic by Joakim KarudLittle chacha ProductionsJuan Rodriguez can be reached atTikTok @ProfessorJrodProfessorJRod@gmail.com@Prof_JRodInstagram ProfessorJRod

Es sollte ein Portal zur Welt des Wissens werden. Inzwischen breiten sich jedoch auch Fake News, Propaganda, Hass, Hetze und Lüge im World Wide Web aus. Tim Berners-Lee über die Geschichte seiner Erfindung. Rezension von Brigitte Neumann

Es sollte ein Portal zur Welt des Wissens werden. Inzwischen breiten sich jedoch auch Fake News, Propaganda, Hass, Hetze und Lüge im World Wide Web aus. Tim Berners-Lee über die Geschichte seiner Erfindung. Rezension von Brigitte Neumann

The interview is also on Youtube: https://youtu.be/oSIFewGWnNE?si=efQOrP5YXeoWuYYAGuest Carlos Moreira Founder & CEO of SealSQ Ticker: (Nasdaq: LAES)Website: https://www.sealsq.com/BioCarlos Creus Moreira is a global technology entrepreneur and cybersecurity authority, serving as Founder, Chairman, and CEO of WISeKey (NASDAQ: WKEY) and SEALSQ (LAES). For decades, he has been a leading voice in securing the internet, developing trusted digital identity ecosystems, and advocating for the ethical use of artificial intelligence.Moreira began his career as a United Nations expert on CyberSecurity and Trust Models, working with agencies such as ILO, UNCTAD, ITC/WTO, World Bank, UNDP, and ESCAP (1983–1999). He is also the Founder of OISTE.org, a global non-profit dedicated to strengthening digital identity standards.From 1995 to 1999, he served as an Adjunct Professor and Head of the Trade Efficiency Lab at RMIT University in Australia, contributing to advances in trade facilitation and cybersecurity. His academic and professional work has consistently focused on enhancing trust in digital systems.Moreira holds influential roles in numerous international organizations. He is a Founding Member of the Geneva Government's E-Voting Steering Committee, a UN Global Compact Member, and has contributed extensively to the World Economic Forum (WEF). His WEF roles include: Founding Member of Global Growth Companies, WEF New Champion (2007–2016), Vice-Chair of the Agenda Council on Illicit Trade (2012–2015), Member of the WEF Selection Committee for Growth Companies, and contributor to the Agenda Council on the Future of IT Software & Services (2014–2016). He has been recognized as one of the WEF's Trailblazers, Shapers, and Innovators.He also serves on the Blockchain Advisory Board of the Government of Mexico, the Blockchain Research Institute, and is Founder of the Geneva Security Forum, the Blockchain Center of Excellence, and TrustValley.Moreira has received numerous honors, including:• One of Switzerland's 300 most influential people (Bilan.CH 2011, 2013)• Top 100 in the Net Economy• Most Exciting EU Company (Microsoft MERID 2005)• Man of the Year (AGEFI 2007)• One of Switzerland's 100 most important digital leaders (Bilanz 2016)• Best EU M&A Award (2017)• Blockchain Davos Award of Excellence (GBBC 2018)• CGI Award HolderHe is co-author of the global best-selling book “The TransHuman Code,” a leading work on managing technology's impact on humanity. As a multilingual keynote speaker (English, Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese), Moreira has spoken at the UN, WEF, CGI, ITU, Bloomberg, Munich Security Conference, World Policy Conference, Zermatt Summit, Microsoft, IMD, INSEAD, MIT Sloan, HEC, UBS, and the CEO Summit.Pioneering Work During the Dawn of the World Wide Web (WWW)During the early 1990s in Geneva, at the same time Tim Berners-Lee was creating the World Wide Web at CERN, Moreira was deeply involved in advancing secure digital identity and trust models. His UN cybersecurity work positioned him as a key advocate for building security into the fabric of the emerging web. This vision led him to found WISeKey in 1999, which has become a global leader in digital identity, authentication, and securing online transactions.He later established the Geneva Security Forum and Geneva Philanthropy Forum, reinforcing Geneva's role as a center for digital trust, innovation, and global cybersecurity dialogue.Married with six children, Carlos Creus Moreira remains committed to building a secure, transparent, and human-centered digital future. More information can be found at carloscreusmoreira.com.

Culture Numérique, c'est le podcast qui décrypte pour vous le meilleur de l'actu tech, chaque semaine ! Au programme de cet épisode :Microsoft et Google misent massivement sur l'Europe avec des investissements records dans l'IA et les data centers.Meta met fin au bouton J'aime sur les sites web, symbole d'une époque révolue du Web social.Le PDG de Perplexity alerte sur les dangers émotionnels et psychologiques des compagnons IA.Tim Berners-Lee s'inquiète : l'IA menace l'économie du Web et son modèle fondé sur le clic.Enquête explosive : Meta aurait généré 16 milliards de dollars grâce à des publicités illégales en 2024.LinkedIn lance une offensive contre les pods d'engagement et les faux likes pour assainir son algorithme.Suivez toute l'actualité du numérique sur Siècle Digital et abonnez-vous au podcast Culture Numérique pour ne manquer aucun épisode ! Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Today, I'm talking with a very special guest: Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web. Tim is a legend in the history of the internet. He created HTML and HTTP. It doesn't really get more foundational than that — Tim was there at the very very beginning of the modern internet. He also has a new memoir out called This Is For Everyone: The Unfinished Story of the World Wide Web. So Tim joined the show to talk about the state of the web, as well as his current work at the decentralization startup Inrupt, and, of course, where AI fits into the conversation.  Links:  This Is For Everyone | Macmillan The Semantic Web | W3C Tim Berners-Lee invented the web, now wants to save it | The New Yorker Why I gave the world wide web away for free | The Guardian Amazon, Perplexity kick off the great AI web browser fight | The Verge Web War III | The Verge Google admits the open web is in ‘rapid decline' | The Verge Cloudflare will now block AI crawlers by default | The Verge Subscribe to The Verge⁠ to access the ad-free version of Decoder! Credits: Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Decoder is produced by Kate Cox and Nick Statt and edited by Ursa Wright. Our editorial director is Kevin McShane.  The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rescatan nidos de tortugas marinas en playas de Nayarit  Controlan incendio en negocio de alimentos para animales en la Morelos  Alerta, la IA podría transformar el negocio publicitario en internet: Tim Berners Lee  Más información en nuestro podcast

Mark Weinstein is a successful tech entrepreneur, board member, and consultant, and one of the visionary inventors of social networking. He is the author of Restoring Our Sanity Online (Wiley, 2025), a book endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Steve Wozniak. Mark is the Founder of MeWe, the first social network with a Privacy Bill of Rights, which grew to over 20 million members. He also founded SuperFamily.com and SuperFriends.com, early social networks recognized by PC Magazine as "Top 100" sites. He is an inventor of 15 groundbreaking digital advertising patents. Mark has delivered the landmark TED Talk, "The Rise of Surveillance Capitalism." He is frequently interviewed and published in major media outlets around the world. Beyond his entrepreneurial achievements, Mark has chaired the New Mexico Accountancy Board and served as an Adjunct Marketing Professor at the University of New Mexico. He holds an MBA from UCLA's Anderson School of Management. In this episode… The internet began as a way to connect family, friends, and communities. Over time, platforms shifted towards surveillance capitalism, where users' personal information can be monetized and people can be targeted and even manipulated. Social media and AI now shape what people see, think, and buy, while algorithms quietly learn how to influence our choices. As technology advances, how can companies and individuals alike protect privacy and rebuild trust in the systems that connect us?  As one of the pioneers of social networking, Mark Weinstein has seen this transformation firsthand. Early models were built around community and connection, while later models monetized personal information for targeting and profit. The next phase focuses on stronger privacy controls, data portability, and user choice. Building safer digital experiences means companies need to avoid unnecessary data collection and manipulative design tactics, and to communicate transparently about how personal information is used and shared. Individuals can also play a role by supporting user ID verification to make social media safer and by teaching children critical thinking skills to help them combat misinformation and manipulation online. In this episode of She Said Privacy/He Said Security, Jodi and Justin Daniels chat with Mark Weinstein, tech entrepreneur, author, board member, and consultant, about rethinking privacy and control in the digital age. Mark reflects on the lessons learned from early social network models and discusses the evolution of the internet from connection-driven communities to surveillance capitalism, explaining how current models exploit user data. He explores his vision for Web4 and its new approach centered on data ownership and portability. He also offers practical advice for protecting children from online harms and the importance of fostering critical thinking in the age of AI.

The inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, on the unique upbringing that inspired a tech revolution. Tim Berners-Lee has well and truly changed the world. For under-35s it's almost impossible to imagine what life might have been like without him. But when he launched the World Wide Web in December 1990, no-one knew the success it would become - and most struggled to understand why the world needed the Web at all. Tim, however, grew up steeped in the knowledge that computers held the key to the future. His parents worked on the Ferranti Mark 1 - the world's first commercial computer - and raised Tim on a diet of science demonstrations and electronic tinkering. His mother Mary Lee was the family's driving force, encouraging an eclectic mix of logical thinking, creative problem-solving, camping trips and a spirit of 'watchful negligence' - all of which gave the introverted young Tim the confidence to think outside the box and find solutions for himself. So when he went to work at CERN in Geneva in his late-20s and saw how computers struggled to talk to one another, he was perfectly placed to imagine and build what would become the World Wide Web.Tim's vision for the Web was built around positivity - where anyone with access to an internet connection could freely share ideas with anyone else. He knew that the key to its success was universality, so he made the decision to give the Web away for free. As a result, Tim Berners-Lee is not a billionaire. But he says that's just the way he likes it, making him free to go for walks and swims in the Serpentine in London without being recognised. It's not all been good news though. In the 35 years since its creation, the Web has been used as a base to build social media and AI empires that Tim says don't always act in our best interests. He fears the addictive effects of social media apps on children's mental health, and has decided to stop using Instagram as he was too often getting hooked on the feed. Tim says that his latest mission is to build a form of pro-human AI as an antidote to systems owned by Big Tech, and aims to help people reclaim control of their personal data so that the Web can, once again, belong to everyone. Presenter: Jo Fidgen Producer: Anna LaceyLives Less Ordinary is a podcast from the BBC World Service that brings you the most incredible true stories from around the world. Each episode a guest shares their most dramatic, moving, personal story. Listen for unbelievable twists, mysteries uncovered, and inspiring journeys - spanning the entire human experience. Step into someone else's life and expect the unexpected. Got a story to tell? Send an email to liveslessordinary@bbc.co.uk or message us via WhatsApp: 0044 330 678 2784 You can read our privacy notice here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5YD3hBqmw26B8WMHt6GkQxG/lives-less-ordinary-privacy-notice

Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Brewster Kahle will be in conversation about the rise of the internet, its continuing and explosive impact on society, the importance of the Internet Archive and other developing issues in the growth and use of the internet. Tim Berners-Lee is the inventor of the World Wide Web, HTML, the URL system and HTTP. Berners-Lee proposed an information management system on 12 March 1989 and implemented the first successful communication between a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) client and server via the internet in mid-November of that year. He devised and implemented the first web browser and web server and helped foster the web's subsequent development. He is the founder and emeritus director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which oversees the continued development of the web. With Rosemary Leith he co-founded the World Wide Web Foundation. In April 2009, he was elected a Foreign Associate of the National Academy of Sciences.  Brewster Kahle, founder and digital librarian of the Internet Archive, is a passionate advocate for public internet access. He has spent his career intent on a singular focus: providing universal access to all knowledge. Soon after graduating from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Kahle helped found the company Thinking Machines, a parallel supercomputer maker. In 1989, Kahle created the internet's first publishing system, called the Wide Area Information Server (WAIS). In 1996, Kahle founded the Internet Archive, and he co-founded Alexa Internet, which helped catalog the Web. A Technology & Society Member-led Forum program. Forums at the Club are organized and run by volunteer programmers who are members of The Commonwealth Club, and they cover a diverse range of topics. Learn more about our Forums. OrganizerGerald Anthony Harris  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if the right relationships at the right time positioned you at the forefront of every major technology revolution for 25 years? In this episode, Peter Swain, international speaker, bestselling author, and AI enablement advocate, shares his extraordinary journey from coding at age six to being at the epicenter of three major tech paradigm shifts — the web, mobile, and now AI. Through chance encounters with Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of HTML and the World Wide Web), working directly with Steve Jobs, and saying "yes" to countless opportunities, Peter has built a career helping entrepreneurs leverage AI to work half the time while earning twice as much. Peter reflects on how relationships and serendipitous moments shaped his path and why he believes AI is more transformative than if aliens landed tomorrow.   [00:04:02] The Six-Year-Old Coder Started coding in 1983 at age six on a Spectrum ZX 80 Beta testing for Microsoft at age 12 Met Tim Berners-Lee at 17 (inventor of HTML and the World Wide Web) Quit high school to become one of the first web developers in the world [00:06:00] Three Technology Paradigm Shifts Built UK version of Yelp before Internet Explorer launched Mid-2000s: Bought first iPhone, closed web business—"This smells the same" Started first mobile agency in Europe, worked with McDonald's, BBC, Microsoft, Apple, Google 2023: Downloaded ChatGPT beta, immediately rolled up current business [00:08:20] Understanding AI: Beyond the Noise Four groups: technical experts, futurists, doomsayers, and prompt sellers Peter's philosophy: "Integrated Living"—AI amplifies human capabilities The power of "and" versus "or"—great family AND business AND health [00:12:20] Why Social Media and Bitcoin Weren't the Same Social media: Puts people in silos and echo chambers Bitcoin: "Most awesome solution waiting for a problem" AI is fundamentally different: A new form of intelligence More impactful than if aliens landed tomorrow [00:16:20] Communication, Not Technical Skill Most people give AI 10-word instructions Would you hand your business to someone with 10 words? AI is coded to be people-pleasing—always says "yes" without context [00:18:00] The Business Handoff Analogy Imagine asking someone to run your business for three weeks with just office keys They'd keep it afloat but create chaos without proper context Same thing happens when you give AI insufficient information [00:20:20] The Critical Test Ask AI: "What did you need to know to do this well?" AI will list 28+ things you didn't provide Instructions should be around 1,000 words Less produces "looks great but is secretly terrible" results [00:23:40] Million-Dollar Relationships: Too Many to Choose Dad gave first computer and introduced him to Tim Berners-Lee Philippe Trush taught discipline and diligence Tom Bell gave first job with no qualifications "Nobody is self-made" [00:25:20] The Series of Unlikely Events Recent deal traced back through networking chain Tony Robbins ticket → networking group → presentation opportunity → major deal Can't predict going forward, only track backward [00:27:00] The Power of Saying Yes "The right advice at the wrong time is still the wrong advice" Until you know your place and purpose, say YES to everything Universe consistently offers gifts we're too busy to see After finding your North Star, THEN start saying no [00:31:40] The Most Aligned He's Ever Felt Everything before was leading to AI Web and mobile: Tools to help humans work better AI's promise: It will do it FOR you Fundamental shift in everything—relationships, health, spirituality [00:34:00] Why Entrepreneurs, Not Big Business Most entrepreneurs are great at their craft but terrible at business AI as the leveler: Handles operations so you can focus on genius Margins can go from 20% to 80-90% [00:38:20] Free Mastermind Offer Weekly calls every Thursday for three years 250 members helping people earn twice as much in half the time peterswain.com/mastermind KEY QUOTES "The right advice at the wrong time is still the wrong advice. Until you know why you are on this planet, say yes to as many things as possible. If it's not gonna kill you and it's not addictive, you should say yes." - Peter Swain "AI is more impactful than if aliens landed tomorrow. This is a new form of intelligence that doesn't need to sleep, eat, rest, or have water." - Peter Swain "An instruction to AI should be around a thousand words. Anything less, you're probably gonna get something that looks great, but is secretly terrible." - Peter Swain "Nobody is self-made. We are all built on the shoulders of great men and women. That doesn't make your achievements any less. It just allows you to honor what's happened." - Peter Swain CONNECT WITH PETER SWAIN

Go to www.LearningLeader.com for full show notes This is brought to you by Insight Global. If you need to hire one person, hire a team of people, or transform your business through Talent or Technical Services, Insight Global's team of 30,000 people around the world has the hustle and grit to deliver. My Guest: Helen Lewis is a staff writer at The Atlantic and author of The Genius Myth: Great Ideas Don't Come from Lone Geniuses.  Notes: Shakespeare: Talent + Luck + Timing - William Shakespeare died in 1616 at age 52, celebrated but not yet immortal. His icon status required massive luck: friends published the First Folio (saving King Lear), then 50 years later, Charles II reopened England's theaters after Puritan closures and needed content. Companies turned to Shakespeare's IP, adapting his work (including changing tragedies to happy endings). Helen: "If anyone deserves to be called a genius, it's him. But he died as a successful man of his age. Scenius Over Genius - Brian Eno coined "scenius" - places that are unusually productive and creative. Shakespeare moved from Warwickshire to London for the theaters and playwrights. Helen: "You don't just have to be Leonardo, you also need Florence... Where do you find the coolest, most interesting bleeding edge of your field?" Modern example: Joe Rogan's Comedy Mothership in Austin created an alternative to LA/NYC for comedians like Shane Gillis and Tony Hinchcliffe. Ryan: "Put yourself in rooms where you feel like the dumbest person... force you to rise up, think differently, work harder." Tim Berners-Lee vs. Elon Musk - Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. Has knighthood, lives an ordinary life, kids named Alice and Ben. Most people have never heard of him. Elon Musk has a lot of children, talks about his genes needing to live on, and lives a very public life. Helen: "We overrate the self-promoters, the narcissists. We demand oddness and specialness... We don't call modest people geniuses because they're too normal." Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) and Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX) exploited this - looked like a genius (Steve Jobs cosplay, messy math prodigy) but stood on houses of cards. Trauma and the "I'll Show You" Engine - Matthew Parris wrote Fracture after noticing how many "great lives" had traumatic childhoods - loss of parents, being unloved, bullied. Helen: "I don't think that's necessarily genius in objective achievement. It's more like a hunger for recognition or fame... a kind of 'I'll show all of you' engine." Stephen Hawking on IQ - Stephen Hawking: "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers." The Flynn Effect shows average IQ rose over the 20th century through better nutrition, schooling, and living conditions. Higher IQ correlates with better outcomes. But at the top end, every IQ point ≠ is one success point. Christopher Langan (the highest IQ guy) thinks he has a theory to overturn Einstein, and that Bush did 9/11 to cover it up. No history of achievement. Helen: "Smart people don't always prosper. You need the gears that connect the engine to the wheels on the road." Conspiracy Theories: Narcissism as Driver - Narcissism is the most correlated personality trait with conspiracy thinking. Helen: "The sheeple, the NPCs think this, but I alone have seen the truth. It positions you as the protagonist of reality." The Internet is a "confirmation bias engine." But conspiracies are sometimes true (Epstein's corrupt plea deal), which is why conspiracy thinking persists. Researcher Karen Stenner's solution: Get back to depoliticized conspiracies like Bigfoot, crop circles, Area 51 - harmless things that got people outside instead of "shoot up a pizza restaurant." The Beatles: Finiteness Creates Legend - Psychologist Han Isaac said geniuses should either die before 30 or live past 80. Middle is "eh." The Beatles had both: a short career that ended definitively, then John Lennon was shot at 40, frozen in time. Paul McCartney lives on, performs at Glastonbury with John's vocals. Craig Brown: "The Rolling Stones just go on and on, but there's never as much of the Beatles as you want." Quality Over Quantity - Helen: "Incentive now is producing constantly for algorithms... That's neither fun nor produces the best work." Early career: say YES. Later career: "The most important thing you can say is no." Her metric: "Can I say honestly, that was the best I could do? I didn't cut corners. That's the metric." Podcast: advised to do 2-3 episodes weekly for rankings, has been doing weekly for 10.5 years. Shows that went daily? He stopped listening. "I'm gonna increase the quality bar, not the quantity." Robert Greene: "Do not speak unless you can improve upon the silence." Improving the Silence - "My dad's not the loudest at family gatherings, doesn't have the most words, but when he speaks, we all stop and listen. That's who you want to be." Applies to meetings: people vomit garbage to show how smart they are instead of waiting for something valuable. When you speak, people should want to listen. Thomas Edison: Execution Over Ideas - The Light bulb wasn't Edison's conceptual innovation - the idea dated to Humphrey Davy. What was incredible: Edison made it work (vacuum seal, filament) and created the New York power grid. Helen: "Lots of people can have the idea that a man should be an ant. Not everybody can write the Ant-Man screenplay and have it produced." His Menlo Park lab lasted because he worked with brilliant people on problems they cared about. Logbook shows assistants' names on breakthroughs - collaborative. We underrate logistics and execution. Most "light bulb moments" are actually slow, incremental, contested creations. Why Helen Chooses Teams Over Independence - Could go independent on Substack for more money. Works at The Atlantic for: resources, legal support, editorial integrity, and colleagues she doesn't want to let down. Helen: "You must have people in your life, you think, I wanna do work that they like. Finding those people who make you your best version of yourself." Ryan connects to athletics: "Being surrounded by people better than me forces me to raise my game. That's why we want to be part of a great team." Sample First, Specialize Later - High achievers have "hot streak" later, but sample early - trying different things, learning transferable skills. Helen: "Take the first job at a publication you could learn from. Even if not wildly interested, if it's good and they'll hold you to high standards, do it. Your second job is infinitely easier to get than your first." Work Around People Who Care - Helen: "If you work somewhere where no one cares, it's very hard. You can't care on your own. You'll become infected by the apathy around you." Nothing is more boring than a job you don't care about. Don't Wait to Live - Some devote long hours to something for money, promising they'll retire at 30 and then live. Helen: "What if you spent all that time chasing something and then you get hit by a truck? Don't wait for it. Just try and enjoy what you're doing right now." Quotes: "You don't just have to be Leonardo, you also need Florence."  "We overrate the self-promoters and underrate the humble achievers."  "Smart people don't always prosper. You need the gears that connect the engine to the wheels."  "The most important thing you can say is no."  "Do not speak unless you can improve upon the silence." - Robert Greene "You can't care on your own. You'll become infected by the apathy around you."  It's funny that we have come to use the phrase ‘lightbulb moment' to describe a momentary flash of inspiration, because the birth of the lightbulb was slow, incremental, and highly contested.

Dobbiamo imparare a fidarci di chi ci aiuta con l'AI. I moniti di Tim Berners-Lee e Jimmy Kimmel. Microsoft blocca i suoi contratti con Israele. Forse l'Europa risolve il banner dei cookie? Queste e molte altre le notizie tech commentate nella puntata di questa settimana.Dallo studio distribuito di digitalia:Michele Di Maio, Francesco Facconi, Massimo De SantoProduttori esecutivi:@Jh4Ckal, Arzigogolo, Massimiliano Sgroi, Fabio Filisetti, Paolo Bernardini, Carlo Alberto Giovannini, Gianfranco Di Summa, Paola Danieli, Nicola Bisceglie, Davide Tinti, Antonio Gargiulo, Elisa Emaldi - Marco Crosa, Manuel Zavatta, Mirto Tondini, Giuliano Arcinotti, @Geckonode, Mattia Lanzoni, Douglas Whiting, @Akagrinta, Luca Di Stefano, @Pier, Andrea Bottaro, Sandro Acinapura, Matteo Tarabini, Fabrizio Mele, Fiorenzo Pilla, Piero Alberto Mazzo, Valerio BendottiSponsor:Squarespace.com - utilizzate il codice coupon "DIGITALIA" per avere il 10% di sconto sul costo del primo acquisto.Links:L'hamburger più caro al mondo: patto di riservatezza per chi lo assaggiaThe Postmark Backdoor That's Stealing Your EmailsWhy I gave the world wide web away for freeJimmy Kimmel calls FCC chairman an embarrassment to RepublicansEveryoness a Free-Speech HypocriteSupporting the future of the open webMicrosoft blocks Israel's use of its technology in mass surveillance of PalestiniansLe sanzioni degli Stati Uniti contro Francesca AlbaneseRegulating AI hastens the Antichrist, says Peter ThielHow AI safety took a backseat to military moneyConsenso sui cookie una tantum integrato nel browser?Apple warns of more feature delays in EuropeApple demands EU repeal the Digital Markets ActF-Droid and Google's Developer Registration DecreeQualcomm CEO: Android for PC is coming and it's 'incredible'Pirateria televisiva: maxi operazione della Polizia.Sono state arrestate 7 persone sospettate di gestire il 70% del mercato dello streaming illegaleAvevano profitti sino a 10 milioni di euro al meseA $1000 Xbox Ally handheld tests the appetite for pricey consolesSony, Microsoft, and the future of game consoles.Il vero pericolo dell'intelligenza artificiale può stravolgere l'umanitàOpenAI really wants you to start your day with ChatGPT PulseCandidato smaschera i recruiter AI con una ricetta di flanPope Leo refuses to authorise an AI PopeWhy AI chatbots can't process Persian social etiquetteAI investment bubble inflated by trio of dilemmasGingilli del giorno:Insta360 Wave - Vivavoce con AICompatibile con l'uomoSuper Mario Bros Remaster - un remaster fatto dalla comunitaSupporta Digitalia, diventa produttore esecutivo.

