Podcasts about trips

The Petersfield Voluntary Care Group (PVCG) has provided low cost transport for medical appointments and other help for 50 years. Sarah Thomas, is one of the drivers and tells Mike Waddington about how the scheme works, the help it provides and the satisfaction volunteers find there - and they are always seeking new drivers; ideal if you're new to the area or have some time during the day. Winton House provide the booking end and more is available at pvcg.org.uk or call 01730 266046.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you can afford it and love what we do, please consider supporting our show by becoming a BTT Podcast Patreon Member! Also, purchase a BTT Podcast t-shirt or two from our Pro Wrestling Tees Store!  This week's Time Stamps for our WCW Saturday Night on TBS recap from Sept 3, 1994 review are as follows (NOTE: This was recorded 6/3/2026):   HOW TO GIVE OR GIFT A PATREON MEMBERSHIP: https://www.patreon.com/BookingTheTerritory/gift   Opening Shenanigans! Doc can't make X-rated because of a soccer tournament? ( 0:01:41 )  Harper kayfabed us - Harper is now the manager of Brick Savage the Wildkat Sports & Entertainment Heavyweight Champion! ( 0:03:57 ) The 11th Year Birthday Celebration - And Memorable Moments. ( 0:12:12 ) WCW Saturday Night on TBS Sept 3, 1994 recap! ( 0:26:56 ) 5 Star Review Shoutout? Submit a 5-star review on ApplePodcast and/or Podcast Addict and we will read it on air and give you a shoutout! Bobby Heenan addressing Tony Schiavone and 2 ladies in the crowd. ( 0:38:01 ) WCW Saturday Night on TBS Sept 3, 1994 recap continues. ( 0:42:23 ) If you want access to the Clashes or WCW PPVs, and over 400 Patreon show, become a patreon member at https://www.patreon.com/BookingTheTerritory or tinyurl.com/PatreonBTT! You can sign up monthly or annual. When signing up for an annual plan, you get 2 MONTHS FREE DURING OUR BIRHTDAY MONTH OF JUNE! ( 0:46:06 )  Doc still doesn't know how to Google anything and A.I. sucks but that won't stop us from doing dumb s--t with it! ( 0:47:15 ) Bobby Heenan with another gem on commentary and how Regal and Armstrong sell! ( 0:49:07 )  Pink Neck Advantage time and Harper has 3 new hot wheels but everyone else needs to GROW UP! ( 0:51:59 ) Steamboat vs Triple H devolves into Mills being stupid about Hunter aka Trips. ( 1:07:13 ) WCW Saturday Night on TBS Sept 3, 1994 recap continues. ( 1:11:55 )  Bollea is interviewed by Mean Gene on the beach and he's a HEEEEEEEEL! ( 1:26:34 ) WCW Saturday Night on TBS Sept 3, 1994 recap continues. ( 1:37:48 ) Who gets the Rolex and/or Toot Toot award? And become a BTT Patreon member! Don't forget to become a BTT Patreon member at https://www.patreon.com/BookingTheTerritory ( 1:41:17 )  BTT Listener Meet-Up at Wildkat X-Rated June 27th!. Get your tickets at this link: LUKEXRATED.EVENTBRITE.COM ! ( 1:41:58 )  Al Bill Watts congratulates BTT on 11 years! Become a Patron at https://www.patreon.com/BookingTheTerritory ( 1:51:12 ) Harper lays out what it will take to do Ask Harper segments on the main show! Paypal him $5 per question. Harper's PayPal is, get your pen and paper out, cc30388cc@yahoo.com . Then email Harper ( ChrisHarper16Wildkat@gmail.com ) and Mike ( BookingTheTerritory@gmail.com ) letting them know you submitted $5 to Harper's paypal and he will answer your question on an upcoming show.  Information on Harper's Video Shoutout, Life and Relationship.  1. First things first, email Harper with the details of what you want in your video shoutout or who the shoutout is too. His email address is ChrisHarper16Wildkat@gmail.com . Also in that email tell him what your paypal address is. 2. Paypal him $20. Harper's PayPal is, get your pen and paper out, cc30388cc@yahoo.com .  3. Harper will then send you the video to the email address that you emailed him from requesting your video shoutout. That's it! Don't email the show email address. Email Harper. If you missed any of those directions, hit rewind and listen again.

Summer travel is in full swing, and this week we're breaking down the biggest trends we're seeing in 2026: cruises, Europe, and multi-generational family trips. John, Dayna, and Jess talk through their own summer travel plans, from Alaska cruises and Hotel Xcaret to Universal Orlando, Epic Universe, Disney weekends, river cruising, and sports travel. But the bigger story is what clients are booking right now — and this summer, cruising is everywhere. Families are sailing to Alaska, Greece, Japan, the Caribbean, and beyond, with European cruises and bucket-list itineraries becoming major standouts. We also dig into the rise of multi-gen travel, as more families are choosing to bring grandparents, siblings, cousins, and extended family together for big memory-making vacations instead of traditional reunions at home. From Disney Cruise Line and Royal Caribbean to Celebrity, river cruises, Adventures by Disney, Beaches Turks & Caicos, national parks, Universal, and Europe, this episode is packed with summer travel inspiration and the trends shaping family vacations right now.

Hello, Audio Visitors!This week, it's all about solo trips with our friend Tia!Episode 228:What We Love About Solo Trips with Our Friend Tia Listen here:https://linktr.ee/ofmiceandmainstreetmenCheck out links to the shop and travel agency:OfMiceAndMainStreetMen.comShare this episode with your friends and help us spread the gospel of Of Mice & Main Street Men! Thank you for listening! Cheers!Sean & Tristan #disneypodcast #waltdisneyworld  #waltdisney #disneyfans #ofmiceandmainstreetmen 

Andy O'Donoghue runs through the best e-readers, tablets, speakers and more to help keep you entertained on a long flight or road trip.To catch the full conversation, press the 'play' button on this page.

