Podcasts about Truthiness

This week we look at Scotland 10 years after the Independence referendum; the UK Liberal Democrat ban Christians; Exploding Phones in Lebanon; the Twisted Logic of Senator Chris Larson;  Does Abortion Kill Women? Truthiness with Mary Harrington; Ayyan Hirsi Ali on Immigration; Tucker Carlson, Daryl Cooper and Churchill; Country of the Week - Cuba; Sean Diddy; Huw Edwards; SEEK 52 - Knowing you a Christian; and  A Word from the Lord with music from the Proclaimers, Pibroch, Supertramp, Buena Vista Social Club, Sean Diddy; the Who and Steph Macleod 

Welcome back, humor consumers, to the Life Happens Laugh Anyway podcast! So excited to WELCOME our new sponsor who has crossed over from Humor Consumer to Humor Contributor, our dear friend Vickie Osborne. Thank you Vickie, for your help. We greatly appreciate all of our sponsors. Today, our topic is The Importance of Truth. What a concept. Please listen all the way to the end as there is a lot of encouragement there. Here's what you can expect to come away with from today's episode: Why truth is important? What is "Truthiness?" (This is so interesting!) What are "Truth Bubbles?" (Also interesting!) Truth and body language - Documentary on Prime Body Language Decoded Scripture: 1 Corinthians 13:6 "Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth." John 14:6 "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Call to action: SEEK THE TRUTH by SEEKING JESUS SIDE NOTE: Do you LOVE the podcast? Become a Humor Contributor by donating $5 per month. Click here to go to Tracy's website to help us offset the cost of bringing weekly episodes for your binging pleasure and personal growth. ;0) 

Dr. Erwin Lutzer explores the meaning of truth in a world filled with lies and deception. He reflects on how truth is often distorted or "constructed" by those in power, and how concepts like "truthiness" have emerged in modern culture. Through biblical insights and examples from history, he explores the importance of standing firm in objective truth, even when it's costly. Join us as we discuss how truth, rooted in God's character, remains timeless and unchanging.

This is The Spoon. Truthiness? Hopium? Might as well go for a soda.  Music By  Red Kross  Mdou Moctar  Codeine Velvet Club  Kim Mitchell  Spoon Feeding  Art Brut Peter Bagge ~ HATE Revisited Bill Bryson ~ A Short History Of Nearly Everything The Men Of The Spoon Robbie Rist Chris Jackson Thom Bowers The Spoon on Twitter  The Spoon Facebook Group The Spoon Facebook Page Email: the_spoon_radio@yahoo.com

David Macdonald talks about the effects of truth-in-sentencing policies. “Truth in Sentencing, Incentives and Recidivism” by David Macdonald. OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “Police, prosecutors, criminals, and determinate sentencing: The truth about truth-in-sentencing laws” by Joanna M. Shepherd. “Responses to more severe punishment in the courtroom: Evidence from truth-in-sentencing laws" by Libor Dusek and Fusako Tsuchimoto. "Truthiness in punishment: The far reach of truth-in-sentencing laws in state courts" by Emily G. Owens. "How should inmates be released from prison? An assessment of parole versus fixed-sentence regimes" by Ilyana Kuziemko. "Can Parole Reduce Both Time Served and Crime?" by William Arbour & Steeve Marchand. “Parole Supervision on the Margins” by Michael LaForest-Tucker. “The effect of parole supervision on recidivism” by Evarn J. Ooi and Joanna Wang. "Prison Rehabilitation Programs and Recidivism: Evidence from Variations in Availability" by William Arbour, Guy Lacroix and Steeve Marchand "Can Recidivism Be Prevented From Behind Bars? Evidence From a Behavioral Program" by William Arbour. Probable Causation Episode 102: William Arbour

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a world filled with financial advice and misconceptions, it's crucial to distinguish between truth and mere truthiness when it comes to money matters. In this episode the hosts Brad, Ryan, Kati, Amber, and Chris unravel the mysteries behind common misconceptions about debt, money, and financial success. Let's take a closer look at some key takeaways from their insightful discussion. What You'll LearnThe hosts challenge widely accepted financial beliefs.They highlight the power of opening up to new perspectives and breaking free from limiting financial beliefs.The reality behind credit scores and debt. Resources MentionedGet better results with your finances in 30-60 days - GUARANTEED. Watch this video to learn how! - https://www.debtfreedad.com/payoff-debt-in-60-to-90-days The Totally Awesome Debt Freedom PlannerFor more help, and a step-by-step process to get started, enroll in Brad's FREE online course, LIFE WITHOUT PAYMENTS.Free Tools and Downloads at www.debtfreedad.comConnect With BradWebsite - https://www.debtfreedad.comFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/thedebtfreedadPrivate Facebook Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/lifewithoutpaymentsInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/debtfreedad/TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@debt_free_dadYouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@bradnelson-debtfreedad2751/featuredThanks For ListeningLike what you hear? Please, subscribe on the platform you listen to most: Apple Podcasts, iHeartRadio, Spotify, Tune-In, Stitcher, YouTube Music, YouTubeWe LOVE feedback, and also helps us grow our podcast! Please leave us an honest review in Apple Podcasts, we read every single one.Is there someone that you think would benefit from the Debt Free Dad podcast? Please, share this episode with them on your favorite social network!Support the show