Watch the full video of this event for free here: https://mailchi.mp/intelligencesquared/lw6gixq1t9 The transcript of this event is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GvYGaOE-fnDQdFvrTLQjUGcrE6Ra0acN/view?usp=drive_link --- The most influential inventor of the modern world, Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a different kind of visionary. Born in the same year as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, Berners-Lee famously shared his invention, the World Wide Web, for no commercial reward. Its widespread adoption changed everything — transforming humanity into the first digital species. In September 2025 Berners-Lee came to the Intelligence Squared stage to tell the story of his iconic invention and explore the future of human innovation. Drawing on his new memoir, This is For Everyone, Berners-Lee explored how the web launched a new era of creativity and collaboration, while unleashing a commercial race that today imperils democracies and polarises public debate. As the rapid development of artificial intelligence heralds a new era of innovation, Berners-Lee is the perfect guide to the crucial decisions ahead, and to provide a gripping, in-the-room account of the rise of the online world. With his characteristic optimism, technical insight and wry humour, Berners-Lee discussed the power of technology — both to fuel our worst instincts and to profoundly shape our lives for the better. --- If you'd like to become a Member and get access to all our full ad free conversations, plus all of our Members-only content, just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. For £4.99 per month you'll also receive: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared episodes, wherever you get your podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series - 15% discount on livestreams and in-person tickets for all Intelligence Squared events  ...  Or Subscribe on Apple for £4.99: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series … Already a subscriber? Thank you for supporting our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations! Visit intelligencesquared.com to explore all your benefits including ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content and early access. … Subscribe to our newsletter here to hear about our latest events, discounts and much more. https://www.intelligencesquared.com/newsletter-signup/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Watch the full video of this event for free here: https://mailchi.mp/intelligencesquared/lw6gixq1t9 The transcript of this event is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GvYGaOE-fnDQdFvrTLQjUGcrE6Ra0acN/view?usp=drive_link --- The most influential inventor of the modern world, Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a different kind of visionary. Born in the same year as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, Berners-Lee famously shared his invention, the World Wide Web, for no commercial reward. Its widespread adoption changed everything — transforming humanity into the first digital species. In September 2025 Berners-Lee came to the Intelligence Squared stage to tell the story of his iconic invention and explore the future of human innovation. Drawing on his new memoir, This is For Everyone, Berners-Lee explored how the web launched a new era of creativity and collaboration, while unleashing a commercial race that today imperils democracies and polarises public debate. As the rapid development of artificial intelligence heralds a new era of innovation, Berners-Lee is the perfect guide to the crucial decisions ahead, and to provide a gripping, in-the-room account of the rise of the online world. With his characteristic optimism, technical insight and wry humour, Berners-Lee discussed the power of technology — both to fuel our worst instincts and to profoundly shape our lives for the better. --- This is the first instalment of a two-part episode. If you'd like to become a Member and get access to all our full ad free conversations, plus all of our Members-only content, just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. For £4.99 per month you'll also receive: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared episodes, wherever you get your podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series - 15% discount on livestreams and in-person tickets for all Intelligence Squared events  ...  Or Subscribe on Apple for £4.99: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series … Already a subscriber? Thank you for supporting our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations! Visit intelligencesquared.com to explore all your benefits including ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content and early access. … Subscribe to our newsletter here to hear about our latest events, discounts and much more. https://www.intelligencesquared.com/newsletter-signup/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Linß, Vera www.deutschlandfunk.de, Andruck - Das Magazin für Politische Literatur

Sir Tim Berners-Lee launched the worldwide web on Christmas day 1990; an invention which has undeniably and profoundly changed the world.In this episode of Ways to Change the World, Sir Tim spoke with Krishnan Guru-Murthy about why addictive algorithms should be made illegal, the potential for artificial intelligence to outsmart humans, and how the internet has been both a powerful force for good and a source of significant harm to the world.