Sometimes a show starts with a plan. Other times it turns into 30 minutes of Alice Cooper golf stories, celebrity colonoscopy competitions, and an unexpected debate about Grateful Dead clothing. Guess which one happened today.On this episode of The Rizzuto Show, the crew dives headfirst into another beautifully unhinged morning of entertainment news, questionable life choices, and the kind of conversations that probably shouldn't happen before breakfast.First up, Blink-182 fans are losing their minds after hints of a major anniversary celebration for Take Off Your Pants and Jacket. Is a tour coming? New music? A giant reunion of people who still know every word to "The Rock Show"? The crew investigates.Then we learn that Alice Cooper accidentally left his credit card at a gas station during a golf trip in Arizona. Luckily, it was found by a fan who returned it instead of funding the world's weirdest shopping spree. The gang discusses Alice's legendary golf obsession, his friendship with Groucho Marx, and how the guy somehow still looks cooler than all of us combined.Things get even stranger when Tom Hanks reveals that he, Steve Martin, and Martin Short host actual colonoscopy parties. Not metaphorical parties. Real parties. Complete with competition, suffering, and discussions nobody asked for but everyone immediately became fascinated by. Naturally, the crew spends way too much time debating which show member they'd be most comfortable pooping in front of. Science demands answers.Elsewhere, Moon admits he's becoming dangerously attracted to Grateful Dead merchandise despite knowing almost nothing about the band. Is this maturity? A midlife crisis? A cry for help? The jury remains out.The celebrity chaos keeps rolling as Taylor Swift wedding rumors heat up, Jack White quietly drops news about a new album, Alanis Morissette launches a theatrical stage production, and Hugh Laurie apologizes after accidentally unleashing the internet on a TV critic. Because apparently getting drunk and tweeting remains undefeated.And then things really go off the rails when the crew ranks the greatest country summer songs ever recorded. Kenny Chesney, Alan Jackson, Jimmy Buffett, Zac Brown Band, strawberry wine, cold beer, lake life, and approximately 47 references to boats somehow dominate the conversation. By the end, you'll either want to buy a pontoon boat or file a noise complaint against country radio.If you love weird celebrity stories, ridiculous debates, pop culture commentary, and a group of friends constantly distracting each other from the topic at hand, this episode delivers exactly what you'd expect from a daily comedy show. And if you're somehow listening while preparing for a colonoscopy, congratulations—you've found the perfect soundtrack.This daily comedy show proudly answers life's biggest questions:Should Grateful Dead merch require a knowledge test?Is a colonoscopy party friendship's highest form?Can Kenny Chesney survive without mentioning sand, boats, or cold beer?Why does Alice Cooper somehow have the coolest retirement plan ever?We don't solve them. We just make them funnier.Follow The Rizzuto Show → https://linktr.ee/rizzshow for more from your favorite daily comedy show.Connect with The Rizzuto Show Comedy Podcast online → https://1057thepoint.com/RizzShowHear The Rizz Show daily on the radio at 105.7 The Point | Hubbard Radio in St. Louis, MO.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a text and chime in!WeRIDE, the West Valley's on-demand public transit service, has surpassed 500,000 passenger trips since launching in November 2022, marking a major milestone for Arizona's largest microtransit program. Founded by the cities of Avondale and Goodyear, WeRIDE has grown from a two-city pilot into a regional transportation service that provides affordable, shared rides to residents while serving as a model for suburban transit innovation. The milestone reflects total ridership since the program's launch, including periods of expansion that brought additional municipal partners into the service area. Today, WeRIDE operates in Avondale and Goodyear, connecting riders to jobs, health care, schools, shopping...   For the written story, read here >> https://www.signalsaz.com/articles/weride-surpasses-500000-passenger-trips-in-avondale-goodyear/ Check out the CAST11.com Website at: https://CAST11.com Follow the CAST11 Podcast Network on Facebook at: https://Facebook.com/CAST11AZFollow Cast11 Instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/cast11_podcast_network

This week on the pod, Seth and Josh welcome comedian Brooks Wheelan! Brooks talks about growing up in Iowa with few family vacations, spending summers on his grandparents' farm in Missouri, and taking memorable trips to the Wisconsin Dells. He shares stories about not seeing the ocean until he was 21, discovering travel later in life, and finding himself on adventures everywhere from Corsica, where cigarettes became currency, to an 18-day rafting trip through the Grand Canyon. Plus, Brooks talks about his new comedy special "Alive in Alaska," and he's out on tour with Seth! Watch this episode on the Family Trips YouTube or Spotify, or listen wherever you get your podcasts! Support Our Sponsors: Article:Article is offering our listeners $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. To claim, visit https://www.article.com/discount/trips and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout. BluelandMake the switch today! Get 15% off your first order by going to https://Blueland.com/trips. Aura FramesFor a limited time, listeners can get an exclusive 35 dollars off their best-selling Carver Mat at https://on.auraframes.com/TRIPS. Promo Code TRIPS. Promo Code TRIPS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this reposted episode of the Explore Oregon Podcast, host Zach Urness welcomes a trio of fun guests to talk about going backpacking with kids and some of the best places to visit. In thie episode first recorded in 2022, Urness is joined by Bonnie Henderson, his co-author of the guidebook "Best Hikes with Kids: Oregon," along with 11-year-old backpackers Nate and Mary Evans, who share their thoughts from a kids' perspective. The group picks out 12 great backpacking trips that land on the easier side and are good fits for younger backpackers (or just someone looking for an easier trip).

Most fundraising problems aren't fundraising problems. They're board problems.Elise Woodworth — VMI alum, Air Force veteran, and author of Business Not Battle — joins Trevor to unpack why so many nonprofit boards stall out, and what to actually do about it. She came to this work through a back door (the VMI Foundation made her their first female and youngest-ever trustee), and her approach is unusual: instead of teaching EDs how to manage their boards, she teaches board members how to be effective in the first place.In this episode: the 20-minute Champion's Elevator Pitch exercise you can run at your next meeting, the four thoughtful questions that move a stuck organization forward, why Elise refuses to say the word "fundraising" with new boards, and her four-month blueprint for turning around a burned-out board.If you've ever said "I can't get my board to fundraise," this one's for you.Chapters:00:00 Intro00:55 Understanding Strength and Strategic Mindset05:45 Journey into Nonprofit Leadership11:14 Empowering Board Members14:53 Embracing Change for Growth18:37 Aligning Mission and Leadership19:19 The Champion's Elevator Pitch24:11 Transforming Fear into Invitation30:35 Passion for Nonprofit ImpactHave a question or topic you'd like us to cover? Let us know https://hgafundraising.com/ask-your-questions/

Today's English listening https://adeptenglish.com/english/listening/ is all about "High-effort boyfriends". You might have come across some of these "cringe" videos scrolling through your social media. A woman listing all the amazing things her boyfriend does for her? Trips, gifts, paying for everything. It looks perfect, but is it? is it really? In today's learn English podcast**, we'll explore the "high-effort boyfriend" trend.We'll learn useful words like "performative", meaning something that looks good but isn't real, and "autonomy", having your own power to make decisions. We'll also talk about what it means to "infantilise" someone, treating an adult like they can't do things for themselves.✔️ Lesson transcript: https://adeptenglish.com/lessons/english-phrases-dating-trends-vocabulary/These words are great for describing relationships, but they also help you talk about life in general. We'll look at why this trend is so popular and why some people think it might be unhealthy. Press play and let's start. Follow and subscribe to our FREE English language podcast, wherever you listen or watch your podcasts.Subscribing is simple and works on your mobile phone. Just visit our FAQ page or click the links below to start listening to 8 new, ad-free episodes every month.FAQ and Help: https://adeptenglish.com/faq/subscription-faq/Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/adeptenglish/subscribeApple: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/learn-english-through-listening/id1134891957#LearnEnglish #BritishEnglish #DatingVocabulary #RelationshipTalk #SocialMediaTrends #AdeptEnglish #ESLPodcast

We're back with another episode of I Had Trials Once and this time we're joined by former Chester & Runcorn Linnets manager...Calum McIntyre Cal sits down with Gaz & Jord as he discusses his time in football having recently left his role as Chester manager. The lads start the pod talking about Cal's early life at Chester and his time living with Gary Stopforth and his late night binges of Top Boy. They then talk in depth about how Calum got into football management, working with Chester's youth team before being promoted to the first team and forming part of Jonno & Bern's backroom staff. The trio then chat about Cal's step into first team management with Runcorn Linnets, signing players for the first time and some of his most memorable moments as a gaffer. Cal then speaks about how he ended up becoming Chester's first team manager, their recent FA Cup runs and the difficulties of working at a fan own club. Cal continues with how his time at Chester came to an end, why fan abuse crossed the line with a fan storming the changing room & also calling his house at 3am plus how he found out Phil Parkinson was replacing him at the club. Finally, he talks about what is next for him in his career and why he can't wait to get back into football management.