Hasan Minhaj's stand-up tests the boundaries of fact and fiction.

In Episode 212, “Fandom Truthiness,” Elizabeth and Flourish break down the recent pair of (GREAT) video essays on James Somerton, a YouTuber known for queer (and often fandom-related) media analysis who's been wholesale lifting passages from others' articles and books—while playing fast and loose with the truth in his original writing. Somerton himself fed plenty of falsehoods into the fannish ecosystem, but how much of this is about a pattern of, to borrow Stephen Colbert's phrase, fandom “truthiness,” which we can see far beyond a single bad actor? Plus: they read and respond to a pair of letters about Episode 210: “The RPF Tipping Point.” 

Fox and Kelorn host a roundtable discussion where we rank all of the Commanders in Armada 1 through 38 with Truthiness, Ta5erface, and Outbound Flight. Get your pitchforks and torches ready as we shit on your favorite commander for fun and laughs! Ranking Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-FC6d05L_Kou-UUikstqUtlcWM1sCkuM2XJArJUvMfs/edit#gid=0  Join in the podcast discussion on discord at: https://discord.gg/3StPRmsFSt

The words instruction, testimony, precepts, command, fear, and ordinances in the above verses are all about God's Word. His Word is perfect, trustworthy, right, radiant, pure, reliable, and righteous. His Word renews our life, makes us wise, makes our hearts glad, and our eyes light up. God's Words are more desirable than gold and sweeter than honey. There is a great reward for each of us when we keep them. God's Word is trustworthy. There is no “truthiness” in His Word. We can trust that God's Word is true!

Can we change our minds? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Armchair and Kelorn are on vacation, so FoxOmega chairs a discussion with Xantos and Truthiness about their perspectives on the Basic Elements that make up the game of Armada.World open Qualifiers: https://www.atomicmassgames.com/star-wars-transmissions/amg-star-wars-world-open-qualifier-schedule-20232024-season?fbclid=IwAR25S7bhPR8mYDgIAhrosUEOpLXEl4vnH9WFmsfVo657JcQqqkr0u__dNNw Qualifier Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1x1Jfkd9JxNacNFf52BBWGU79wSDvo2k&ll=57.04592983206127%2C-97.44275028276928&z=4&fbclid=IwAR0y6jp69XofgEyEzGgSFFf0uqrsfnap2j6LEOvziYK4d-DCUhNDr_fuaaQ Join in the podcast discussion on discord at: https://discord.gg/3StPRmsFSt

Joël's new work project involves tricky date formats. Stephanie has been working with former Bike Shed host Steph Viccari and loved her peer review feedback. The concept of truthiness is tough to grasp sometimes, and JavaScript and Ruby differ in their implementation of truthiness. Is this a problem? Do you prefer one model over the other? What can we learn about these design decisions? How can we avoid common pitfalls? [EDI](https://www.stedi.com/blog/date-and-time-in-edi](https:/www.stedi.com/blog/date-and-time-in-edi) [Booleans don't exist in Ruby](https://thoughtbot.com/blog/what-is-a-boolean](https://thoughtbot.com/blog/what-is-a-boolean) [Rails valid? method](https://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Validations.html#method-i-valid-3F](https://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Validations.html#method-i-valid-3F) Parse, don't validate (https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-validate/) Javascript falsiness rules (https://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-truthy-falsy/) Transcript: STEPHANIE: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Stephanie Minn. JOËL: And I'm Joël Quenneville. And together, we're here to share a little bit of what we've learned along the way. STEPHANIE: So, Joël, what's new in your world? JOËL: So I'm on a new project at work. And I'm doing some really interesting work where I'm connecting to a remote database third-party system directly and pulling data from that database into our system, so not via some kind of API. And one thing that's been really kind of tricky to work with are the date formats on this third-party database. STEPHANIE: Is the date being stored in an unexpected format or something like that? JOËL: Yes. So there's a few things that are weird with it. So this is a value that represents a point in time, and it's not stored as a date-time value. Instead, it's stored separately as a date column and a time column. So a little bit of weirdness there. We can work with it, except that the time column isn't actually a time value. It is an integer. STEPHANIE: Oh no. JOËL: Yeah. And