The inventor of the World Wide Web Sir Tim Berners-Lee, flicks through his book This Is For Everyone.Neuroscientist & bestselling author Dr Tara Swart tells us all about her new book, The Signs.The delightful Davina McCall joins us for the third time as Chris had 'interviewers regret'!Join Chris and the Class Behind The Glass every morning from 6.30am! Listen on your smart speaker, just say: "Play Virgin Radio." Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Francois Daost is a W3C staff member and co-chair of the Web Developer Experience Community Group. We discuss the W3C's role and what it's like to go through the browser standardization process. Related links W3C TC39 Internet Engineering Task Force Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) Horizontal Groups Alliance for Open Media What is MPEG-DASH? | HLS vs. DASH Information about W3C and Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) Widevine PlayReady Media Source API Encrypted Media Extensions API requestVideoFrameCallback() Business Benefits of the W3C Patent Policy web.dev Baseline Portable Network Graphics Specification Internet Explorer 6 CSS Vendor Prefix WebRTC Transcript You can help correct transcripts on GitHub. Intro [00:00:00] Jeremy: today I'm talking to Francois Daoust. He's a staff member at the W3C. And we're gonna talk about the W3C and the recommendation process and discuss, Francois's experience with, with how these features end up in our browsers. [00:00:16] Jeremy: So, Francois, welcome [00:00:18] Francois: Thank you Jeremy and uh, many thanks for the invitation. I'm really thrilled to be part of this podcast. What's the W3C? [00:00:26] Jeremy: I think many of our listeners will have heard about the W3C, but they may not actually know what it is. So could you start by explaining what it is? [00:00:37] Francois: Sure. So W3C stands for the Worldwide Web Consortium. It's a standardization organization. I guess that's how people should think about W3C. it was created in 1994. I, by, uh, Tim Berners Lee, who was the inventor of the web. Tim Berners Lee was the, director of W3C for a long, long time. [00:01:00] Francois: He retired not long ago, a few years back. and W3C is, has, uh, a number of, uh. Properties, let's say first the goal is to produce royalty free standards, and that's very important. Uh, we want to make sure that, uh, the standard that get produced can be used and implemented without having to pay, fees to anyone. [00:01:23] Francois: We do web standards. I didn't mention it, but it's from the name. Standards that you find in your web browsers. But not only that, there are a number of other, uh, standards that got developed at W3C including, for example, XML. Data related standards. W3C as an organization is a consortium. [00:01:43] Francois: The, the C stands for consortium. Legally speaking, it's a, it's a 501c3 meaning in, so it's a US based, uh, legal entity not for profit. And the, the little three is important because it means it's public interest. That means we are a consortium, that means we have members, but at the same time, the goal, the mission is to the public. [00:02:05] Francois: So we're not only just, you know, doing what our members want. We are also making sure that what our members want is aligned with what end users in the end, need. and the W3C has a small team. And so I'm part of this, uh, of this team worldwide. Uh, 45 to 55 people, depending on how you count, mostly technical people and some, uh, admin, uh, as well, overseeing the, uh, the work, that we do, uh, at the W3C. Funding through membership fees [00:02:39] Jeremy: So you mentioned there's 45 to 55 people. How is this funded? Is this from governments or commercial companies? [00:02:47] Francois: The main source comes from membership fees. So the W3C has a, so members, uh, roughly 350 members, uh, at the W3C. And, in order to become a member, an organization needs to pay, uh, an annual membership fee. That's pretty common among, uh, standardization, uh, organizations. [00:03:07] Francois: And, we only have, uh, I guess three levels of membership, fees. Uh, well, you may find, uh, additional small levels, but three main ones. the goal is to make sure that, A big player will, not a big player or large company, will not have more rights than, uh, anything, anyone else. So we try to make sure that a member has the, you know, all members have equal, right? [00:03:30] Francois: if it's not perfect, but, uh, uh, that's how things are, are are set. So that's the main source of income for the W3C. And then we try to diversify just a little bit to get, uh, for example, we go to governments. We may go to governments in the u EU. We may, uh, take some, uh, grant for EU research projects that allow us, you know, to, study, explore topics. [00:03:54] Francois: Uh, in the US there, there used to be some, uh, some funding from coming from the government as well. So that, that's, uh, also, uh, a source. But the main one is, uh, membership fees. Relations to TC39, IETF, and WHATWG [00:04:04] Jeremy: And you mentioned that a lot of the W3C'S work is related to web standards. There's other groups like TC 39, which works on the JavaScript spec and the IETF, which I believe worked, with your group on WebRTC, I wonder if you could explain W3C'S connection to other groups like that. [00:04:28] Francois: sure. we try to collaborate with a, a number of, uh, standard other standardization organizations. So in general, everything goes well because you, you have, a clear separation of concerns. So you mentioned TC 39. Indeed. they are the ones who standardize, JavaScript. Proper name of JavaScript is the EcmaScript. [00:04:47] Francois: So that's tc. TC 39 is the technical committee at ecma. and so we have indeed interactions with them because their work directly impact the JavaScript that you're going to find in your, uh, run in your, in your web browser. And we develop a number of JavaScript APIs, uh, actually in W3C. [00:05:05] Francois: So we need to make sure that, the way we develop, uh, you know, these APIs align with the, the language itself. with IETF, the, the, the boundary is, uh, uh, is clear as well. It's a protocol and protocol for our network protocols for our, the IETF and application level. For W3C, that's usually how the distinction is made. [00:05:28] Francois: The boundaries are always a bit fuzzy, but that's how things work. And usually, uh, things work pretty well. Uh, there's also the WHATWG, uh, and the WHATWG is more the, the, the history was more complicated because, uh, t of a fork of the, uh, HTML specification, uh, at the time when it was developed by W3C, a long time ago. [00:05:49] Francois: And there was been some, uh, Well disagreement on the way things should have been done, and the WHATWG took over got created, took, took this the HTML spec and did it a different way. Went in another, another direction, and that other, other direction actually ended up being the direction. [00:06:06] Francois: So, that's a success, uh, from there. And so, W3C no longer works, no longer owns the, uh, HTML spec and the WHATWG has, uh, taken, uh, taken up a number of, uh, of different, core specifications for the web. Uh, doing a lot of work on the, uh, on interopoerability and making sure that, uh, the algorithm specified by the spec, were correct, which, which was something that historically we haven't been very good at at W3C. [00:06:35] Francois: And the way they've been working as a, has a lot of influence on the way we develop now, uh, the APIs, uh, from a W3C perspective. [00:06:44] Jeremy: So, just to make sure I understand correctly, you have TC 39, which is focused on the JavaScript or ECMAScript language itself, and you have APIs that are going to use JavaScript and interact with JavaScript. So you need to coordinate there. The, the have the specification for HTML. then the IATF, they are, I'm not sure if the right term would be, they, they would be one level lower perhaps, than the W3C. [00:07:17] Francois: That's how you, you can formulate it. Yes. The, the one layer, one layer layer in the ISO network in the ISO stack at the network level. How WebRTC spans the IETF and W3C [00:07:30] Jeremy: And so in that case, one place I've heard it mentioned is that webRTC, to, to use it, there is an IETF specification, and then perhaps there's a W3C recommendation and [00:07:43] Francois: Yes. so when we created the webRTC working group, that was in 2011, I think, it was created with a dual head. There was one RTC web, group that got created at IETF and a webRTC group that got created at W3C. And that was done on purpose. Of course, the goal was not to compete on the, on the solution, but actually to, have the two sides of the, uh, solution, be developed in parallel, the API, uh, the application front and the network front. [00:08:15] Francois: And there was a, and there's still a lot of overlap in, uh, participation between both groups, and that's what keep things successful. In the end. It's not, uh, you know, process or organization to organization, uh, relationships, coordination at the organization level. It's really the fact that you have participants that are essentially the same, on both sides of the equation. [00:08:36] Francois: That helps, uh, move things forward. Now, webRTC is, uh, is more complex than just one group at IETF. I mean, web, webRTC is a very complex set of, uh, of technologies, stack of technologies. So when you, when you. Pull a little, uh, protocol from IETFs. Suddenly you have the whole IETF that comes with you with it. [00:08:56] Francois: So you, it's the, you have the feeling that webRTC needs all of the, uh, internet protocols that got, uh, created to work Recommendations [00:09:04] Jeremy: And I think probably a lot of web developers, they may hear words like specification or standard, but I believe the, the official term, at least at the W3C, is this recommendation. And so I wonder if you can explain what that means. [00:09:24] Francois: Well. It means it means standard in the end. and that came from industry. That comes from a time where. As many standardization organizations. W3C was created not to be a standardization organization. It was felt that standard was not the right term because we were not a standardization organization. [00:09:45] Francois: So recommend IETF has the same thing. They call it RFC, request for comment, which, you know, stands for nothing in, and yet it's a standard. So W3C was created with the same kind of, uh thing. We needed some other terminology and we call that recommendation. But in the end, that's standard. It's really, uh, how you should see it. [00:10:08] Francois: And one thing I didn't mention when I, uh, introduced the W3C is there are two types of standards in the end, two main categories. There are, the de jure standards and defacto standards, two families. The de jure standards are the ones that are imposed by some kind of regulation. so it's really usually a standard you see imposed by governments, for example. [00:10:29] Francois: So when you look at your electric plug at home, there's some regulation there that says, this plug needs to have these properties. And that's a standard that gets imposed. It's a de jure standard. and then there are defacto standards which are really, uh, specifications that are out there and people agree to use it to implement it. [00:10:49] Francois: And by virtue of being used and implemented and used by everyone, they become standards. the, W3C really is in the, uh, second part. It's a defacto standard. IETF is the same thing. some of our standards are used in, uh, are referenced in regulations now, but, just a, a minority of them, most of them are defacto standards. [00:11:10] Francois: and that's important because that's in the end, it doesn't matter what the specific specification says, even though it's a bit confusing. What matters is that the, what the specifications says matches what implementations actually implement, and that these implementations are used, and are used interoperably across, you know, across browsers, for example, or across, uh, implementations, across users, across usages. [00:11:36] Francois: So, uh, standardization is a, is a lengthy process. The recommendation is the final stage in that, lengthy process. More and more we don't really reach recommendation anymore. If you look at, uh, at groups, uh, because we have another path, let's say we kind of, uh, we can stop at candidate recommendation, which is in theoretically a step before that. [00:12:02] Francois: But then you, you can stay there and, uh, stay there forever and publish new candidate recommendations. Um, uh, later on. What matters again is that, you know, you get this, virtuous feedback loop, uh, with implementers, and usage. [00:12:18] Jeremy: So if the candidate recommendation ends up being implemented by all the browsers, what's ends up being the distinction between a candidate and one that's a normal recommendation. [00:12:31] Francois: So, today it's mostly a process thing. Some groups actually decide to go to rec Some groups decide to stay at candidate rec and there's no formal difference between the, the two. we've made sure we've adopted, adjusted the process so that the important bits that, applied at the recommendation level now apply at the candidate rec level. Royalty free patent access [00:13:00] Francois: And by important things, I mean the patent commitments typically, uh, the patent policy fully applies at the candidate recommendation level so that you get your, protection, the royalty free patent protection that we, we were aiming at. [00:13:14] Francois: Some people do not care, you know, but most of the world still works with, uh, with patents, uh, for good, uh, or bad reasons. But, uh, uh, that's how things work. So we need to make, we're trying to make sure that we, we secure the right set of, um, of patent commitments from the right set of stakeholders. [00:13:35] Jeremy: Oh, so when someone implements a W3C recommendation or a candidate recommendation, the patent holders related to that recommendation, they basically agree to allow royalty-free use of that patent. [00:13:54] Francois: They do the one that were involved in the working group, of course, I mean, we can't say anything about the companies out there that may have patents and uh, are not part of this standardization process. So there's always, It's a remaining risk. but part of the goal when we create a working group is to make sure that, people understand the scope. [00:14:17] Francois: Lawyers look into it, and the, the legal teams that exist at the all the large companies, basically gave a green light saying, yeah, we, we we're pretty confident that we, we know where the patterns are on this particular, this particular area. And we are fine also, uh, letting go of the, the patterns we own ourselves. Implementations are built in parallel with standardization [00:14:39] Jeremy: And I think you had mentioned. What ends up being the most important is that the browser creators implement these recommendations. So it sounds like maybe the distinction between candidate recommendation and recommendation almost doesn't matter as long as you get the end result you want. [00:15:03] Francois: So, I mean, people will have different opinions, uh, in the, in standardization circles. And I mentioned also W3C is working on other kind of, uh, standards. So, uh, in some other areas, the nuance may be more important when we, but when, when you look at specification, that's target, web browsers. we've switched from a model where, specs were developed first and then implemented to a model where specs and implementing implementations are being, worked in parallel. [00:15:35] Francois: This actually relates to the evolution I was mentioning with the WHATWG taking over the HTML and, uh, focusing on the interoperability issues because the starting point was, yeah, we have an HTML 4.01 spec, uh, but it's not interoperable because it, it's not specified, are number of areas that are gray areas, you can implement them differently. [00:15:59] Francois: And so there are interoperable issues. Back to candidate rec actually, the, the, the, the stage was created, if I remember correctly. uh, if I'm, if I'm not wrong, the stage was created following the, uh, IE problem. In the CSS working group, IE6, uh, shipped with some, version of a CSS that was in the, as specified, you know, the spec was saying, you know, do that for the CSS box model. [00:16:27] Francois: And the IE6 was following that. And then the group decided to change, the box model and suddenly IE6 was no longer compliant. And that created a, a huge mess on the, in the history of, uh, of the web in a way. And so the, we, the, the, the, the candidate recommendation sta uh, stage was introduced following that to try to catch this kind of problems. [00:16:52] Francois: But nowadays, again, we, we switch to another model where it's more live. and so we, you, you'll find a number of specs that are not even at candidate rec level. They are at the, what we call a working draft, and they, they are being implemented, and if all goes well, the standardization process follows the implementation, and then you end up in a situation where you have your candidate rec when the, uh, spec ships. [00:17:18] Francois: a recent example would be a web GPU, for example. It, uh, it has shipped in, uh, in, in Chrome shortly before it transition to a candidate rec. But the, the, the spec was already stable. and now it's shipping uh, in, uh, in different browsers, uh, uh, safari, uh, and uh, and uh, and uh, Firefox. And so that's, uh, and that's a good example of something that follows, uh, things, uh, along pretty well. But then you have other specs such as, uh, in the media space, uh, request video frame back, uh, frame, call back, uh, requestVideoFrameCallback() is a short API that allows you to get, you know, a call back whenever the, the browser renders a video frame, essentially. [00:18:01] Francois: And that spec is implemented across browsers. But from a W3C specific, perspective, it does not even exist. It's not on the standardization track. It's still being incubated in what we call a community group, which is, you know, some something that, uh, usually exists before. we move to the, the standardization process. [00:18:21] Francois: So there, there are examples of things where some things fell through the cracks. All the standardization process, uh, is either too early or too late and things that are in spec are not exactly what what got implemented or implementations are too early in the process. We we're doing a better job, at, Not falling into a trap where someone ships, uh, you know, an implementation and then suddenly everything is frozen. You can no longer, change it because it's too late, it shipped. we've tried, different, path there. Um, mentioned CSS, the, there was this kind of vendor prefixed, uh, properties that used to be, uh, the way, uh, browsers were deploying new features without, you know, taking the final name. [00:19:06] Francois: We are trying also to move away from it because same thing. Then in the end, you end up with, uh, applications that have, uh, to duplicate all the properties, the CSS properties in the style sheets with, uh, the vendor prefixes and nuances in the, in what it does in, in the end. [00:19:23] Jeremy: Yeah, I, I think, is that in CSS where you'll see --mozilla or things like that? Why requestVideoFrameCallback doesn't have a formal specification [00:19:30] Jeremy: The example of the request video frame callback. I, I wonder if you have an opinion or, or, or know why that ended up the way it did, where the browsers all implemented it, even though it was still in the incubation stage. [00:19:49] Francois: On this one, I don't have a particular, uh, insights on whether there was a, you know, a strong reason to implement it,without doing the standardization work. [00:19:58] Francois: I mean, there are, it's not, uh, an IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) issue. It's not, uh, something that, uh, I don't think the, the, the spec triggers, uh, you know, problems that, uh, would be controversial or whatever. [00:20:10] Francois: Uh, so it's just a matter of, uh, there was no one's priority, and in the end, you end up with a, everyone's happy. it's, it has shipped. And so now doing the spec work is a bit,why spend time on something that's already shipped and so on, but the, it may still come back at some point with try to, you know, improve the situation. [00:20:26] Jeremy: Yeah, that's, that's interesting. It's a little counterintuitive because it sounds like you have the, the working group and it, it sounds like perhaps the companies or organizations involved, they maybe agreed on how it should work, and maybe that agreement almost made it so that they felt like they didn't need to move forward with the specification because they came to consensus even before going through that. [00:20:53] Francois: In this particular case, it's probably because it's really, again, it's a small, spec. It's just one function call, you know? I mean, they will definitely want a working group, uh, for larger specifications. by the way, actually now I know re request video frame call back. It's because the, the, the final goal now that it's, uh, shipped, is to merge it into, uh, HTML, uh, the HTML spec. [00:21:17] Francois: So there's a, there's an ongoing issue on the, the WHATWG side to integrate request video frame callback. And it's taking some time but see, it's, it's being, it, it caught up and, uh, someone is doing the, the work to, to do it. I had forgotten about this one. Um, [00:21:33] Jeremy: Tension from specification review (horizontal review) [00:21:33] Francois: so with larger specifications, organizations will want this kind of IPR regime they will want commit commitments from, uh, others, on the scope, on the process, on everything. So they will want, uh, a larger, a, a more formal setting, because that's part of how you ensure that things, uh, will get done properly. [00:21:53] Francois: I didn't mention it, but, uh, something we're really, uh, Pushy on, uh, W3C I mentioned we have principles, we have priorities, and we have, uh, specific several, uh, properties at W3C. And one of them is that we we're very strong on horizontal reviews of our specs. We really want them to be reviewed from an accessibility perspective, from an internationalization perspective, from a privacy and security, uh, perspective, and, and, and a technical architecture perspective as well. [00:22:23] Francois: And that's, these reviews are part of the formal process. So you, all specs need to undergo these reviews. And from time to time, that creates tension. Uh, from time to time. It just works, you know. Goes without problem. a recurring issue is that, privacy and security are hard. I mean, it's not an easy problem, something that can be, uh, solved, uh, easily. [00:22:48] Francois: Uh, so there's a, an ongoing tension and no easy way to resolve it, but there's an ongoing tension between, specifying powerful APIs and preserving privacy without meaning, not exposing too much information to applications in the media space. You can think of the media capabilities, API. So the media space is a complicated space. [00:23:13] Francois: Space because of codecs. codecs are typically not relative free. and so browsers decide which codecs they're going to support, which audio and video codecs they, they're going to support and doing that, that creates additional fragmentation, not in the sense that they're not interoperable, but in the sense that applications need to choose which connect they're going to ship to stream to the end user. [00:23:39] Francois: And, uh, it's all the more complicated that some codecs are going to be hardware supported. So you will have a hardware decoder in your, in your, in your laptop or smartphone. And so that's going to be efficient to decode some, uh, some stream, whereas some code are not, are going to be software, based, supported. [00:23:56] Francois: Uh, and that may consume a lot of CPU and a lot of power and a lot of energy in the end. So you, you want to avoid that if you can, uh, select another thing. Even more complex than, codecs have different profiles, uh, lower end profiles higher end profiles with different capabilities, different features, uh, depending on whether you're going to use this or that color space, for example, this or that resolution, whatever. [00:24:22] Francois: And so you want to surface that to web applications because otherwise, they can't. Select, they can't choose, the right codec and the right, stream that they're going to send to the, uh, client devices. And so they're not going to provide an efficient user experience first, and even a sustainable one in terms of energy because they, they're going to waste energy if they don't send the right stream. [00:24:45] Francois: So you want to surface that to application. That's what the media, media capabilities, APIs, provides. Privacy concerns [00:24:51] Francois: Uh, but at the same time, if you expose that information, you end up with ways to fingerprint the end user's device. And that in turn is often used to track users across, across sites, which is exactly what we don't want to have, uh, for privacy reasons, for obvious privacy reasons. [00:25:09] Francois: So you have to balance that and find ways to, uh, you know, to expose. Capabilities without, without necessarily exposing them too much. Uh, [00:25:21] Jeremy: Can you give an example of how some of those discussions went? Like within the working group? Who are the companies or who are the organizations that are arguing for We shouldn't have this capability because of the privacy concerns, or [00:25:40] Francois: In a way all of the companies, have a vision of, uh, of privacy. I mean, the, you will have a hard time finding, you know, members saying, I don't care about privacy. I just want the feature. Uh, they all have privacy in mind, but they may have a different approach to privacy. [00:25:57] Francois: so if you take, uh, let's say, uh, apple and Google would be the, the, I guess the perfect examples in that, uh, in that space, uh, Google will have a, an approach that is more open-ended thing. The, the user agents has this, uh, should check what the, the, uh, given site is doing. And then if it goes beyond, you know, some kind of threshold, they're going to say, well, okay, well, we'll stop exposing data to that, to that, uh, to that site. [00:26:25] Francois: So that application. So monitor and react in a way. apple has a more, uh, you know, has a stricter view on, uh, on privacy, let's say. And they will say, no, we, the, the, the feature must not exist in the first place. Or, but that's, I mean, I guess, um, it's not always that extreme. And, uh, from time to time it's the opposite. [00:26:45] Francois: You will have, uh, you know, apple arguing in one way, uh, which is more open-ended than the, uh, than, uh, than Google, for example. And they are not the only ones. So in working groups, uh, you will find the, usually the implementers. Uh, so when we talk about APIs that get implemented in browsers, you want the core browsers to be involved. [00:27:04] Francois: Uh, otherwise it's usually not a good sign for, uh, the success of the, uh, of the technology. So in practice, that means Apple, uh, Microsoft, Mozilla which one did I forget? [00:27:15] Jeremy: Google. [00:27:16] Francois: I forgot Google. Of course. Thank you. that's, uh, that the, the core, uh, list of participants you want to have in any, uh, group that develops web standards targeted at web browsers. Who participates in working groups and how much power do they have? [00:27:28] Francois: And then on top of that, you want, organizations and people who are directly going to use it, either because they, well the content providers. So in media, for example, if you look at the media working group, you'll see, uh, so browser vendors, the ones I mentioned, uh, content providers such as the BBC or Netflix. [00:27:46] Francois: Chip set vendors would, uh, would be there as well. Intel, uh, Nvidia again, because you know, there's a hardware decoding in there and encoding. So media is, touches on, on, uh, on hardware, uh, device manufacturer in general. You may, uh, I think, uh, I think Sony is involved in the, in the media working group, for example. [00:28:04] Francois: and these companies are usually less active in the spec development. It depends on the groups, but they're usually less active because the ones developing the specs are usually the browser again, because as I mentioned, we develop the specs in parallel to browsers implementing it. So they have the. [00:28:21] Francois: The feedback on how to formulate the, the algorithms. and so that's this collection of people who are going to discuss first within themselves. W3C pushes for consensual dis decisions. So we hardly take any votes in the working groups, but from time to time, that's not enough. [00:28:41] Francois: And there may be disagreements, but let's say there's agreement in the group, uh, when the spec matches. horizontal review groups will look at the specs. So these are groups I mentioned, accessibility one, uh, privacy, internationalization. And these groups, usually the participants are, it depends. [00:29:00] Francois: It can be anything. It can be, uh, the same companies. It can be, but usually different people from the same companies. But it the, maybe organizations with a that come from very, a very different angle. And that's a good thing because that means the, you know, you enlarge the, the perspectives on your, uh, on the, on the technology. [00:29:19] Francois: and you, that's when you have a discussion between groups, that takes place. And from time to time it goes well from time to time. Again, it can trigger issues that are hard to solve. and the W3C has a, an escalation process in case, uh, you know, in case things degenerate. Uh, starting with, uh, the notion of formal objection. [00:29:42] Jeremy: It makes sense that you would have the, the browser. Vendors and you have all the different companies that would use that browser. All the different horizontal groups like you mentioned, the internationalization, accessibility. I would imagine that you were talking about consensus and there are certain groups or certain companies that maybe have more say or more sway. [00:30:09] Jeremy: For example, if you're a browser, manufacturer, your Google. I'm kind of curious how that works out within the working group. [00:30:15] Francois: Yes, it's, I guess I would be lying if I were saying that, uh, you know, all companies are strictly equal in a, in a, in a group. they are from a process perspective, I mentioned, you know, different membership fees with were design, special specific ethos so that no one could say, I'm, I'm putting in a lot of money, so you, you need to re you need to respect me, uh, and you need to follow what I, what I want to, what I want to do. [00:30:41] Francois: at the same time, if you take a company like, uh, like Google for example, they send, hundreds of engineers to do standardization work. That's absolutely fantastic because that means work progresses and it's, uh, extremely smart people. So that's, uh, that's really a pleasure to work with, uh, with these, uh, people. [00:30:58] Francois: But you need to take a step back and say, well, the problem is. Defacto that gives them more power just by virtue of, uh, injecting more resources into it. So having always someone who can respond to an issue, having always someone, uh, editing a spec defacto that give them more, uh, um, more say on the, on the directions that, get forward. [00:31:22] Francois: And on top of that, of course, they have the, uh, I guess not surprisingly, the, the browser that is, uh, used the most, currently, on the market so there's a little bit of a, the, the, we, we, we, we try very hard to make sure that, uh, things are balanced. it's not a perfect world. [00:31:38] Francois: the the role of the team. I mean, I didn't talk about the role of the team, but part of it is to make sure that. Again, all perspectives are represented and that there's not, such a, such big imbalance that, uh, that something is wrong and that we really need to look into it. so making sure that anyone, if they have something to say, make making sure that they are heard by the rest of the group and not dismissed. [00:32:05] Francois: That usually goes well. There's no problem with that. And again, the escalation process I mentioned here doesn't make any, uh, it doesn't make any difference between, uh, a small player, a large player, a big player, and we have small companies raising formal objections against some of