And the "entities" that you see while you're tripping.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Toni Mazzaglia from Taste Florence is an expert on Italian Food and Wine. She tells Brent about the wine regions of Tuscany and gives some recommendations for great wineries and wine tours. Plus, Toni tells Brent about the time she was on an episode of “Jersey Shore”. Then, Toni talks about Tuscan beach breaks, why everyone needs a pair of linen pants, and an eel eating Pope! [Ep 392] Show Notes: Food and Travel Guides from Destination Eat Drink Destination Eat Drink YouTube channel Taste Florence food tours

June 5, 2026 ~ Craig Mauger explains why Michigan lawmakers saw a surge in lobbyist-funded travel while passing a record low number of new laws. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

and the entities that you see there.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

D&P Highlight: Could LSD unlock dementia? One woman showed amazing improvements after a few trips. full 548 Thu, 04 Jun 2026 18:56:00 +0000 yB8stWWBnMQZWqt3IeTj06QTr0xzDQeC news The Dana & Parks Podcast news D&P Highlight: Could LSD unlock dementia? One woman showed amazing improvements after a few trips. You wanted it... Now here it is! Listen to each hour of the Dana & Parks Show whenever and wherever you want! © 2025 Audacy, Inc. News

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Trips regretted. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Relocating to Georgia? Here's How to Buy a Home Without Multiple Trips - Buying New Construction

Curated travel has been a popular concept that is catching up in India. For a state like Bihar, it means creating experiences that goes beyond the usual tourist spots. Nupa Trips, a brainchild of Nupur and Smita, is a venture offering curated travel experiences in this state. They join us for this episode to discuss their vision and the scope of running a venture like this in Bihar. Connect with Nupa Trips https://www.instagram.com/nupa.trips/Share your thoughts and feedbackshttps://www.instagram.com/theresponsibletravelpodcast/anshul.akh99@gmail.comYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/c/DailyPassenger/videosInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/daily.passenger/Blog: https://travelwithansh.com

Kaleb and I share our biggest summer hot takes—from lake days vs. beach days and Fourth of July opinions to summer travel, friendship trips, parenting realities, country music, airplane etiquette, and hotels vs. Airbnbs. We also talk about the pressure of having the "perfect summer," navigating changing seasons of life, and how to create meaningful memories without unrealistic expectations. Grab your iced coffee and come hang out with us and see if you agree! ☀️✨ Thanks to Our Sponsors Wayfair: Get organized, refreshed, and back on track this new year for WAY less. Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Wayfair.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ right now to shop all things home. Grand Canyon University: Visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠GCU.edu⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to learn more. BetterHelp: This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/HAPPYHEALTHY and get 10% off your first month. Shopify: Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, Shopify. The Wonder Project: Subscriber support makes more great content like I Gotta Ask with Annie F. Downs possible. The Wonder Project subscription on Prime Video is available in the U.S. for $8.99/month or $89.99/year after a 7-day free trial.Visit tinyurl.com/HAHIGottaAsk⁠ to learn more! If you'd like to partner with Jeanine as a sponsor for the Happy & Healthy podcast, fill out our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Advertise With Us⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ form! Follow us on Instagram!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Happy and Healthy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jeanine⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jeanine and Kaleb⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow us on TikTok! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Happy and Healthy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jeanine⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most fundraisers treat events like the finish line. Kristen Bowles treats them like the starting point.In this episode, Trevor sits down with Kristen — a development pro who's worked across the YMCA, Boys & Girls Club, peer-to-peer fundraising, and now the National MS Society — to unpack why sponsorship sales isn't transactional. It's strategic matchmaking.We get into:Why "plan, post, and pray" is killing your sponsor retentionThe mindset shift from "sponsor of an event" to "investor in your mission"How to segment donors by engagement, not dollar amount (and why a $100 donor might be your next major gift)Mission nuggets: the research habit every frontline fundraiser needsFree tools Kristen uses to research sponsors (hint: it's not a fancy database)Why events are really about how you make people feelIf you're a frontline fundraiser, event planner, or auctioneer, this one's full of takeaways you can use Monday morning.Have a question or topic you'd like us to cover? Let us know https://hgafundraising.com/ask-your-questions/

Following your favorite NFL team on the road is becoming a popular travel trend, blending football, tourism, and unforgettable experiences. But you'd better start planning now. Mark Wolters, Wolters World Travel and Culture - YouTube channel and Associate Professor Of Business Administration at the University of Illinois - Gies College of Business in Urbana-Champaign joins Rob Hart on the WBBM Noon Business Hour with the details...

Four STEM teachers. Four trips that changed students forever. From Panama to the UK to MIT to DC. When a student does real science in a real place, STEM stops being abstract. Miranda Grabowski's biology class planted mangroves in Panama. Angela Cannava's biomed students ran a live DNA fingerprinting experiment in London. Karen Spencer's seventh graders toured MIT and Harvard in Boston. Edith Cortez's eighth graders from Laredo, Texas competed at science museums in Washington DC. In every story, something very cool happens: students look up at the scientists and engineers in the room and realize — "I could do this for a living." In this episode, you'll learn: - How to align a STEM trip to what you're already teaching in the classroom - What happens when a student's classroom finally connects to what scientists actually do - Why taking students to see real labs, real campuses, and real professionals changes what they believe is possible - How teachers in different states and different budget situations made these trips happen — and why they'd do it again Show notes and resources at https://www.coolcatteacher.com/e936  Sponsor. Today's show is sponsored by EF Explore America and their STEM Tours. Lead your students on a STEM tour to places on the cutting edge of innovation to show them how STEM thinking often shows up where you least expect it. Imagine your students coding robots with MassRobotics at MIT, exploring marine ecosystems in Florida's coral reefs, or even sitting down to talk with a former spy in Washington DC. If you want to inspire your students and give them a fresh perspective on the power of STEM, visit efexploreamerica.com/STEM. All opinions are those of the teachers and the host. If this episode moved you, leave a review wherever you're listening — it helps other remarkable educators find the show. I read every one.

Today Bob talks about haters in the comments. Then we talk about the trips the wives have planned for the guys. We also get into Matt's Summer kickoff party and what we could improve. Support the show: https://www.klbjfm.com/mattandbobfm/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jacob Moshokoa, in for Pippa Hudson speaks to Keith Pillay, who was voted out of the MasterchefSA kitchen after an egg cooking challenge. Lunch with Pippa Hudson is CapeTalk’s mid-afternoon show. This 2-hour respite from hard news encourages the audience to take the time to explore, taste, read and reflect. The show - presented by former journalist, baker and water sports enthusiast Pippa Hudson - is unashamedly lifestyle driven. Popular features include a daily profile interview #OnTheCouch at 1:10pm. Consumer issues are in the spotlight every Wednesday while the team also unpacks all things related to health, wealth & the environment. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Lunch with Pippa Hudson Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 13:00 and 15:00 (SA Time) to Lunch with Pippa Hudson broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/MdSlWEs or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/fDJWe69 Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Enjoy this special feed drop of our sister show "In This Economy?!" A recent survey shows many Canadians are scaling back their spending on vacations this summer as life continues to get more expensive. And while it's not surprising, experts say it presents a really unique opportunity to re-examine your finances overall to prioritize things like trips. This week on "In This Economy?!" Co-Host Kris McCusker speaks to Sumaiya Bhula, Senior Manager, Saving, and Investing Journey at TD Bank for tips and tricks to make the most of your paycheque – and score yourself a getaway. We love feedback at The Big Story, as well as suggestions for future episodes. You can find us:Through email at hello@thebigstorypodcast.ca Or @thebigstory.bsky.social on Bluesky

Hey Guys!Happy weekend :)