if you're thinking, oh, okay, an integer, it's going to be milliseconds since midnight or something like that, which is basically how Postgres' time of day works under the hood, nope, that's not how it works. It's a positional digit thing. So, if you've got the number, you know, 1040, that means 10:40 a.m. STEPHANIE: Oh my gosh. Is this in military time or something like that, at least? JOËL: Yes, it is military time. But it does allow for all these, like, weird invalid values to creep in. Because, in theory, you should never go beyond 2359. But even within the hours that are allowed, let's say, between 1000 and 1100, so between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m., a clock only goes up to 59 minutes. But our base 10 number system goes up to 99, so it's possible to have 1099, which is just an invalid time. STEPHANIE: Right. And I imagine this isn't validated or anything like that. So it is possible to store some impossible time value in this database. JOËL: I don't know for sure if the data is validated or not, but I'm not going to trust that it is. So I have to validate it on my end. STEPHANIE: That's fair. One thing that is striking me is what time is zero? JOËL: So zero in military time or just 24-hour clocks in general is midnight. So 0000, 4 zeros, is midnight. What gets interesting, though, is that because it's an integer, if you put the number, you know, 0001 into the database, it's just going to store it as 1. So I can't even say, oh, the first two digits are the hours, and the second two digits are the minutes. And I'm actually dealing with, I think, seconds and then some fractional part of seconds afterwards. But I can't say that because the number of digits I have is going to be inconsistent. So, first, I need to zero pad. Well, I have to, like, turn it into a string, zero pad the numbers so it's eight characters long. And then, start slicing out pairs of numbers, converting them back into integers, validating them within a range of either 0 to 23 or 0 to 59, and then reconstructing a time object out of that. STEPHANIE: That sounds quite painful. JOËL: It's a journey for sure. STEPHANIE: Do you have any idea why this is the case or why it was created like this originally? JOËL: I'm not sure. I have a couple of theories. I've seen this kind of thing happen before. And I think it's a common way for developers who maybe haven't put a lot of thought into how time works to just sort of think, oh, the human representation. I need something to go in the database. On my digital clock, I have four digits, so why not put four digits in the database? Simple enough. And then don't always realize that there's all these edge cases to think about and that human representations aren't always the best way to store data. STEPHANIE: I like how you just said that that, you know, we as humans have developed systems that are not quite, you know, the same as how a computer would. But what was interesting to me...something you said earlier about time being a fixed point. And that is different from time being a value, right? And so here in this situation, it sounds like we're storing time as a value, but really, it's more of the idea of, like, a point. JOËL: Interesting. What is the difference for you between a point and a value? STEPHANIE: I suppose a value to me...And I think we talked about this a little bit on a previous episode about value objects and also how we stored numbers, like phone numbers and credit card numbers and stuff like that. But a value, like, I might want to do math on. But I don't really want to do math on time. Or, specifically, if I have this idea of a specific point in time, like, that is fixed and not something that I could mutate and expect it to be the same thing that I was trying to express the first time around. JOËL: Oh, that's interesting because I think when it comes to time and specifically points in time, I sometimes do want to do math on them. And so, specifically, I might want to say, what is the time that has elapsed between two points in time? Maybe I have a start time and an end time, and I want to say how much distance is there between the two? If you use this time system where you're storing it as an integer number where the digits have positional values, because there's all those gaps between, you know, 59 and 99 that are not valid, math breaks down. You've broken math by storing it that way. So you can't get an accurate difference by doing math on that, as opposed to if you store it as a counter, which is what databases do under the hood, but you could do manually. If you just wanted to use an integer column, then you can do math because it's just a number of seconds since the beginning of the day. And you can subtract those from each other. And now you have these number of seconds between the two of them. And if you want them in minutes or hours, you divide by six here, 3600, and you get the correct response. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that is really interesting because [chuckles] in this situation, you have the worst of both worlds, it seems like. [laughs] JOËL: The one potential benefit is, I think, it's maybe more human-readable. Although, at that point, I would say if you're not doing math on it and you want something human-readable, you probably don't want an integer. You probably want a string. And maybe you even store it as, like, ISO 8601 time string in the database, or even just hour:minute:second split by a colon or whatever it is but just as a string. Now it's human-readable. You can still sort by it if you go from largest to smallest increment in your format. You can't do math, but then you weren't doing math on it anyway. So that's probably a nice compromise solution. But, ideally, you'd use a native, you know, time of day column or a date-time or something like that. STEPHANIE: For sure. Well, it sounds like something fun to contend with. [laughs] JOËL: One thing that was brought to my attention that I'd never heard about before is that potentially a reason it's stored that way is because of an old data format called EDI—I think it's Electronic Data Interchange—that dates from ages ago, you know, the '60s or '70s, something like that. Before, we had a lot of standards for data; this is how...an emerging standard that came for moving data between systems. And it has a lot of, like, weird things with the way it's set up. But if you're dealing with any sort of older data warehouses or older business systems, they will often exchange. And sometimes, you're going to store data in something that approximates this older EDI format. And, apparently, it has some weirdness around dates where it kind of does something like this. So someone was suggesting, oh, well, if you're interacting with maybe an older, you know, a lot of, like, e-commerce platforms or banking systems, probably airline systems, the kind of things you'd expect to be written in, let's say, COBOL... STEPHANIE: [laughs] JOËL: Have a system that's kind of like this. So maybe that wouldn't be quite as surprising. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that is really interesting. It just sounds like sometimes you're limited by the technology that you're interacting with. And I guess the one plus side is that, in your system, you can make the EDI work for you, hopefully. [laughs] Whereas perhaps if you are talking to some of those older technologies that don't know how else to convert date types and things like that, like, you just kind of have to work with what's available to you. JOËL: Yeah. And that's got me realizing that a lot of these older, archaic systems are still online and very much a part of our software ecosystem and that there's a lot of value in learning some software history so that I'm able to recognize them and sort of work constructively with them when I have to interact with that kind of system. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I really like that mindset. JOËL: So, Stephanie, what's new in your world? STEPHANIE: So, last week, we talked about writing reviews for ourselves and our peers. And one thing that happened in between the last episode and this one is Steph Viccari, former co-host of this podcast, who I've been working with really closely on this project of mine; she was writing a peer review for me. And one thing that she did that I really loved was she sent me a message and asked me a few questions about the direction of the review that I was wanting and what kind of feedback would be helpful for me. And some of the things she asked were, you know, "Is there a skill that you're actively working on? Is there a skill you'd like to start working on?" And, like, what my goals are for the feedback. Like, how can she tailor this feedback to things that would help my progression and what I hope to achieve? And then my favorite question that she asked was, "What else should I know but didn't think to ask?" And I thought that was a really cool way of approaching. You know, she's coming to this, like, wanting to be helpful, but then even still, like, there are things that she knows that I am kind of the expert on in my own career progression, and I really liked that. I think I'd mentioned last week that part of the feedback you want to be giving is, you know, something that will be helpful for that person, and centering them in it, instead of you is just a really awesome way to do that. So I was very appreciative that she asked me those questions. JOËL: That's incredibly thoughtful. I really appreciate that she sent that out to you. What did you respond for the is there something else I should know but didn't know to ask? STEPHANIE: Yeah. I mentioned that more and more, I'm realizing that I am not interested in management. And so what would be really helpful for me was to ground most of the feedback in terms of my, like, technical contributions. And also, that one thing that I'm thinking about a lot is how to be an individual contributor and still have an impact on team health and culture because that is something I care about. And so I wanted to share that with her because if there are things that she can identify in those aspects, that would be really awesome for me. And that can kind of