our aspects that happens, uh, all large ones. [00:32:24] Francois: But, uh, that happens too. There's no magical solution, I guess you can tell it by the way. I, uh, I don't know how to formulate the, the process more. It's a human process, and that's very important that it remains a human process as well. [00:32:41] Jeremy: I suppose the role of, of staff and someone in your position, for example, is to try and ensure that these different groups are, are heard and it isn't just one group taking control of it. [00:32:55] Francois: That's part of the role, again, is to make sure that, uh, the, the process is followed. So the, I, I mean, I don't want to give the impression that the process controls everything in the groups. I mean, the, the, the groups are bound by the process, but the process is there to catch problems when they arise. [00:33:14] Francois: most of the time there are no problems. It's just, you know, again, participants talking to each other, talking with the rest of the community. Most of the work happens in public nowadays, in any case. So the groups work in public essentially through asynchronous, uh, discussions on GitHub repositories. [00:33:32] Francois: There are contributions from, you know, non group participants and everything goes well. And so the process doesn't kick in. You just never say, eh, no, you didn't respect the process there. You, you closed the issue. You shouldn't have a, it's pretty rare that you have to do that. Uh, things just proceed naturally because they all, everyone understands where they are, why, what they're doing, and why they're doing it. [00:33:55] Francois: we still have a role, I guess in the, in the sense that from time to time that doesn't work and you have to intervene and you have to make sure that,the, uh, exception is caught and, uh, and processed, uh, in the right way. Discussions are public on github [00:34:10] Jeremy: And you said this process is asynchronous in public, so it sounds like someone, I, I mean, is this in GitHub issues or how, how would somebody go and, and see what the results of [00:34:22] Francois: Yes, there, there are basically a gazillion of, uh, GitHub repositories under the, uh, W3C, uh, organization on GitHub. Most groups are using GitHub. I mean, there's no, it's not mandatory. We don't manage any, uh, any tooling. But the factors that most, we, we've been transitioning to GitHub, uh, for a number of years already. [00:34:45] Francois: Uh, so that's where the work most of the work happens, through issues, through pool requests. Uh, that's where. people can go and raise issues against specifications. Uh, we usually, uh, also some from time to time get feedback from developers and countering, uh, a bug in a particular implementations, which we try to gently redirect to, uh, the actual bug trackers because we're not responsible for the respons implementations of the specs unless the spec is not clear. [00:35:14] Francois: We are responsible for the spec itself, making sure that the spec is clear and that implementers well, understand how they should implement something. Why the W3C doesn't specify a video or audio codec [00:35:25] Jeremy: I can see how people would make that mistake because they, they see it's the feature, but that's not the responsibility of the, the W3C to implement any of the specifications. Something you had mentioned there's the issue of intellectual property rights and how when you have a recommendation, you require the different organizations involved to make their patents available to use freely. [00:35:54] Jeremy: I wonder why there was never any kind of, recommendation for audio or video codecs in browsers since you have certain ones that are considered royalty free. But, I believe that's never been specified. [00:36:11] Francois: At W3C you mean? Yes. we, we've tried, I mean, it's not for lack of trying. Um, uh, we've had a number of discussions with, uh, various stakeholders saying, Hey, we, we really need, an audio or video code for our, for the web. the, uh, png PNG is an example of a, um, an image format which got standardized at W3C and it got standardized at W3C similar reasons. There had to be a royalty free image format for the web, and there was none at the time. of course, nowadays, uh, jpeg, uh, and gif or gif, whatever you call it, are well, you know, no problem with them. But, uh, um, that at the time P PNG was really, uh, meant to address this issue and it worked for PNG for audio and video. [00:37:01] Francois: We haven't managed to secure, commitments by stakeholders. So willingness to do it, so it's not, it's not lack of willingness. We would've loved to, uh, get, uh, a royalty free, uh, audio codec, a royalty free video codec again, audio and video code are extremely complicated because of this. [00:37:20] Francois: not only because of patterns, but also because of the entire business ecosystem that exists around them for good reasons. You, in order for a, a codec to be supported, deployed, effective, it really needs, uh, it needs to mature a lot. It needs to, be, uh, added to at a hardware level, to a number of devices, capturing devices, but also, um, uh, uh, of course players. [00:37:46] Francois: And that takes a hell of a lot of time and that's why you also enter a number of business considerations with business contracts between entities. so I'm personally, on a personal level, I'm, I'm pleased to see, for example, the Alliance for Open Media working on, uh, uh, AV1, uh, which is. At least they, uh, they wanted to be royalty free and they've been adopting actually the W3C patent policy to do this work. [00:38:11] Francois: So, uh, we're pleased to see that, you know, they've been adopting the same process and same thing. AV1 is not yet at the same, support stage, as other, codecs, in the world Yeah, I mean in devices. There's an open question as what, what are we going to do, uh, in the future uh, with that, it's, it's, it's doubtful that, uh, the W3C will be able to work on a, on a royalty free audio, codec or royalty free video codec itself because, uh, probably it's too late now in any case. [00:38:43] Francois: but It's one of these angles in the, in the web platform where we wish we had the, uh, the technology available for, for free. And, uh, it's not exactly, uh, how things work in practice.I mean, the way codecs are developed remains really patent oriented. [00:38:57] Francois: and you will find more codecs being developed. and that's where geopolitics can even enter the, the, uh, the play. Because, uh, if you go to China, you will find new codecs emerging, uh, that get developed within China also, because, the other codecs come mostly from the US so it's a bit of a problem and so on. [00:39:17] Francois: I'm not going to enter details and uh, I would probably say stupid things in any case. Uh, but that, uh, so we continue to see, uh, emerging codecs that are not royalty free, and it's probably going to remain the case for a number of years. unfortunately, unfortunately, from a W3C perspective and my perspective of course. [00:39:38] Jeremy: There's always these new, formats coming out and the, rate at which they get supported in the browser, even on a per browser basis is, is very, there can be a long time between, for example, WebP being released and a browser supporting it. So, seems like maybe we're gonna be in that situation for a while where the codecs will come out and maybe the browsers will support them. Maybe they won't, but the, the timeline is very uncertain. Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Media Source Extensions [00:40:08] Jeremy: Something you had, mentioned, maybe this was in your, email to me earlier, but you had mentioned that some of these specifications, there's, there's business considerations like with, digital rights management and, media source extensions. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about maybe what media source extensions is and encrypted media extensions and, and what the, the considerations or challenges are there. [00:40:33] Francois: I'm going to go very, very quickly over the history of a, video and audio support on the web. Initially it was supported through plugins. you are maybe too young to, remember that. But, uh, we had extensions, added to, uh, a realplayer. [00:40:46] Francois: This kind of things flash as well, uh, supporting, uh, uh, videos, in web pages, but it was not provided by the web browsers themselves. Uh, then HTML5 changed the, the situation. Adding these new tags, audio and video, but that these tags on this, by default, support, uh, you give them a resources, a resource, like an image as it's an audio or a video file. [00:41:10] Francois: They're going to download this, uh, uh, video file or audio file, and they're going to play it. That works well. But as soon as you want to do any kind of real streaming, files are too large and to stream, to, to get, you know, to get just a single fetch on, uh, on them. So you really want to stream them chunk by chunk, and you want to adapt the resolution at which you send the stream based on real time conditions of the user's network. [00:41:37] Francois: If there's plenty of bandwidth you want to send the user, the highest possible resolution. If there's a, some kind of hiccup temporary in the, in the network, you really want to lower the resolution, and that's called adaptive streaming. And to get adaptive streaming on the web, well, there are a number of protocols that exist. [00:41:54] Francois: Same thing. Some many of them are proprietary and actually they remain proprietary, uh, to some extent. and, uh, some of them are over http and they are the ones that are primarily used in, uh, in web contexts. So DASH comes to mind, DASH for Dynamic Adaptive streaming over http. HLS is another one. Uh, initially developed by Apple, I believe, and it's, uh, HTTP live streaming probably. Exactly. And, so there are different protocols that you can, uh, you can use. Uh, so the goal was not to standardize these protocols because again, there were some proprietary aspects to them. And, uh, same thing as with codecs. [00:42:32] Francois: There was no, well, at least people wanted to have the, uh, flexibility to tweak parameters, adaptive streaming parameters the way they wanted for different scenarios. You may want to tweak the parameters differently. So they, they needed to be more flexibility on top of protocols not being truly available for use directly and for implementation directly in browsers. [00:42:53] Francois: It was also about providing applications with, uh, the flexibility they would need to tweak parameters. So media source extensions comes into play for exactly that. Media source extensions is really about you. The application fetches chunks of its audio and video stream the way it wants, and with the parameters it wants, and it adjusts whatever it wants. [00:43:15] Francois: And then it feeds that into the, uh, video or audio tag. and the browser takes care of the rest. So it's really about, doing, you know, the adaptive streaming. let applications do it, and then, uh, let the user agent, uh, the browser takes, take care of the rendering itself. That's media source extensions. [00:43:32] Francois: Initially it was pushed by, uh, Netflix. They were not the only ones of course, but there, there was a, a ma, a major, uh, proponent of this, uh, technical solution, because they wanted, uh, they, uh, they were, expanding all over the world, uh, with, uh, plenty of native, applications on all sorts of, uh, of, uh, devices. [00:43:52] Francois: And they wanted to have a way to stream content on the web as well. both for both, I guess, to expand to, um, a new, um, ecosystem, the web, uh, providing new opportunities, let's say. But at the same time also to have a fallback, in case they, because for native support on different platforms, they sometimes had to enter business agreements with, uh, you know, the hardware manufacturers, the whatever, the, uh, service provider or whatever. [00:44:19] Francois: and so that was a way to have a full back. That kind of work is more open, in case, uh, things take some time and so on. So, and they probably had other reasons. I mean, I'm not, I can't speak on behalf of Netflix, uh, on others, but they were not the only ones of course, uh, supporting this, uh, me, uh, media source extension, uh, uh, specification. [00:44:42] Francois: and that went kind of, well, I think it was creating 2011. I mean, the, the work started in 2011 and the recommendation was published in 2016, which is not too bad from a standardization perspective. It means only five years, you know, it's a very short amount of time. Encrypted Media Extensions [00:44:59] Francois: At the same time, and in parallel and complement to the media source extension specifications, uh, there was work on the encrypted media extensions, and here it was pushed by the same proponent in a way because they wanted to get premium content on the web. [00:45:14] Francois: And by premium content, you think of movies and, uh. These kind of beasts. And the problem with the, I guess the basic issue with, uh, digital asset such as movies, is that they cost hundreds of millions to produce. I mean, some cost less of course. And yet it's super easy to copy them if you have a access to the digital, uh, file. [00:45:35] Francois: You just copy and, uh, and that's it. Piracy uh, is super easy, uh, to achieve. It's illegal of course, but it's super easy to do. And so that's where the different legislations come into play with digital right management. Then the fact is most countries allow system that, can encrypt content and, uh, through what we call DRM systems. [00:45:59] Francois: so content providers, uh, the, the ones that have movies, so the studios here more, more and more, and Netflix is one, uh, one of the studios nowadays. Um, but not only, not only them all major studios will, uh, would, uh, push for, wanted to have something that would allow them to stream encrypted content, encrypted audio and video, uh, mostly video, to, uh, to web applications so that, uh, you. [00:46:25] Francois: Provide the movies, otherwise, they, they are just basically saying, and sorry, but, uh, this premium content will never make it to the web because there's no way we're gonna, uh, send it in clear, to, uh, to the end user. So Encrypting media extensions is, uh, is an API that allows to interface with, uh, what's called the content decryption module, CDM, uh, which itself interacts with, uh, the DR DRM systems that, uh, the browser may, may or may not support. [00:46:52] Francois: And so it provides a way for an application to receive encrypted content, pass it over get the, the, the right keys, the right license keys from a whatever system actually. Pass that logic over to the, and to the user agent, which passes, passes it over to, uh, the CDM system, which is kind of black box in, uh, that does its magic to get the right, uh, decryption key and then the, and to decrypt the content that can be rendered. [00:47:21] Francois: The encrypted media extensions triggered a, a hell of a lot of, uh, controversy. because it's DRM and DRM systems, uh, many people, uh, uh, things should be banned, uh, especially on the web because the, the premise of the web is that the, the user has trusts, a user agent. The, the web browser is called the user agent in all our, all our specifications. [00:47:44] Francois: And that's, uh, that's the trust relationship. And then they interact with a, a content provider. And so whatever they do with the content is their, I guess, actually their problem. And DRM introduces a third party, which is, uh, there's, uh, the, the end user no longer has the control on the content. [00:48:03] Francois: It has to rely on something else that, Restricts what it can achieve with the content. So it's, uh, it's not only a trust relationship with its, uh, user agents, it's also with, uh, with something else, which is the content provider, uh, in the end, the one that has the, uh, the license where provides the license. [00:48:22] Francois: And so that's, that triggers, uh, a hell of a lot of, uh, of discussions in the W3C degenerated, uh, uh, into, uh, formal objections being raised against the specification. and that escalated to, to the, I mean, at all leverage it. It's, it's the, the story in, uh, W3C that, um, really, uh, divided the membership into, opposed camps in a way, if you, that's was not only year, it was not really 50 50 in the sense that not just a huge fights, but the, that's, that triggered a hell of a lot of discussions and a lot of, a lot of, uh, of formal objections at the time. [00:49:00] Francois: Uh, we were still, From a governance perspective, interestingly, um, the W3C used to be a dictatorship. It's not how you should formulate it, of course, and I hope it's not going to be public, this podcast. Uh, but the, uh, it was a benevolent dictatorship. You could see it this way in the sense that, uh, the whole process escalated to one single person was, Tim Burners Lee, who had the final say, on when, when none of the other layers, had managed to catch and to resolve, a conflict. [00:49:32] Francois: Uh, that has hardly ever happened in, uh, the history of the W3C, but that happened to the two for EME, for encrypted media extensions. It had to go to the, uh, director level who, uh, after due consideration, uh, decided to, allow the EME to proceed. and that's why we have a, an EME, uh, uh, standard right now, but still re it remains something on the side. [00:49:56] Francois: EME we're still, uh, it's still in the scope of the media working group, for example. but the scope, if you look at the charter of the working group, we try to scope the, the, the, the, the updates we can make to the specification, uh, to make sure that we don't reopen, reopen, uh, a can of worms, because, well, it's really a, a topic that triggers friction for good and bad reasons again. [00:50:20] Jeremy: And when you talk about the media source extensions, that is the ability to write custom code to stream video in whatever way you want. You mentioned, the MPEG-DASH and http live streaming. So in that case, would that be the developer gets to write that code in JavaScript that's executed by the browser? [00:50:43] Francois: Yep, that's, uh, that would be it. and then typically, I guess the approach nowadays is more and more to develop low level APIs into W3C or web in, in general, I guess. And to let, uh. Libraries emerge that are going to make lives of a, a developer, uh, easier. So for MPEG DASH, we have the DASH.js, which does a fantastic job at, uh, at implementing the complexity of, uh, of adaptive streaming. [00:51:13] Francois: And you just, you just hook it into your, your workflow. And that's, uh, and that's it. Encrypted Media Extensions are closed source [00:51:20] Jeremy: And with the encrypted media extensions I'm trying to picture how those work and how they work differently. [00:51:28] Francois: Well, it's because the, the, the, the key architecture is that the, the stream that you, the stream that you may assemble with a media source extensions, for example. 'cause typically they, they're used in collaboration. When you hook the, hook it into the video tag, you also. Call EME and actually the stream goes to EME. [00:51:49] Francois: And when it goes to EME, actually the user agent hands the encrypted stream. You're still encrypted at this time. Uh, encrypted, uh, stream goes to the CDM content decryption module, and that's a black box well, it has some black, black, uh, black box logic. So it's not, uh, even if you look at the chromium source code, for example, you won't see the implementation of the CDM because it's a, it's a black box, so it's not part of the browser se it's a sand, it's sandboxed, it's execution sandbox. [00:52:17] Francois: That's, uh, the, the EME is kind of unique in, in this way where the, the CDM is not allowed to make network requests, for example, again, for privacy reasons. so anyway, the, the CDM box has the logic to decrypt the content and it hands it over, and then it depends, it depends on the level of protection you. [00:52:37] Francois: You need or that the system supports. It can be against software based protection, in which case actually, a highly motivated, uh, uh, uh, attacker could, uh, actually get access to the decoded stream, or it can be more hardware protected, in which case actually the, it goes to the, uh, to your final screen. [00:52:58] Francois: But it goes, it, it goes through the hardware in a, in a mode that the US supports in a mode that even the user agent doesn't have access to it. So it doesn't, it can't even see the pixels that, uh, gets rendered on the screen. There are, uh, several other, uh, APIs that you could use, for example, to take a screenshot of your, of your application and so on. [00:53:16] Francois: And you cannot apply them to, uh, such content because they're just gonna return a black box. again, because the user agent itself does not see the, uh, the pixels, which is exactly what you want with encrypted content. [00:53:29] Jeremy: And the, the content decryption module, it's, if I understand correctly, it's something that's shipped with the browsers, but you were saying is if you were to look at the public source code of Chromium or of Firefox, you would not see that implementation. Content Decryption Module (Widevine, PlayReady) [00:53:47] Francois: True. I mean, the, the, um, the typical examples are, uh, uh, widevine, so wide Vine. So interestingly, uh, speaking in theory, these, uh, systems could have been provided by anyone in practice. They've been provided by the browser vendors themselves. So Google has Wide Vine. Uh, Microsoft has something called PlayReady. Apple uh, the name, uh, escapes my, uh, sorry. They don't have it on top of my mind. So they, that's basically what they support. So they, they also own that code, but in a way they don't have to. And Firefox actually, uh, they, uh, don't, don't remember which one, they support among these three. but, uh, they, they don't own that code typically. [00:54:29] Francois: They provide a wrapper around, around it. Yeah, that's, that's exactly the, the crux of the, uh, issue that, people have with, uh, with DRMs, right? It's, uh, the fact that, uh, suddenly you have a bit of code running there that is, uh, that, okay, you can send box, but, uh, you cannot inspect and you don't have, uh, access to its, uh, source code. [00:54:52] Jeremy: That's interesting. So the, almost the entire browser is open source, but if you wanna watch a Netflix movie for example, then you, you need to, run this, this CDM, in addition to just the browser code. I, I think, you know, we've kind of covered a lot. Documenting what's available in browsers for developers [00:55:13] Jeremy: I wonder if there's any other examples or anything else you thought would be important to mention in, in the context of the W3C. [00:55:23] Francois: There, there's one thing which, uh, relates to, uh, activities I'm doing also at W3C. Um. Here, we've been talking a lot about, uh, standards and, implementations in browsers, but there's also, uh, adoption of these browser, of these technology standards by developers in general and making sure that developers are aware of what exists, making sure that they understand what exists and one of the, key pain points that people, uh. [00:55:54] Francois: Uh, keep raising on, uh, the web platform is first. Well, the, the, the web platform is unique in the sense that there are different implementations. I mean, if you, [00:56:03] Francois: Uh, anyway, there are different, uh, context, different run times where there, there's just one provided by the company that owns the, uh, the, the, the system. The web platform is implemented by different, uh, organizations. and so you end up the system where no one, there's what's in the specs is not necessarily supported. [00:56:22] Francois: And of course, MDN tries, uh, to document what's what's supported, uh, thoroughly. But for MDN to work, there's a hell of a lot of needs for data that, tracks browser support. And this, uh, this data is typically in a project called the Browser Compat Data, BCD owned by, uh, MDN as well. But, the Open Web Docs collective is a, uh, is, uh, the one, maintaining that, uh, that data under the hoods. [00:56:50] Francois: anyway, all of that to say that, uh, to make sure that, we track things beyond work on technical specifications, because if you look at it from W3C perspective, life ends when the spec reaches standards, uh, you know, candidate rec or rec, you could just say, oh, done with my work. but that's not how things work. [00:57:10] Francois: There's always, you need the feedback loop and, in order to make sure that developers get the information and can provide the, the feedback that standardization can benefit from and browser vendors can benefit from. We've been working on a project called web Features with browser vendors mainly, and, uh, a few of the folks and MDN and can I use and different, uh, different people, to catalog, the web in terms of features that speak to developers and from that catalog. [00:57:40] Francois: So it's a set of, uh, it's a set of, uh, feature IDs with a feature name and feature description that say, you know, this is how developers would, uh, understand, uh, instead of going too fine grained in terms of, uh, there's this one function call that does this because that's where you, the, the kind of support data you may get from browser data and MDN initially, and having some kind of a coarser grained, uh, structure that says these are the, features that make sense. [00:58:09] Francois: They talk to developers. That's what developers talk about, and that's the info. So the, we need to have data on these particular features because that's how developers are going approach the specs. Uh. and from that we've derived the notion of baseline badges that you have, uh, are now, uh, shown on MDN on can I use and integrated in, uh, IDE tool, IDE Tools such as visual, visual studio, and, uh, uh, libraries, uh, linked, some linters have started to, um, to integrate that data. [00:58:41] Francois: Uh, so, the way it works is, uh, we've been mapping these coarser grained features to BCDs finer grained support data, and from there we've been deriving a kind of a, a batch that says, yeah, this, this feature is implemented well, has limited availability because it's only implemented in one or two browsers, for example. [00:59:07] Francois: It's, newly available because. It was implemented. It's been, it's implemented across the main browser vendor, um, across the main browsers that people use. But it's recent, and widely available, which we try to, uh, well, there's been lots of discussion in the, in the group to, uh, come up with a definition which essentially ends up being 30 months after, a feature become, became newly available. [00:59:34] Francois: And that's when, that's the time it takes for the, for the versions of the, the different versions of the browser to propagate. Uh, because you, it's not because there's a new version of a, of a browser that, uh, people just, Ima immediately, uh, get it. So it takes a while, to propagate, uh, across the, uh, the, the user, uh, user base. [00:59:56] Francois: And so the, the goal is to have a, a, a signal that. Developers can rely on saying, okay, well it's widely available so I can really use that feature. And of course, if that doesn't work, then we need to know about it. And so we are also working with, uh, people doing so developer surveys such as state of, uh, CSS, state of HTML, state of JavaScript. [01:00:15] Francois: That's I guess, the main ones. But also we are also running, uh, MDN short surveys with the MDN people to gather feedback on. On the, on these same features, and to feed the loop and to, uh, to complete the loop. and these data is also used by, internally, by browser vendors to inform, prioritization process, their prioritization process, and typically as part of the interop project that they're also running, uh, on the site [01:00:43] Francois: So a, a number of different, I've mentioned, uh, I guess a number of different projects, uh, coming along together. But that's the goal is to create links, across all of these, um, uh, ongoing projects with a view to integrating developers, more, and gathering feedback as early as possible and inform decision. [01:01:04] Francois: We take at the standardization level that can affect the, the lives of the developers and making sure that it's, uh, it affects them in a, in a positive way. [01:01:14] Jeremy: just trying to understand, 'cause you had mentioned that there's the web features and the baseline, and I was, I was trying to picture where developers would actually, um, see these things. And it sounds like from what you're saying is W3C comes up with what stage some of these features are at, and then developers would end up seeing it on MDN or, or some other site. [01:01:37] Francois: So, uh, I'm working on it, but that doesn't mean it's a W3C thing. It's a, it's a, again, it's a, we have different types of group. It's a community group, so it's the Web DX Community group at W3C, which means it's a community owned thing. so that's why I'm mentioning a working with a representative from, and people from MDN people, from open Web docs. [01:02:05] Francois: so that's the first point. The second point is, so it's, indeed this data is now being integrated. If you, and you look, uh, you'll, you'll see it in on top of the MDN pages on most of them. If you look at, uh, any kind of feature, you'll see a, a few logos, uh, a baseline banner. and then can I use, it's the same thing. [01:02:24] Francois: You're going to get a baseline, banner. It's more on, can I use, and it's meant to capture the fact that the feature is widely available or if you may need to pay attention to it. Of course, it's a simplification, and the goal is not to the way it's, the way the messaging is done to developers is meant to capture the fact that, they may want to look, uh, into more than just this, baseline status, because. [01:02:54] Francois: If you take a look at web platform tests, for example, and if you were to base your assessment of whether a feature is supported based on test results, you'll end up saying the web platform has no supported technology because there are absolutely no API that, uh, where browsers pass 100% of the, of the, of the test suite. [01:03:18] Francois: There may be a few of them, I don't know. But, there's a simplification in the, in the process when a feature is, uh, set to be baseline, there may be more things to look at nevertheless, but it's meant to provide a signal that, uh, still developers can rely on their day-to-day, uh, lives. [01:03:36] Francois: if they use the, the feature, let's say, as a reasonably intended and not, uh, using to advance the logic. [01:03:48] Jeremy: I see. Yeah. I'm looking at one of the pages on MDN right now, and I can see at the top there's the, the baseline and it, it mentions that this feature works across many browsers and devices, and then they say how long it's been available. And so that's a way that people at a glance can, can tell, which APIs they can use. [01:04:08] Francois: it also started, uh, out of a desire to summarize this, uh, browser compatibility table that you see at the end of the page of the, the bottom of the page in on MDN. but there are where developers were saying, well, it's, it's fine, but it's, it goes too much into detail. So we don't know in the end, can we, can we use that feature or can we, can we not use that feature? [01:04:28] Francois: So it's meant as a informed summary of, uh, of, of that it relies on the same data again. and more importantly, we're beyond MDN, we're working with tools providers to integrate that as well. So I mentioned the, uh, visual Studio is one of them. So recently they shipped a new version where when you use a feature, you can, you can have some contextual, uh. [01:04:53] Francois: A menu that tells you, yeah, uh, that's fine. You, this CSS property, you can, you can use it, it's widely available or be aware this one is limited Availability only, availability only available in Firefox or, or Chrome or Safari work kit, whatever. [01:05:08] Jeremy: I think that's a good place to wrap it up, if people want to learn more about the work you're doing or learn more about sort of this whole recommendations process, where, where should they head? [01:05:23] Francois: Generally speaking, we're extremely open to, uh, people contributing to the W3C. and where should they go if they, it depends on what they want. So I guess the, the in usually where, how things start for someone getting involved in the W3C is that they have some