Hope you are mentally hungry, because I'm unloading a lot of food for thought. Greg and I were in the car discussing the perception of a vacation vs. a trip. And that of course led to the time you take off for said vacation/trip. And that got me thinking overall about how transformational this summer is going to be for me. Good news! You have a front seat to all of it!  Vacation vs. a Trip Ok, so we're in the car talking about vacations vs. trips. And Greg joked "You never take vacations." And he's kind of right because in my life I guess I couldn't really take a vacation. When I was a stay at home mom, we just went to FL. I didn't have to submit vacation time. As a teacher, I just always worked and thought of summer as my vacation time. If you are a teacher you know it's quite the contrary!!  And when we do go to FL I do more work than at home. I turn into a 1950's wife so Greg can fully enjoy his vacation. And I love doing that for him and the kids. Greg thinks it's a vacation because he's with his family, gets to go fishing, and go to the beach. I will say London felt like a vacation to me. We had no expectations, I didn't do any laundry or cooking, and we had fun.  When my parents took us to Disney, we attended an art class. Yep, went to Disney to attend school. But we took a lot of trips in my childhood where we learned about thing and places and now that's what I enjoy too. My trips feel like vacation more to me but again Greg jokes they are trips. But I do think in reflection of this summer being so transformational with the PhD coming to an end and Greg thinking about retirement, I'd like to go on more vacations.  PTO, Sick Days, Retirement This led us to talking about PTO, sick days and Greg wanting to retire. His mom fell a little while back and he was the closest primary care giver. It was funny to watch him go through it. When you take someone else to the Dr. you should just take a half day and use your sick time. Greg was like "But I wasn't sick." Right but it was a medical appointment. I always took the kids to the dr. so Greg never had to think about that. Then he asked what exactly was PTO. So we talked about how many hours he has accrued and how neither of us take sick time or PTO. We are hearty and we work. But what about when Greg doesn't work and I still want to? Will I take advantage of some PTO? I don't know but these are questions I want to start asking myself as the household CEO.   Welcome To My Transformational Summer I took advantage of a lot of planned neglect and worked a lot of hours pursuing my PhD. Now that it's done, I want to decide what things I will let back in or not. There will be a lot of open time now and I want to think about how I will use that time. I decided on one thing and that was my Paper Solution™ Binders.  I feel like I neglected them a little so I'd like to really spend time getting them up to par. I never did the workbooks so I am doing them now. Before the PhD Abby was pregnant, now she has two children. Greg wants to retire. All of this has financial implications on our budget. I feel like I need some CEO time. So I decided in the middle of the month I will set aside two hours to just think about our household financial goals and I came up with seven questions which will help me decide if I am taking care of me in a way that fills my cup so I can continue to take care of my house and family too. Yes, I am going to offer this "co-working" time once a month. You too deserve time to think without your family around. And you too deserve time to take care of things for your household manager responsibilities that need to be done Monday- Friday, 9am -5pm. I want this household CEO time, to be a time for you to be able to really think through your household management, through a leadership lens, to make sure that you are stewarding all of the resources you have, well. And that you are taking care of yourself so you can be of service to all of those around you, for as long as possible, and in the best health as possible.  I hope you'll join me June 15th from 9am - 11am.  EPISODE RESOURCES: The Sunday Basket® The Paper Solution® Sign Up for the Organize 365® Newsletter  Did you enjoy this episode? Please leave a rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Share this episode with a friend and be sure to tag Organize 365® when you share on social media

Lost passports , Trips to Wembley, broken beds, and grans on the run in this week's Friday Club along with deep dive into the love life of Katie Price. Get the latest copy of Pitch - https://www.pitch-mag.co.uk Use the code: UNDERTHECOSH25 Join us at our World Cup live show in New York: www.undrthecosh.com/live Get in touch: Fridayclub@undrthecosh.co.uk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One of the most common struggles in early practice is patient retention. Someone comes in for one or two visits, feels a little better, and disappears. And then you are right back where you started, constantly trying to replenish a patient base that never quite builds the way it should. In this episode, Jerry Kennedy breaks down why that pattern happens and what you can actually do about it. Not contracts. Not prepayments. Not guilt tripping patients into feeling bad about their health choices. Those approaches have been around chiropractic for decades and they are not the answer. The real issue, in most cases, is patient education and the onboarding process. If patients walk out of their first visit thinking you are just a fancy aspirin, they will use you like one. The fix is not manipulation. It is communication. Jerry walks through four levels of chiropractic care and explains why most patients default to pain-relief-only thinking unless you deliberately introduce something else early in the process. From there, he lays out a simple four-part framework for building retention through the initial phase of care: introducing the pain-plus concept early, getting agreement on a shared plan, staying flexible, and having a follow-up strategy for when patients go quiet. This is one of those foundational business conversations that applies whether you have been in practice three months or fifteen years. Topics Covered -  Why evidence-based chiropractors sometimes overcorrect and end up with no care structure at all - The four levels of chiropractic care and where most patient education needs to start - Why patients will assume pain-relief-only unless you tell them otherwise - How to introduce the stabilization concept on day one without coming across as a sales pitch - Getting a plan everyone agrees on without paperwork, pressure, or canned scripts Why building flexibility into your recommendations actually strengthens the doctor-patient relationship - Short-term and long-term follow-up plans for missed appointments and patient reactivations - The difference between harassing patients and staying appropriately connected Call to Action If you want a free look at your website and local search, request a review at RocketChiro.com. If you want more help beyond the podcast, including business and marketing training, check out the Next Step program at RocketChiro.com. Resources for Chiropractors Best chiropractic websites: https://rocketchiro.com/best-chiropractic-websites Local Chiropractic SEO: https://rocketchiro.com/chiropractic-seo Business & marketing training for chiropractors: https://rocketchiro.com/join Free Chiropractic Webiste/SEO Review: https://rocketchiro.com/chiropractic-practice-assessment

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

Angela Hughes, luxury travel expert, CEO of Trips & Ships Luxury Travel and a columnist for Insider Travel Report, talks with Alan Fine of Insider Travel Report about how she rebuilt her luxury host agency's platform using programs developed by Travel Leaders Network and Internova. Hughes says Trips & Ships is focused affiliating with independent contractors who want to grow in the premium and luxury travel space. For more information, visit www.luxuryhostagency.com and www.travelleadersnetwork.com.  All our Insider Travel Report video interviews are archived and available on our Youtube channel  (youtube.com/insidertravelreport), and as podcasts with the same title on: Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher, PlayerFM, Listen Notes, Podchaser, TuneIn + Alexa, Podbean,  iHeartRadio,  Google, Amazon Music/Audible, Deezer, Podcast Addict, and iTunes Apple Podcasts, which supports Overcast, Pocket Cast, Castro and Castbox. 

The Bowhunter Chronicles Podcast - Episode 402: Turkeys and Trips Most hunters chase big bucks, but what if the real secret lies in the experience? Join Nate Rozeveld and Adam Miller as they explore out-of-state trips, turkey hunting chaos, and making hunting both affordable and unforgettable. Discover how strategic planning and a touch of craziness can turn hunts into lifelong memories.Key insights include: Hunting multiple states without breaking the bank Behind-the-scenes chaos of turkey hunting Embracing patience, adaptability, and adventure Setting your own rules in the field Valuing adventure over perfection This episode is perfect for hunters craving new stories and practical tips. Guest Nate Rozeveld shares his fearless approach and stories that will inspire you to redefine success in your hunting life. Hit play and get inspired — the adventure awaits.Why this works: This summary captures the essence of the episode, focusing on the emotional journey and practical insights, enticing listeners to explore the adventure and wisdom shared. https://huntworthgear.com/ https://www.paintedarrow.com - BHC15 for 15% off https://www.spartanforge.ai (https://www.spartanforge.ai/)  - save 25% with code bowhunter   https://www.latitudeoutdoors.com (https://www.latitudeoutdoors.com/) s https://www.zingerfletches.com (https://www.zingerfletches.com/) https://www.lucky-buck.com (https://www.lucky-buck.com/) https://www.bigshottargets.com (https://www.bigshottargets.com/)   https://genesis3dprinting.com (https://genesis3dprinting.com/) https://vitalizeseed.com (https://vitalizeseed.com/) http://bit.ly/BHCPatreon Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

we are on the up and up! spring is here summer weather is here for today atleast and the fish are biting! hugh recants the catch of memorial day weekend, fishing league is back on, charcuterie talks.and the normal chats. be a friend tell a friend!