help guide her away from a path that I'm not interested in. JOËL: I think having that kind of self-awareness is really powerful for yourself. But then, when you can leverage that to get better reviews that will help you get even further down the path that you're hoping to go, and, wow, isn't that just, like, a virtuous cycle right there that's just building on itself? STEPHANIE: Yeah, for sure. I think the other thing I wanted to share about what's new in my world that has been just a real boost to my mood is how long the days are right now because it's summer in North America. And yesterday was the summer solstice, and so we had the longest day of the year. The sun didn't set until 8:30 p.m. And I just took the opportunity to be outside. I took a swim in the lake, which was my first swim of the season, which was really special. And my friend had just a nice, little, like, backyard campfire hang out. And we got to roast some marshmallows and just be outside till the sunset. And that was really nice. JOËL: When you say the lake, is that Lake Michigan? STEPHANIE: Yes, I do mean Lake Michigan. [laughs] I forget that some people just don't have a giant lake next to them [laughs] that they refer to as the lake. JOËL: It's practically an inland sea. STEPHANIE: Yes, you can't see the other side of it. So, to me, it kind of feels like an ocean. And yesterday, when I was in the water, I also was thinking that I felt like I was just in a giant bathtub. [chuckles] JOËL: So I'm in New England, and most of the bodies of water here are not called lakes. They're called ponds. STEPHANIE: Really? JOËL: No matter the size. STEPHANIE: Oh. JOËL: I guess lakes is reserved for things like what you have that are absolutely massive, and everything else is a pond. STEPHANIE: That's so funny because I think of ponds as much smaller in scale, like a quaint, little pond. But that's a really fun piece of regional vocabulary. So one interesting thing happened on my client project this week that I wanted to get your input on because I've definitely seen this problem before, and still, it continues to crop up. But I was working on a background job that we were passing a Boolean value into as one of the parameters that we would then, you know, use down the line in determining some logic. And we, you know, made this change, and then we were surprised to find out that it continued to not work the way we expected. So we got some bug reports that we weren't getting into one of the branches of the conditional based on that Boolean value that we were passing in. And we learned, after a little bit of digging, that it turns out that those values are serialized because this job is actually saved in -- JOËL: Oh no. STEPHANIE: [chuckles] Yeah. It inherits from the ActiveRecord, actually, and is saved in our database. And so, in that process, the Boolean value got serialized into a string and then did not get converted [chuckles] back into a Boolean. And so when we do that if variable check, it was always evaluating to true because strings are truthy in Ruby. JOËL: Right. The string false is still truthy. STEPHANIE: A string false is still truthy. And we ended up having to coerce it into a Boolean value to fix our little bug. But it was just one of those things that was really frustrating, you know when you feel really confident that you know what you're doing. You're just writing a conditional statement. And it turns out the language beguiled you. [laughs] JOËL: I've run into similar bugs when I'm reading from environment variables because environment variables are always strings. But it's common that you'll be setting some kind of flag. So when you're setting the environment variable, you're setting something to true or false. But then, when you're reading it, you have to explicitly check if this environment variable double equals the string true, then do the thing. Because if you just check for the value, it will never be false. STEPHANIE: Right. And I kind of hate seeing code like that. I don't know; something about it just rubs me the wrong way because it just seems so strange, I suppose. JOËL: Is it just, like, those edge cases where you specifically have to do some kind of, like, double equals check on a value that feels like it should be a Boolean? Or do you kind of feel a bit weird about the concept of truthiness in general? STEPHANIE: I think the concept of truthiness is very hard to grasp sometimes. And, you know, when you're talking about that edge case where we are setting...we're checking if the string is the string true. That means that everything else is false, right? So, in some ways, I think it's just really confusing because we've expanded the definition of what true and false mean to be anything. JOËL: That's really interesting because now you have to pick. Are you checking against the string true, or are you negatively checking against the string false? And those are not equivalent because, like you said, now you're excluding every other string. So, is the string "Hello, World" put you in the false branch or the true branch? STEPHANIE: Who's to say? [laughs] I think a