In this episode of The Digital Executive, host Brian Thomas sits down with Mark Weinstein—renowned tech entrepreneur, privacy expert, and one of the original pioneers of social networking. With over 25 years in the industry and 13 U.S. patents focused on data anonymization, Mark has dedicated his career to building platforms that protect users rather than exploit them.Mark shares insights from his new book, Restoring Our Sanity Online, praised by Sir Tim Berners-Lee as “a vital read” and by Steve Wozniak as “a must read.” He reflects on the early days of Web1, the rise of surveillance capitalism in Web2, and the stubborn hold Big Tech maintains over the social media landscape. He also introduces his concept of “Restoration Networking,” a new framework for user-centric design that prioritizes privacy, data portability, and safeguarding future generations.The conversation dives into the dangers of manipulative algorithms, the failures of Web3 in delivering on its promises, and the dual-edged role of AI—both as a manipulative force and as a powerful tool for eliminating bots and trolls. Despite the challenges, Mark remains hopeful, pointing to bipartisan legislative efforts, data ownership initiatives, and a growing movement toward digital sanity.If you liked what you heard today, please leave us a review. Apple or Spotify.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Tim Berners-Lee could be one of the richest men on the planet, why did he forfeit such large profits to make the World Wide Web a free and open space? How do we reclaim the internet from social media companies taking away our sovereignty? Have tech giants like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk thanked Tim for his invention?  Rory and Alastair are joined by Sir Tim Berners-Lee to discuss all this and more.  Visit HP.com/politics to find out more. To save your company time and money, open a Revolut Business account today via www.revolut.com/rb/leading, and add money to your account by 31st of December 2025 to get a £200 welcome bonus or equivalent in your local currency. Feature availability varies by plan. This offer's available for New Business customers in the UK, US, Australia and Ireland. Fees and Terms & Conditions apply. For US customers, Revolut is not a bank. Banking services and card issuance are provided by Lead Bank, Member FDIC. Visa® and Mastercard® cards issued under license. Funds are FDIC insured up to $250,000 through Lead Bank, in the event Lead Bank fails. Fees may apply. See full terms in description. For Irish customers, Revolut Bank UAB is authorised and regulated by the Bank of Lithuania in the Republic of Lithuania and by the European Central Bank and is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland for conduct of business rules. For AU customers, consider PDS & TMD at revolut.com/en-AU. Revolut Payments Australia Pty Ltd (AFSL 517589). TRIP Plus: Become a member of The Rest Is Politics Plus to support the podcast, receive our exclusive newsletter, enjoy ad-free listening to both TRIP and Leading, benefit from discount book prices on titles mentioned on the pod, join our Discord chatroom, and receive early access to live show tickets and Question Time episodes. Just head to therestispolitics.com to sign up, or start a free trial today on Apple Podcasts: apple.co/therestispolitics. Instagram: @restispolitics  Twitter: @RestIsPolitics  Email: restispolitics@gmail.com Social Producer: Harry Balden Video Editor: Adam Thornton Assistant Producer: Alice Horrell Producer: Nicole Maslen Senior Producer: Dom Johnson Head of Content: Tom Whiter Exec Producers: Tony Pastor + Jack Davenport Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tim Berners-Lee's Call to Ban Addictive Algorithms & The Future of Tesla In this episode of Hashtag Trending, host Jim Love discusses Tim Berners-Lee's call to ban addictive algorithms designed to keep users hooked. We also delve into the mystery behind bricking SSDs after a Windows update, the potential shift in Tesla's focus from cars to autonomy under Elon Musk, and a new study identifying 32 ways AI could malfunction. Additionally, we touch upon the latest moves by Musk's Starlink to become a global mobile carrier and the broader implications of AI advancements. Don't miss these key tech updates! 00:00 Introduction and Headlines 00:26 Tim Berners-Lee on Addictive Algorithms 01:39 Mystery of the Bricking SSDs Solved 03:25 Elon Musk's Shifting Focus from Cars to Autonomy 04:32 Starlink's Ambitious Expansion Plans 05:55 AI Risks and Future Prospects 07:28 Show Wrap-Up and Contact Information