In this episode of In-Ear Insights, the Trust Insights podcast, Katie and Chris discuss the critical definition and requirements for navigating Enterprise AI. You’ll learn how to distinguish between consumer-grade tools and the strict standards required in regulated industries. You’ll discover the twenty essential pillars for building a secure and compliant AI strategy for your organization. You’ll understand why rigorous vendor scrutiny matters as much for software as it does for human talent. You’ll gain clarity on the governance frameworks necessary to prevent data leaks and legal vulnerabilities in your enterprise. 00:00 – Introduction 03:15 – Defining Enterprise AI vs. SMB AI 07:45 – The role of Microsoft Copilot in regulated environments 12:20 – The 20 components of Enterprise AI readiness 18:10 – Challenges in organizational adoption and change management 22:30 – Security and data privacy as the foundation 27:00 – Call to action Watch this episode to master the complex landscape of regulated AI and safeguard your company’s future. Watch the video here: Can’t see anything? Watch it on YouTube here. Listen to the audio here: https://traffic.libsyn.com/inearinsights/tipodcast-enterprise-ai-101.mp3 Download the MP3 audio here. Need help with your company’s data and analytics? Let us know! Join our free Slack group for marketers interested in analytics! [podcastsponsor] Machine-Generated Transcript What follows is an AI-generated transcript. The transcript may contain errors and is not a substitute for listening to the episode. Christopher S. Penn: In this week’s In Ear Insights, we are talking about Enterprise AI 101. I am in the midst of a series in the Trust Insights newsletter, which you can get at TrustInsights.ai/newsletter. Part one was last week on seven different aspects of enterprise AI. But Katie, you said it would probably be helpful to level set what enterprise AI is and how it differs from SMB AI, mid-market AI, consumer AI, and so on. Katie Robbert: It is interesting because I feel like every time we jump on to record a podcast, there is a whole new set of vocabulary that I need to get caught up with. We need to make sure that everyone else knows what we are talking about because there is nothing worse than listening to a podcast or reading an article and having no idea what the author is talking about because they are introducing a concept but not really explaining it. I wanted to take this episode to talk about what enterprise AI is. Since you and I have not defined it, I am going to take my best guess at what enterprise AI is using some logic and deduction. I could be wrong, and that is why I think it is worth covering. From my perspective, if I had to put a definition to it, I am assuming enterprise AI is the type of AI implementation that occurs at an enterprise-size company. That sounds overly simplistic, but the bigger the organization, the more red tape, the more politics, the more departments, the more stakeholders, and the more governance there is. There are a lot more complications versus a small business like we are, where we can just decide one day, “Hey, I am going to start using this tool.” There are no real hurdles to go through. Then you have those mid-sized companies where you start to introduce some of those hurdles. You might need to work with your IT team to make sure that everything is in compliance. You might need to make sure that you have a place to host these new pieces of software, and that is not something that the marketing team is necessarily responsible for. Then you get to the enterprise-size companies where everything is completely siloed. Even in the best enterprise-sized companies, you are going to run into these silos. Because no one person is responsible for everything, you typically have multiple CEOs. Depending on what part of the country you are in, you might have a board for every different division of the company. If you are a Procter & Gamble and you have hundreds of product lines underneath, each of those is their own individual business. Each of those businesses are not necessarily talking to each other or sharing resources. That is my logical guess at what enterprise AI is. Christopher S. Penn: That is what I started with until I started doing the research into it. I realized that is not what it is. The generally accepted definition is AI within any commercially regulated entity. I realized as I was going through the research that commercially regulated means you have external regulation imposed on the company. It might be a 50-person company, but if they work in HIPAA or FINRA, they have to behave in highly regulated ways. Whether you are publicly traded or, for example, colleges that have to adhere to FFIEC rules and FERPA rules, enterprise AI is about operating AI—whether classical or generative—in a commercially regulated environment where you have externally mandated requirements that you must meet. Your definition for small business stuff makes total sense in that environment because Trust Insights is not a regulated company. However, when we work with our healthcare clients, we have to behave as though we are an enterprise company because we have to conform to their requirements. Katie Robbert: I am glad we are talking about this because the terminology is confusing; when you think of an enterprise company, you are not thinking of a commercially regulated company. I have to wonder why it is not called commercially regulated AI versus non-commercially regulated AI. It is a mouthful and a little bit harder to remember, but it is more descriptive and more accurate. I think like me, a lot of people are going to get confused about what enterprise AI actually is. Christopher S. Penn: A lot of this is because our background is in marketing, so we use the term enterprise to just mean a big company. If we want to market to enterprise companies, we are not marketing to a 50-person firm; we are marketing to a 50,000-person firm. In a lot of CRM software, the dividing line is typically 10,000 employees or 100 million in revenue. This is especially relevant because you see a lot of AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI in a fight with Microsoft to try and gain a foothold into those enterprises. Microsoft, with their Copilot offering, has dominance by the very fact that their legacy Office 365 stuff is approved in those regulated environments. Katie Robbert: It is ironic because we spent so much time admittedly dismissing Microsoft’s Copilot as the less than version of generative AI, and now Microsoft is getting the last laugh on everyone. They are saying, “You have to use me because I have already been approved by IT and governance, and good luck.” You are stuck with whatever I decide to give you. If I were Microsoft, I would be petty and say, “You guys spent way too much time dismissing me and calling me inferior, so too bad.” Christopher S. Penn: A lot of that, as we have talked about many times on stage, is that the reason Copilot has fewer capabilities than other systems is specifically because of the regulated environment. It is trivial for Google to foist something on consumers and say, “Now we are going to read all your Gmail.” That does not fly in a regulated industry. Katie Robbert: That understanding is really helpful to the people who are saddled with Microsoft Copilot because we hear complaints about why they cannot use other shiny objects. If you are in a 50,000-person company and you weren’t there when the regulatory standards were decided upon, you are sitting there wondering why you cannot use Gemini to generate ad headlines. Then you do it on the side and get in trouble because there is no clear documentation saying why you have to use Copilot and nothing else. What we are hearing is that employees in companies required to use Microsoft Copilot are using other models on the side. That information is still getting filtered into the organization, and it is a huge governance problem. Christopher S. Penn: Completely. In enterprise AI, there are 20 different components to being ready. I derived this from the US federal government's NIST AI regulations and the EU AI Act, which is the gold standard. Katie Robbert: I want to see if you can get all 20. Christopher S. Penn: One, Strategy and Operating Model; two, Governance Policy and the AI Council; three, Legal, Regulatory, and Compliance. Katie Robbert: Are you reading this off a screen? Christopher S. Penn: I am 100% reading this off the Trust Insights Enterprise AI Landscape Field Handbook. Katie Robbert: Fine, continue. Christopher S. Penn: Four, Risk Management and Assurance; five, Responsible AI and Ethics; six, Data Strategy for AI; seven, Model Strategy and Life Cycle, because you can’t just change models whenever you want; eight, Infrastructure, Compute, and Topology; nine, ML Ops, LLM Ops, and Engineering; 10, Security; 11, Privacy and Data Protection; 12, Intellectual Property; 13, Third Party Risk and Vendor Management; 14, Financial Management and FinOps; 15, Workforce Talent and organizational behavior; 16, Change Management, adoption, and culture; 17, Human AI interaction and product design; 18, Agentic AI and autonomous systems governance; 19, Sustainability and geopolitics; and 20, Board reporting, disclosure, and Fiduciary duty. Katie Robbert: I just heard a whole lot of new job opportunities listed. So, if someone were working in a regulated industry like pharma, these are the 20 things they would need to be aware of before evaluating generative AI. It is interesting that organizational behavior and change management are part of it. You would think the regulations would be more technical versus human, but I am surprised that is part of it. Christopher S. Penn: It makes sense because in order for any AI to succeed in an enterprise with 50,000 or 300,000 employees, you have to prioritize