similar conundrum also occurs when we use predicate matchers in our tests. I think this is a gripe that I've talked about a little bit with others when we're writing tests and especially if we're writing a predicate method, and then that's what we're testing, right? We kind of are expecting a true or false value. And when our test expects something to be truthy rather than explicitly saying that we expect the return value to be true, that is sometimes a bit confusing to me as well because someone could theoretically change this method and just have it return "Hello, World," like you said, as a string, like, anything else. And that would still pass the test. JOËL: And it might even pass your code in most places. STEPHANIE: Right. And I suppose that's okay. Is it okay? I don't know. I'm not sure where I land on this. JOËL: I used to be a kind of hardcore Boolean person. STEPHANIE: [laughs] That's a sentence no one has ever [laughs] said. JOËL: I like my explicit trues and falses. I don't like the ambiguity of saying, like, oh, if person do a thing, it's, like, oh, what is person here? Is this a nil check? Is it explicitly false? Do you just want to know that this person is non-empty? Well, what exactly are you checking? So I like the explicitness of saying, oh, if person dot present, or if person dot empty, or if person dot nil. And I think maybe spending some time in some more strongly typed languages has also kind of pushed me a little bit in that direction, where it's nice to have something that is explicitly either just true or just false. And then you completely eliminate that problem of, like, oh, but what if it's neither true nor false, then what do we do for that branch there? And the answer is your compiler will reject that program or say, "You've written a bad program." And you never reach that point where there's a bug. I've slowly been softening my stance. A fellow thoughtbot colleague has written an article why there is no such thing as a Boolean in Ruby. Everything is just shades of gray and truthiness and falsiness. But from the perspective of a program, there is no such thing as a Boolean. And that really opened my eyes to a different perspective. I don't know that I fully agree, but I'm kind of begrudgingly acknowledging that Mike makes a good point. STEPHANIE: Yes, I read the blog post that he wrote about this exact problem. And I think it's called "Booleans Don't Exist in Ruby." And I think I similarly, like, came away with, like, yeah, I think I get it if I just suspend my disbelief, you know, hard enough. [laughs] But what you were saying about, like, liking the explicitness, right? And liking the lack of ambiguity, right? Because when you start to believe that Booleans don't exist, I think that really messes with your [laughs] head a little bit. And one takeaway that I got from that blog post, kind of like we mentioned earlier, is that there is such thing as false, and then everything else is true. And I guess that's kind of how Ruby operates. JOËL: Sort of, because then you have the problem of nil, which is also falsy. STEPHANIE: That's true, but nil is nothing. [laughs] JOËL: That's one of the classic problems as well when you're trying to do a nil check, or maybe some memoization, or maybe even, say, cache this value, or store this value, or initialize this value if it's not set. And assuming that doing nil is falsy, so you'll do some kind of, like, or equals, or just some kind of expression with an or in it thinking, oh, do this extra work if it's nil because then it will trigger the branch. But that all breaks down if potential for your value to be false because false and nil get treated the same in conditional code. STEPHANIE: Right. I think this could be a whole separate conversation about nil and the idea of nothingness. But I do think that, as Ruby developers, at least in the Ruby world, based on what I've seen, is that we lean on nil in ways that we maybe shouldn't. And we end up having to be very defensive about this idea of nil being falsy. But that's because we aren't necessarily thinking as hard about our return values and what our arguments are that; it ends up causing problems in evaluating truthiness when we're having to check those objects that could be nil. JOËL: In terms of the way we communicate with the readers of our code, and, as a reader, I generally assume that a Ruby method that ends with a question mark will return a true Boolean, either true or false. Is that generally your expectation as well? STEPHANIE: I want to say yes, but I've clearly experienced enough times where that's not the case that, you know, it's like, my ideal world and then reality [laughs] and having to figure out how to hold both of those things. JOËL: It's one of those things that's mostly true. STEPHANIE: I want to believe it because predicate methods and, like, the Ruby Standard Library mostly return Boolean values, at least to my knowledge. And if we all kind of followed that [laughs] pattern, then it would be clear. But I think there's a part of me that these days mostly believes it to be true that I will be getting a