A US congressional committee has made public the 'birthday book' allegedly given to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 to mark his fiftieth birthday. In it, messages, photos and drawings from his friends - including Donald Trump. The White House is furiously denying that the American President ever submitted a drawing to Epstein, insisting that the signature is not his. Democrats have called it "revolting" and "sick". After spending so long shouting about an Epstein cover up, how wounded are Trump and the Republicans by the latest revelations?Later, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, on the "addictive" algorithms he thinks are making the world a more dangerous place - and his proposals to reclaim the internet.And, the Labour deputy leadership race heats up. Why it might have Keir Starmer sweating.The News Agents is brought to you by HSBC UK - https://www.hsbc.co.uk/EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal -> https://nordvpn.com/thenewsagents Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee

You might be surprised to learn that the famous “www” in website addresses didn't originate in Silicon Valley or New York, but at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, known as CERN for short, which is situated on the French-Swiss border close to Geneva.  It was 1989 when British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee came up with the idea for a hypertext system. Essentially, it was a way to connect different pieces of data through links, creating something like a giant web that would work via the internet. Aren't internet and web the same thing?  What about the other parts of a web address then, like https or “.com” at the end? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions! To listen to the last episodes, you can click here: ⁠How to protect your art from AI exploitation?⁠ ⁠What is the internet of senses?⁠ ⁠What is Web 3.0?⁠ A podcast written and realised by Joseph Chance. First Broadcast: 30/9/2024 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

August 6, 1991. British computer programmer Tim Berners-Lee launches a digital information revolution when he uploads the first site to the World Wide Web. This episode originally aired in 2024.Support the show! Join Into History for ad-free listening and more.History Daily is a co-production of Airship and Noiser.Go to HistoryDaily.com for more history, daily.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Tim Berners-Lee uploaded a photo of parody doo-wop group Les Horrible Cernettes on 18th July 1992 - the first image to be shared online. The photograph was taken at the CERN Hardronic Festival by Silvano de Gennaro, an analyst in the Computer Science department. The girlband were striking a pose for their forthcoming CD cover, little realising their comedy love songs about colliders, quarks, liquid nitrogen, microwaves, and antimatter would soon go down in internet history. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly consider the spooky social media resonance of this earliest online picture; explain how Berners-Lee used ‘sex' to ‘sell' the world wide web; and check out the Cernette's biggest banger, ‘Collider'... Further Reading: • ‘The true story behind the 'first picture on the internet' myth' (Metro, 2022): https://metro.co.uk/2022/07/18/the-true-story-behind-the-first-picture-on-the-internet-myth-16945088/?ito=article.mweb.share.top.link&fbclid=IwAR1BGGcwPK2HYL1f3-KBtCfQBILTtCtKOlq4aYIcZRfBzUJ8ssN0RwjPwi8 • ‘Was this the 1st photo on the web? 25 years on, Quebec woman tells how she came to be in it' (CBC News, 2017): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/first-internet-photo-features-sherbrooke-woman-1.4206913 • ‘LHC - Collider' (Cernettes, 2000): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1L2xODZSI4 This episode originally aired in 2023 Love the show? Support us!  Join 