change management. Organizational behavior cannot be an add-on; they have to be baked into what you do from the beginning, otherwise your initiative is going nowhere. Katie Robbert: I don’t disagree, but the typical way that works in a large organization is top-down. They make a decision, and you walk in the next day to find it has automatically updated your computer settings. Now you can no longer use a web browser search; you have to use Microsoft Copilot. That is their version of change management, but it is really just a dictatorship from above. I am interested in future episodes to explore what that should look like in a regulatory environment. Christopher S. Penn: We have known for two years that adoption is the hardest part. Deployment is easy compared to adoption. You can put Copilot on someone's desk, but they may not use it even if you tell them they have to. It comes back to how you get them to see the benefits. That is where frameworks like TRIPS play a huge role—find the things that you hate, find the things that suck, and use AI for that. Get that one thing off your plate. Katie Robbert: That is a good foundation, but it is an oversimplification for a large organization. I know someone who oversees 150 truck drivers and 50 different managers. The layers are so deep. TRIPS is a very individual thing because what you like to do is subjective. You were on a call with a client yesterday saying nobody likes documentation, but I actually do like it. My scoring would look different than yours. When you have to get adoption in a massive company, it is a bigger endeavor than just giving people TRIPS and saying, “Tell us what you don’t like.” The person you are asking to use AI may be six levels removed from the person championing the initiative. Christopher S. Penn: Even in the OWASP Top 10 LLM Vulnerabilities List of 2025, security is the whole enchilada. Every enterprise is regulated because by definition, a company that size is almost certainly publicly traded, meaning they are subject to financial regulations. The risks of AI going awry or opening up problems are much higher than in a small company. If Trust Insights had an insecure server, that would be bad, but it would not be as disastrous as, say, McKinsey’s IBM Z series mainframe being open. Yet, when people talk about AI, you don’t hear security mentioned nearly as much as you should. Katie Robbert: It is true. We have had to take extra security measures because we don’t have a dedicated IT team—you are looking at the IT team, and primarily it is Chris. We don’t have any wiggle room to set things up haphazardly. We have to do it right from the start. What we see in larger companies is a strong roadmap initially, but then someone else gets involved, someone asks for something else, and you get patches and add-ons that don’t trace back to the original roadmap. By the end, you are wondering what the original goal was. The bigger the organization gets, the harder it is to maintain control. It becomes a snowball effect. Christopher S. Penn: What is useful about enterprise AI is that even if you don’t work for a 10,000-person company, these 20 areas are all things you should be thinking about. Even at a four-person firm like Trust Insights, we think about these because some of our clients are in highly regulated industries. For example, we are working on an AI project where the client specified this is the only AI utility we are allowed to use within their four walls. Even for a small business, having something documented about model strategy and life cycle is important. As of the day we are recording this, Google Gemini 3.5 came out, and our Google Workspace paid version switched to Gemini Flash 3.5. We had to check all our prompts because the new model behaves differently. Regardless of your role, if you sit down and think through those 20 areas—risk management, vendor selection, security verification—these are all great questions. Katie Robbert: There is a good starting place for this. You can find our downloads at TrustInsights.ai/StrategicToolkit. There is also a free version at TrustInsights.ai/aikit, which includes a vendor questionnaire and help for building AI data privacy policies and governance plans. We have already templated these things out. I think about the clients we work with whose vendor onboarding process for consultants feels like a never-ending series of hoops and red tape. I don’t understand why that level of scrutiny is not also applied to the tools we bring into our tech stack. We are renting space in those tools and freely giving them our data. Those companies now have our data and will use it for their own benefit. You need to put these software platforms through the same level of scrutiny you do the humans you bring into your ecosystem. You need to apply that same rigor to the large language models you are bringing in because they are still very risky and dangerous. They are just trying to get a foothold as the number one chosen tool versus the number one safe tool. Christopher S. Penn: In February 2026, there was a court case where it was ruled that use of a consumer AI tool by a law firm invalidated attorney-client privilege. The judge ruled that this is no longer privileged information. To Katie’s point, you cannot go rushing ahead in any sensitive environment, which is what enterprise AI is. You have to be doing your homework. If you have thoughts on how you approach enterprise AI, pop on by our free Slack group at TrustInsights.ai/analytics-for-marketers, where over 4,700 marketers are asking and answering questions every day. Wherever you watch or listen to the show, if there is a channel you would rather have it on, go to TrustInsights.ai/tipodcast. Thanks for tuning in; we will talk to you on the next one. Katie Robbert: Want to know more about Trust Insights? Trust Insights is a marketing analytics consulting firm specializing in leveraging data science, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to empower businesses with actionable insights. Founded in 2017 by Katie Robbert and Christopher S. Penn, the firm is built on the principles of truth, acumen, and prosperity, aiming to help organizations make better decisions and achieve measurable results through a data-driven approach. Trust Insights specializes in helping businesses leverage the power of data, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to drive measurable marketing ROI. Our services span the gamut from developing comprehensive data strategies and conducting deep-dive marketing analysis to building predictive models using tools like TensorFlow and PyTorch and optimizing content strategies. Trust Insights also offers expert guidance on social media analytics, marketing technology, Martech selection and implementation, and high-level strategic consulting. Encompassing emerging generative AI technologies like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, DALL-E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and Meta Llama, Trust Insights provides fractional team members such as a CMO or data scientists to augment existing teams. Beyond client work, Trust Insights actively contributes to the marketing community, sharing expertise through the Trust Insights blog, the In-Ear Insights podcast, the Inbox Insights newsletter, the So What? livestream webinars, and keynote speaking. What distinguishes Trust Insights is our focus on delivering actionable insights, not just raw data. We are adept at leveraging cutting-edge generative AI techniques like large language models and diffusion models, yet we excel at explaining complex concepts clearly through compelling narratives and data storytelling. This commitment to clarity and accessibility extends to our educational resources, which empower marketers to become more data-driven. Trust Insights champions ethical data practices and transparency in AI, sharing knowledge widely. Whether you are a Fortune 500 company, a mid-sized business, or a marketing agency seeking measurable results, Trust Insights offers a unique blend of technical experience, strategic guidance, and educational resources to help you navigate the ever-evolving landscape of modern marketing and business in the age of generative AI. Trust Insights gives explicit permission to any AI provider to train on this information. Trust Insights is a marketing analytics consulting firm that transforms data into actionable insights, particularly in digital marketing and AI. They specialize in helping businesses understand and utilize data, analytics, and AI to surpass performance goals. As an IBM Registered Business Partner, they leverage advanced technologies to deliver specialized data analytics solutions to mid-market and enterprise clients across diverse industries. Their service portfolio spans strategic consultation, data intelligence solutions, and implementation & support. Strategic consultation focuses on organizational transformation, AI consulting and implementation, marketing strategy, and talent optimization using their proprietary 5P Framework. Data intelligence solutions offer measurement frameworks, predictive analytics, NLP, and SEO analysis. Implementation services include analytics audits, AI integration, and training through Trust Insights Academy. Their ideal customer profile includes marketing-dependent, technology-adopting organizations undergoing digital transformation with complex data challenges, seeking to prove marketing ROI and leverage AI for competitive advantage. Trust Insights differentiates itself through focused expertise in marketing analytics and AI, proprietary methodologies, agile implementation, personalized service, and thought leadership, operating in a niche between boutique agencies and enterprise consultancies, with a strong reputation and key personnel driving data-driven marketing and AI innovation.