Episodio patrocinado gracias a “SEOXAN”. Imagina un mundo sin Google, sin pestañas, sin clics. Un mundo donde la información era un laberinto sin mapa. Así comenzó la historia de los navegadores web, con un científico británico, Tim Berners-Lee, que en 1990, en el CERN, creó el primer navegador y el primer servidor web. Su criatura, llamada simplemente WorldWideWeb, era sofisticada para su tiempo, pero solo funcionaba en los ordenadores NeXT, una rareza en sí misma. NUESTRO PATROCINADOR https://seoxan.es //Enlaces https://seoxan.es https://uptime.urtix.es/login.php https://iina.io/https://www.diabrowser.com/download https://comet.perplexity.ai //Donde encontrarnos Canal Youtube https://www.youtube.com/c/ApplelianosApplelianos/featured Correo electrónico applelianos@gmail.com Amazon https://amzn.to/30sYcbB X https://x.com/ApplelianosPod Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/es/podcast/applelianos-podcast/id993909563

Mark Weinstein is a pioneering tech entrepreneur, privacy advocate, and one of the original inventors of social networking. His 25-year journey includes founding three award-winning social media platforms, such as SuperFamily and SuperFriends, both recognized in PC Magazine's Top 100 Sites. As a leading privacy expert, Mark delivered the landmark TED Talk “The Rise of Surveillance Capitalism” and authored Restoring Our Sanity Online: A Revolutionary Social Framework, which presents a bold vision for transforming social media. His work has earned endorsements from industry leaders like Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Steve Wozniak, reflecting his commitment to ethical technology and user empowerment. In this episode… The internet was once seen as a tool for connection, but today, it often feels like it's controlling us. From social media algorithms that manipulate our thoughts to privacy invasions that track our every move, the online world has shifted in ways few anticipated. So, how can we reclaim our digital autonomy and create a healthier relationship with technology? Mark Weinstein, a social media pioneer and privacy expert, offers insights into the hidden dangers of surveillance capitalism and how users can protect themselves. He explains how algorithms are designed to exploit human psychology, keeping people hooked while collecting vast amounts of personal data. He shares actionable steps, such as limiting screen time, avoiding AI-driven recommendations, and choosing privacy-focused platforms. Mark also stresses the importance of critical thinking, teaching children to discern fact from manipulation, and advocating for ethical tech policies to reshape the future of online interactions. In this episode of the Inspired Insider Podcast, Dr. Jeremy Weisz interviews Mark Weinstein, author of Restoring Our Sanity Online, about the urgent need for ethical social media and enhanced digital privacy. Mark discusses the evolution of social media, the rise of surveillance capitalism, and the impact of AI-driven algorithms on user behavior. He also shares practical strategies for protecting personal data, reducing social media addiction, and fostering critical thinking in the digital age.

On this episode of the Crazy Wisdom Podcast, host Stewart Alsop welcomes Jessica Talisman, a senior information architect deeply immersed in the worlds of taxonomy, ontology, and knowledge management. The conversation spans the evolution of libraries, the shifting nature of public and private access to knowledge, and the role of institutions like the Internet Archive in preserving digital history. They also explore the fragility of information in the digital age, the ongoing battle over access to knowledge, and how AI is shaping—and being shaped by—structured data and knowledge graphs. To connect with Jessica Talisman, you can reach her via LinkedIn.  Check out this GPT we trained on the conversation!Timestamps00:05 – Libraries, Democracy, Public vs. Private Knowledge Jessica explains how libraries have historically shifted between public and private control, shaping access to knowledge and democracy.00:10 – Internet Archive, Cyberattacks, Digital Preservation Stewart describes visiting the Internet Archive post-cyberattack, sparking a discussion on threats to digital preservation and free information.00:15 – AI, Structured Data, Ontologies, NIH, PubMed Jessica breaks down how AI trains on structured data from sources like NIH and PubMed but often lacks alignment with authoritative knowledge.00:20 – Linked Data, Knowledge Graphs, Semantic Web, Tim Berners-Lee They explore how linked data enables machines to understand connections between knowledge, referencing the vision behind the semantic web.00:25 – Entity Management, Cataloging, Provenance, Authority Jessica explains how libraries are transitioning from cataloging books to managing entities, ensuring provenance and verifiable knowledge.00:30 – Digital Dark Ages, Knowledge Loss, Corporate Control Stewart compares today's deletion of digital content to historical knowledge loss, warning about the fragility of digital memory.00:35 – War on Truth, Book Bans, Algorithmic Bias, Censorship They discuss how knowledge suppression—from book bans to algorithmic censorship—threatens free access to information.00:40 – AI, Search Engines, Metadata, Schema.org, RDF Jessica highlights how AI and search engines depend on structured metadata but often fail to prioritize authoritative sources.00:45 – Power Over Knowledge, Open vs. Closed Systems, AI Ethics They debate the battle between corporations, governments, and open-source efforts to control how knowledge is structured and accessed.00:50 – Librarians, AI Misinformation, Knowledge Organization Jessica emphasizes that librarians and structured knowledge systems are essential in combating misinformation in AI.00:55 – Future of Digital Memory, AI, Ethics, Information Access They reflect on whether AI and linked data will expand knowledge access or accelerate digital decay and misinformation.Key InsightsThe Evolution of Libraries Reflects Power Struggles Over Knowledge: Libraries have historically oscillated between being public and private institutions, reflecting broader societal shifts in who controls access to knowledge. Jessica Talisman highlights how figures like Andrew Carnegie helped establish the modern public library system, reinforcing libraries as democratic spaces where information is accessible to all. However, she also notes that as knowledge becomes digitized, new battles emerge over who owns and controls digital information​​.The Internet Archive Faces Systematic Attacks on Knowledge: Stewart Alsop shares his firsthand experience visiting the Internet Archive just after it had suffered a major cyberattack. This incident is part of a larger trend in which libraries and knowledge repositories worldwide, including those in Canada, have been targeted. The conversation raises concerns that these attacks are not random but part of a broader, well-funded effort to undermine access to information​​.AI and Knowledge Graphs Are Deeply Intertwined: AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), rely on structured data sources such as knowledge graphs, ontologies, and linked data. Talisman explains how institutions like the NIH and PubMed provide openly available, structured knowledge that AI systems train on. Yet, she points out a critical gap—AI often lacks alignment with real-world, authoritative sources, which leads to inaccuracies in machine-generated knowledge​​.Libraries Are Moving From Cataloging to Entity Management: Traditional library systems were built around cataloging books and documents, but modern libraries are transitioning toward entity management, which organizes knowledge in a way that allows for more dynamic connections. Linked data and knowledge graphs enable this shift, making it easier to navigate vast repositories of information while maintaining provenance and authority​​.The War on Truth and Information Is Accelerating: The episode touches on the increasing threats to truth and reliable information, from book bans to algorithmic suppression of knowledge. Talisman underscores the crucial role librarians play in preserving access to primary sources and maintaining records of historical truth. As AI becomes more prominent in knowledge dissemination, the need for robust, verifiable sources becomes even more urgent​​.Linked Data is the Foundation of Digital Knowledge: The conversation explores how linked data protocols, such as those championed by Tim Berners-Lee, allow machines and AI to interpret and connect information across the web. Talisman explains that institutions like NIH publish their taxonomies in RDF format, making them accessible as structured, authoritative sources. However, many organizations fail to leverage this interconnected data, leading to inefficiencies in knowledge management​​.Preserving Digital Memory is a Civilization-Defining Challenge: In the digital age, the loss of information is more severe than ever. Alsop compares the current state of digital impermanence to the Dark Ages, where crucial knowledge risks disappearing due to corporate decisions, cyberattacks, and lack of preservation infrastructure. Talisman agrees, emphasizing that digital archives like the Internet Archive, WorldCat, and Wikimedia are foundational to maintaining a collective human memory​​.

Time stamps: Introducing Mike Belshe (00:00:42) Mike Belshe's Background (00:01:58) Self-Custody vs. Institutional Custody (00:02:05) Multi-Signature Technology (00:03:56) Understanding Multi-Party Computation (00:04:51) Advancements in Cryptography (00:05:53) BitGo's Role in Tokenizing Bitcoin (00:08:26) Defining DeFi's Importance (00:09:09) Mike's Technology Background (00:12:12) Inspiration from Tim Berners-Lee (00:14:57) Bitcoin's Zero Click Payments (00:17:11) Bitcoin Custodianship Issues (00:17:36) Challenges of Bitcoin Payments (00:18:25) Scaling Bitcoin and Lightning Network (00:19:20) Bitcoin's Role in Digital Money (00:20:13) Layer Two Solutions and Drivechains (00:21:15) Scaling Discussions in Bitcoin's History (00:22:31) Sidechains and Their Limitations (00:23:16) Innovation vs. Immutability (00:24:29) Importance of Real Applications (00:25:32) Privacy and Fungibility in Bitcoin (00:28:42) Lessons from TCP/IP and Blockchain Privacy (00:30:51) Regulatory Concerns and Privacy Solutions (00:32:53) Understanding the Static of Security (00:34:01) SideShift (00:34:59) Bitcoin's Civil War: Block Size Wars (00:35:54) Human Decisions in Bitcoin (00:36:16) Historical Proposals and Interpretations (00:37:10) Challenges of Block Space and Fees (00:37:58) Bitcoin Consensus (00:38:48) SegWit and Its Implications (00:39:41) Gavin Andresen's Role in Bitcoin (00:42:00) Bitcoin's Resilience Against Adversaries (00:42:13) Need for Enhanced Security (00:43:05) Strategic Bitcoin Reserve in the USA (00:44:30) El Salvador's Currency Strategy (00:45:19) Self-Custody Concerns (00:49:13) Security Measures for Self-Custody (00:50:17) Privacy as a Solution (00:50:43) Self-Custody Options (00:51:14) Family Legacy and Custody Challenges (00:52:24) Public Key Cryptography Innovation (00:52:28) HODLING.ch (00:53:29) Protecting Against Government Confiscation (00:54:15) Multi-Custodial Model Explanation (00:54:21) Hardware Wallets Discussion (00:56:03) Safety Deposit Box Concerns (00:58:03) Trade-offs in Security Solutions (00:58:56) Onboarding New Users (01:00:09) Edge Wallet Features (01:01:01) BitGo's Wallet Recovery Wizard (01:03:02) BitGo vs. Casa (01:05:08) Multi-Signature Security (01:05:46) Early Adoption of Multi-Sig (01:09:10) Building a New Monetary System (01:11:54) Regulatory Changes in the US (01:13:49) Impact of MiCA in Europe (01:15:32) War on Cash (01:16:17) Global Financial Systems (01:18:03) Zero Knowledge Proofs (01:19:48) Zcash Discussion (01:20:04) Privacy Technologies in Bitcoin (01:21:18) Challenges of On-chain Traceability (01:22:26) Philosophy on Transaction Privacy (01:23:19) Concerns About Privacy Adoption (01:24:51) Historical Context of TCP/IP Security (01:25:34) Bitcoin as Digital Gold (01:27:24) Ethereum's Role in DeFi (01:29:01) Benefits of Smart Contracts (01:32:01) Reflections on Bitcoin's Journey (01:33:25) Future of Bitcoin (01:34:30) Lightning Network Fees (01:36:12) Trade-offs in Payment Systems (01:38:01) Adoption of Bitcoin and Early Adoption Costs (01:42:01) Long-term Viability of Bitcoin Mining (01:44:38) The Future of Bitcoin and Layer Solutions (01:47:17) Community Response to Bitcoin Vulnerabilities (01:49:01) Satoshi's Vision for Mining (01:51:11) Satoshi's Intentions (01:52:35) Empathy for Satoshi (01:54:16) 0 to 1 Concept (01:54:24) Bitcoin's Anniversary (01:55:53) Centralization in Crisis (01:56:33) Zero Knowledge Proof Bug (01:57:45) Following Mike Belshe's Work (01:58:45)

August 6, 1991. British computer programmer Tim Berners-Lee launches a digital information revolution when he uploads the first site to the World Wide Web.Support the show! Join Into History for ad-free listening and more.History Daily is a co-production of Airship and Noiser.Go to HistoryDaily.com for more history, daily.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.