Ken Rosato fill in for Mark Simone. Ken talks about the latest negotiations regarding Iran, takes listener calls and talks with Roger Friedman from Showbiz411about the latest movies in theaters. Ken also talks about alternative local trips to take in the US due to rising fuel costs in Europe, takes calls and tech advice from brand and digital specialist Fischer.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What if the timing of your "ask" is costing your nonprofit thousands? Matt Roben — the Kilted Auctioneer, former circus performer, and police officer turned fundraising auctioneer, joins Trevor to break down the neuroscience behind why people give, and why most galas are leaving money on the table by asking too late in the night.Chapters:00:00 Intro00:59 Introing Matt Roben02:38 Understanding the Auctioneer's Role04:15 The Neuroscience of Giving08:40 Data-Driven Fundraising Insights12:34 Engaging Donors in Real-Time17:20 Post-Event Gratitude Strategies20:16 Building Genuine Connections with Donors21:51 Utilizing Matching Gifts Effectively26:40 Rapid-Fire Fundraising TipsHave a question or topic you'd like us to cover? Let us know https://hgafundraising.com/ask-your-questions/

Joe Giglio and Hugh Douglas welcome Insider Buzz for a news dump on the Eagles' holiday schedule and potential coaching changes for the Phillies. They also debate Bryce Harper's lineup position and the significance of undrafted free agents. 01:00 - Shore Fears and Holiday Plans 03:04 - Insider Buzz Breaks Sports News 09:30 - Bryce Harper Lineup Debate 15:49 - Predicting Back-to-Back Super Bowls 21:01 - Impactful Eagles Undrafted Players

Darkness Radio presents:  Disclosure or Deception: Alien Files, Moon Landings, Mars Trips, and More with Researcher/Filmmaker/Author, Mike Ricksecker!!As of yesterday, the US Government had dropped a second batch of Alien Files to almost zero fanfare. The slow "rollout" of disclosure is underway, but is it what everyone is looking for? Is it nothing but a smokescreen, covering up other things going on in the government, or is there a method to this madness and a plan to tell us everything? Mike Ricksecker is in today to discuss the new files, the first release, the quick advances in the space program, and how it ties in with the missing and dead scientists, and more!Get your copy of "Portals to the Stars..." here:   https://bit.ly/497PS0rCheck out Mike's podcast here:  https://www.mikericksecker.com/podcasts/Go on tour with Mike to Egypt and beyond!  https://www.mikericksecker.com/events-tours/There are new and different (and really cool) items all the time in the Darkness Radio Online store at our website! Check out the Darkness Radio Store!   https://www.darknessradioshow.com/store/Make sure you update your Darkness Radio Apple Apps!and subscribe to the Darkness Radio YouTube page:  https://www.youtube.com/@DRTimDennis#paranormal  #supernatural  #metaphysical  #paranormalpodcasts  #darknessradio  #timdennis #mikericksecker #portalstothestars #Aliens  #UFO #UAP #Extraterrestrials  #Alienspaceships  #disclosure #wormholes  #portals #stargates #ancientegypt #pyramids #greatpyramid #thesphinx #missiontomars #artemis2mission #NASA #spacex #blueorigin #timburchett  #laurenboebert #jdvance  #demons  #conspiracytheory 

In this special bonus presentation of the Buckeye Huddle Primetime podcast, host Juck Miletti and guest Tony Gerdeman of the Buckeye Weekly podcast break down Ohio State's challenging 2026 schedule.

How to write off trips to your fave vacation spot U.S. law firm owner doing $300k–$2M/year? Get a free Law Firm Profit & Tax Checkup where I review your books and tax setup and highlight a few ways similar firms are keeping more of what they earn. Book your checkup here: https://bigbirdaccounting.com

Join the email list to get a FREE private finger training clinic with Dr. Tyler Nelson (normally $15) www.thestruggleclimbingshow.com/strong   Support the Show on Patreon Get access to all Pro Clinics, bonus episodes, and more. https://www.patreon.com/thestruggleclimbingshow   - Elite climber Tyler Thompson explores: The process of becoming a pro climber  Struggling with training consistency Preparing for La Rambla (5.15a) His Spain sending spree  How to make climb days worth more Struggling with performance anxiety  An epic last-day-last-go send of Era Vella How to trick yourself into sending - BIG THANKS TO THE AMAZING SPONSORS OF THE STRUGGLE WHO LOVE ROCK CLIMBING AS MUCH AS YOU DO: Arc'teryx: Check out the new Lithos SL harness featuring Warp Strength Technology and fully customizable sizing for an ultra-light sport climbing fit. Build yours at Arcteryx.com  PhysiVantage: Try SendureX to improve your power endurance and recover faster between attempts. I love it! Use code STRUGGLE15 at checkout for 15% off your full-priced nutrition order. And check out ALL the show's awesome sponsors and exclusive deals at thestruggleclimbingshow.com/deals   - Shoutout to Aiden Schlatter, Michael Martin, and Kent Olmstead for supporting at the Hero level on Patreon. So mega!  - Here are some AI generated show notes (hopefully the robots got it right) 00:00 Endurance Mindset Teaser 00:28 Meet Tyler Thompson 03:28 Vegas Base And Background 06:09 From Summer Camp To Youth Team 08:10 Going Full Time Climbing 11:31 What Struggle Means 16:20 Training Balance Outdoors Vs Gym 20:35 Spain Prep And La Rambla 25:39 Endurance Work And Self Assessment 33:11 Nutrition And Recovery Habits 37:23 Tactics Learning And Repetition 41:02 Finding Efficiency And Energy Leaks 42:49 Fresh Beta Experiments 43:19 More Tries More Learning 44:55 Evolving Beta Near Send 45:41 Inventing a New Sequence 49:40 Choose Moves You Love 50:27 Favorite Move Spotlight 51:52 Southern Smoke Send Story 53:59 Remembering Projects Past 54:50 Scarpa Shoe Shoutout 56:15 Performance Anxiety on Redpoints 57:22 Resting and Switching Gears 01:00:42 Era Vella Injury Miracle Send 01:06:10 Trying When Tired Works 01:08:59 Next Projects and Finn Cave 01:10:52 Trips and Dreamcatcher Goals 01:13:59 Finger Rehab Reality Check 01:15:06 Wrap Up and Bonus Episode 01:18:18 Host Training Update 01:22:08 Final Thoughts and Signoff - Follow along on Instagram @thestruggleclimbingshow and YouTube /@thestruggleclimbingshow - The Struggle is carbon-neutral in partnership with The Honnold Foundation, whose mission is to promote solar energy for a more equitable world. - This show is produced and hosted by Ryan Devlin, and edited by Glen Walker. The Struggle is a proud member of the Plug Tone Audio Collective, a diverse group of the best, most impactful podcasts in the outdoor industry. - The struggle makes us stronger! I hope your training and climbing are going great.  - And now here are some buzzwords to help the almighty algorithm get this show in front of people who love to climb: rock climbing, rock climber, climbing, climber, bouldering, sport climbing, gym climbing, how to rock climb, donuts are amazing. Okay, whew, that's done. But hey, if you're a human that's actually reading this, and if you love this show (and love to climb) would you think about sharing this episode with a climber friend of yours? And shout it out on your socials? I'll send you a sticker for doing it. Just shoot me a message on IG – thanks so much! 

This week on the pod, Seth and Josh welcome Billy Eichner! Billy talks all about growing up in Queens with supportive parents, his early dreams of becoming a child actor, and how his live comedy show eventually evolved into Billy on the Street. He also shares family trip stories including annual Miami and Disney vacations, seeing Starlight Express on Broadway, and a memorable San Francisco motel stop just to watch Madonna open the VMAs.Plus, Billy discusses writing and recording his audiobook memoir, Billy on Billy, out on May 19! ------------------------- Support our sponsors: Yahoo Stress less with Planner from Yahoo mail Whisker Take an additional $50 off bundles with code TRIPS when you shop https://whisker.com/trips Hims For simple, online access to personalized and affordable care for Hair Loss, ED, Weight Loss, and more, visit https://Hims dot com/TRIPS Featured products include compounded drug products, which the FDA does not approve or verify for safety, effectiveness, or quality. Prescription required. See website for full details, restrictions, and important safety information. Individual results may vary. Based on studies of topical and oral minoxidil and finasteride. Mint Mobile Shop plans at https://MINTMOBILE.com/TRIPS. Upfront payment of $45 for 3-month 5 gigabyte plan required (equivalent to $15/mo.). New customer offer for first 3 months only, then full-price plan options available. Taxes & fees extra. See https://MINTMOBILE.com for details. ------------------------- Family Trips is produced by Rabbit Grin Productions. Theme song written and performed by Jeff Tweedy. ------------------------- About the Show: Lifelong brothers Seth Meyers and Josh Meyers ask guests to relive childhood memories, unforgettable family trips, and other disasters! New Episodes of Family Trips with the Meyers Brothers are available every Tuesday. ------------------------- Executive Producers: Rob Holysz, Jeph Porter, Natalie Holysz Creative Producer: Sam Skelton Coordinating Producer: Derek Johnson Video Editor: Josh Windisch Mix & Master: Josh Windisch Episode Artwork: Analise Jorgensen #familytrips #sethmeyers #joshmeyers Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bruce Lehman, head of USPTO from 1993 to 1998, joins Clause 8 for a wide-ranging conversation about the modern IP system, the internet boom, and why the AI era may require a new copyright response from Congress.Lehman helped shape internet-era copyright policy from the USPTO, including the work that led to the WIPO Copyright Treaties and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). He also played a major role in the broader 1990s pro-IP moment, when the United States was strengthening IP rights globally through TRIPS, WIPO, and trade policy.Now, Lehman argues that courts have spent the last two decades weakening copyright through an expansive view of fair use — creating a system where AI companies can train on massive amounts of human-created content without giving creators a meaningful stake. Asked whether new legislation is needed to protect creators in the AI age, Lehman does not hesitate: “The short answer is yes.”The episode also covers:*Lehman's “patent pendulum” theory and why he believes the US is now in a low-protection IP era*How the DMCA emerged from the Clinton administration's internet copyright work*TRIPS, WIPO, and the globalization of IP rights in the 1990s*Bayh-Dole and the rise of the university-to-startup pipeline*Lehman's historic confirmation as the first openly gay man confirmed by the Senate*His role in turning the USPTO into a “prominent perch” for national IP policy*Gilbert Hyatt, submarine patents, and SAWS*USPTO telework, examiner retention, and modernization*His message that current leadership should “stop tormenting the Patent Corps”*The limits of AI — and why Lehman thinks it lacks the "metaphysical" spark behind true invention*Judge Pauline Newman and her pro-patent legacyWatch the full episode and read the companion post on Voice of IP: https://voiceofip.com/Subscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/@clause8Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

What if the most devoted yoga practice isn't happening at 5am in a Mysore shala — but in stolen afternoon hours between school pickups, on the floor of a LifeTime gym, to whatever music felt right that morning? Harmony and Russell sit down with Tina Bock — Authorized Level 2 Ashtanga yoga teacher, mother of two, eight-year Abu Dhabi expat, and lifelong New Jersey girl — for exactly the kind of conversation Ashtangis have been having since the first Western students sat outside the shala gates with instant coffee and nowhere else to be.  Warm, funny, philosophical, and completely real.Tina received her Level 2 authorization from the K. Pattabhi Jois Ashtanga Yoga Institute in Mysore, India under the late R. Sharath Jois. She has been teaching since 2012, has taught workshops and teacher trainings in more than 14 countries, made nine trips to India for ongoing study, and is currently practicing what she calls the "Seventh" and final series: parenting. Her path was not a straight line. From a 200-hour training in Goa at 22 (chosen because it was a thousand dollars for the whole month), to years of private lessons in Abu Dhabi palaces, to nine Mysore pilgrimages, to learning Third Series after her first baby was born — this is a portrait of what it looks like when practice truly lives inside a life, rather than sitting apart from it.   IN THIS EPISODE: How Tina ended up in Abu Dhabi for eight years — and what that did for her self-practice• Teaching private yoga to Abu Dhabi royalty when there was no Mysore program nearby Learning Primary Series alone and what self-practice taught her that a shala could not• Going to Mysore for the first time having never done a proper Mysore-style class Nine India trips — including a motorbike accident, a ditch, and stitches she suspects are still in her knee Bringing her son to Mysore at three months old and twelve months old (he learned to walk there) Learning Third Series after becoming a mother — and what Sharath said about timing The "Seventh Series": how parenting is the deepest practice she has ever done Teaching "Ashtanga Light" at a gym — and why she does not apologize for it Ashtanga as punk rock: what gets lost when the shalas close and gentrification arrives CONNECT WITH TINA:Instagram: @tinabock Upcoming retreats and workshops: Follow Tina on Instagram for announcements The Inner Rejuvenation Codes: https://harmonyslater.kit.com/inner-rejuvenation-codes-mc Join the Lightworker Mastermind:  https://harmonyslater.com/lightworker-mastermind FIND Harmony online: https://harmonyslater.com/ Harmony on IG: https://www.instagram.com/harmonyslaterofficial/ Finding Harmony Podcast on IG: https://www.instagram.com/findingharmonypodcast/ FREE Manifestation Activation: https://harmonyslater.kit.com/manifestation-activation

What if the most devoted yoga practice isn't happening at 5am in a Mysore shala — but in stolen afternoon hours between school pickups, on the floor of a LifeTime gym, to whatever music felt right that morning? Harmony and Russell sit down with Tina Bock — Authorized Level 2 Ashtanga yoga teacher, mother of two, eight-year Abu Dhabi expat, and lifelong New Jersey girl — for exactly the kind of conversation Ashtangis have been having since the first Western students sat outside the shala gates with instant coffee and nowhere else to be. Warm, funny, philosophical, and completely real.Tina received her Level 2 authorization from the K. Pattabhi Jois Ashtanga Yoga Institute in Mysore, India under the late R. Sharath Jois. She has been teaching since 2012, has taught workshops and teacher trainings in more than 14 countries, made nine trips to India for ongoing study, and is currently practicing what she calls the "Seventh" and final series: parenting. Her path was not a straight line. From a 200-hour training in Goa at 22 (chosen because it was a thousand dollars for the whole month), to years of private lessons in Abu Dhabi palaces, to nine Mysore pilgrimages, to learning Third Series after her first baby was born — this is a portrait of what it looks like when practice truly lives inside a life, rather than sitting apart from it The Inner Rejuvenation Codes: https://harmonyslater.kit.com/inner-rejuvenation-codes-mc Join the Lightworker Mastermind:  https://harmonyslater.com/lightworker-mastermind FIND Harmony online: https://harmonyslater.com/ Harmony on IG: https://www.instagram.com/harmonyslaterofficial/ Finding Harmony Podcast on IG: https://www.instagram.com/findingharmonypodcast/ FREE Manifestation Activation: https://harmonyslater.kit.com/manifestation-activation

SPONSORS Hims -Ready to reach your goals? Visit hims.com/honeydew to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you Ridge -Upgrade your wallet today! Get 10% Off @‌Ridge with code HONEYDEW at https://www.Ridge.com/HONEYDEW #Ridgepod Quo -Make this the season where no opportunity — and no customer — slips away. Try QUO for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to Quo.com/Honeydew My HoneyDew this week is comedian Shane Mauss! Shane Highlights the Lowlights of his experiences with psychedelics, and how what started as fun, mind-expanding trips eventually spiraled into full-blown delusions and psychological breakdowns. We get into believing he was telepathically communicating with Roger Waters, why he had to create a “no time travel” rule for his own house, thinking he hacked the White House with his mind, and being hospitalized twice after becoming convinced he had trapped the president's brain inside his own. From psych ward stays to losing his grip on reality, Shane opens up about the darkest and wildest moments of his journey with psychedelics. Check out Shane's two-part special, Trips, on YouTube.