Boolean value (And, wow, even as I say this, I realize how confusing [laughs] this is starting to sound.) and that until I'm not, right? Until I'm surprised at some point. JOËL: I think there's two things I expect of predicate methods in Ruby. One is that they will return, like, a hard Boolean, either true or false. The second is that they are purely query methods; they don't do side effects. Neither of those are consistent across the ecosystem. And a classic example of violating that second guideline I have in my mind is the valid question mark method from Rails. And this really surprised me the first time I tripped into this because when you call that on an object, it doesn't just tell you whether or not the object is valid. It actually mutates the underlying object by populating the error messages' hash. So if you have an invalid object and you examine its error messages' hash, it will be empty until you call the valid question mark method. So sometimes, you don't even care about the return value. You're just calling valid to mutate the object so that you can access the underlying hash, which is that's weird code when you call a predicate method but then totally ignore the output. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that is strange because I have definitely seen it where we are calling the valid method to validate, and then we end up using the error messages that are set on that object later. I think that's tough because, in some ways, you do care about whether the object is valid or not. But then also, the error messages are helpful usually and when you're trying to use that method. The point is to validate it so that you can hopefully, like, tell the user or, like, the consumer of your system, like, what's wrong in validation. But it is almost, like, two separate things. JOËL: It is. And sometimes, it's really hard to split those two apart. So I'm not throwing shade at the Rails dev team here. Some of these design decisions are legitimately difficult to make. And what's most useful for the most people the most time is often a compromise. I think you brought up the idea of separating those two things. And I think there's a general principle here called command-query separation. That's, like, the fancy way of talking about what you were saying. STEPHANIE: One thing that I was just thinking about kind of when we initially picked off this conversation was the idea of how things outside the Ruby ecosystem or the Ruby world interact with what we're returning in terms of Boolean values. And so when I mentioned the object being serialized because of, you know, our database and, like, background job system, that's an entity that's figuring out what to do with the things that we are returning from Ruby. And similarly, when you're talking about environment variables, it's like, our computer system talking to now our language and those things being a bit different. Because when we, like, suspend our disbelief about what is truthy or falsy in Ruby, at least we're doing it in, like, the world of Ruby. And as soon as we have to interact with something else, like, maybe that's when things can get a little hairy because there's different ideas about truthiness there. And so I'm kind of also thinking about what we return in APIs and maybe, like, that being an area where some explicitness is more required. JOËL: Whenever I'm consuming third-party data, I'm a big fan of having some kind of transformation or parse step. This is inspired in part by the "Parse, Don't Validate" article, which I'll link in the show notes. So, if I'm reading data from a third-party API and I want it to be a Boolean, then maybe I should do the transformation myself. So maybe I check literally, is it the string true or the string false, and anything else gets rejected? Maybe I have...and maybe I'm a little bit more permissive, where I also accept capital T or capital F, and I have, like, some rules for transforming that. But the important thing is I have an explicit conversion step and reject any bad output. And so for something like an environment variable, maybe that would look like looking for true or false and raising if anything else is there. So that we try to boot the app, and it immediately crashes because, hey, we've got some, like, undefined, like, bad configuration that we're trying to load the app with. Don't even try to keep running. Hard crash immediately. Fix it, and then come back. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I like that a lot because the way we ended up fixing this issue with the background job that I mentioned was just coercing our string value into a Ruby Boolean in the job that we were then, like, running the conditional in. But really, what we should have done is have fixed that at a higher level and where we parse and deserialize, like, the values we're getting from the job to prevent this kind of in the future because right now, someone can do this again, and that's a real bummer. JOËL: I always love those deeper conversations that happen after you've had a bug that are like, how do we prevent this from happening again? Because sometimes that's where you have the deepest learnings or the most interesting insights or, you know, ideas for Bike Shed episodes. I'm really curious to contrast JavaScript's approach to truthiness to Ruby's because even though they both use the same idea, they kind of go about it differently. STEPHANIE: Tell me more. JOËL: So, in Ruby, an empty array and an empty string are truthy. JavaScript decided that empty things are falsy. And I forget...there's a whole table that shows the things that are truthy and falsy in JavaScript. I want to say zero is falsy in JavaScript but don't quote me on that, which can also lead to some interesting edge cases you have to think about. STEPHANIE: Okay, yes. This is coming back to me now. I think depending on what, you know, ecosystem or language or world I'm in, I have to just only be able to think about what is true in this world [laughs] and then do that context switching when I am working in something else. But yeah, that is a really interesting idea. Someone decided [laughs] that this was their idea of true or false. JOËL: I'm curious if you have a preference for sort of JavaScript's approach to falsiness where a lot more types of values are falsy versus Ruby, which said pretty much only nil and false are falsy. Everything else is truthy. STEPHANIE: Hmm, that is an interesting question. JOËL: Because in Ruby then or, I guess, in Rails, we end up with the present predicate method that is specifically checking for not only nil and false but also for empty array, empty string, those kinds of things. So, if you find yourself writing a lot of present matchers in your code, you're kind of leaning on something that's closer to JavaScript's definition of falsiness than Ruby's. But maybe you're making it more explicit. STEPHANIE: Right. In JavaScript, I see a lot of double bangs in lieu of those predicate methods. But I suppose by nature of having to write those predicate methods in Ruby, we're, like, really wanting something else, I think. And maybe...I guess it is just a question of explicitness like you're saying, and which I prefer. Is it that I need to be explicit to convey the idea that I want, or is it nice that the language has just been encoded that way for me? JOËL: Or maybe when you write conditionals, if you find yourself doing a lot of presence checks, do you find that you typically are trying to branch on if not null, not false, not empty more frequently than just if not null, not false? Because that's kind of the difference between Ruby's model and JavaScript's model. STEPHANIE: Hmm, the way you posed that question is interesting because it makes me think that sometimes it's quite defensive because we have to check for all these possible return values. We are unsure of what we are getting back. And so this is kind of, like, a catch-all for things that we aren't really sure about. JOËL: Yeah, I mean, that's the fun of dynamic programming languages. You never know exactly what you're going to get as long as things respond to certain methods. You really lean into the duck typing. And I think that's Mike's argument in his article that "Booleans Don't Exist" in that as long as something is responding to methods that you care about, it doesn't matter if you're dealing with a true Boolean or some kind of other value. STEPHANIE: Right. So I suppose the ideas of truthiness then are a little bit more dependent on how people are using the language though it seems like a chicken-and-egg situation to me. [laughs] JOËL: It is really interesting to me in terms of maybe thinking about use cases in my own code if I'm having to...if I'm writing code that leans on truthiness where I can say just, you know if user. But then knowing that, oh, that doesn't account for, like, an empty value. Do I then also need to add an extra check for emptiness? And maybe if I'm in a Rails project, I would reach for that present matcher where I wouldn't have to do that in JavaScript because I can just say, if user, and that already automatically checks for presence. So I'm kind of wondering now in my mind, like, which default would fit my use cases more? Or, if I go back to an older version of myself, I will say I don't want any of these defaults. They're all too ambiguous. I'm going to put explicitly if user dot nil question mark, if that's the thing that I'm checking for, or if user dot empty question mark because I want my reader to know what condition I'm checking. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that is interesting, this idea of, like, which mode do you find yourself needing to use more and if that is accommodated for you because that's just the more common, like, use case or problem. I think that's something that I will be thinking about the next time I write a conditional [laughs] because, like I was saying earlier, I think I end up just leaning on what someone else has decided for me in terms of truthiness and not so much how I would like it to work for me. JOËL: And sometimes we don't want to fight the language too much, you know if I'm writing Elm, that everything is hard Booleans. And I know I'm never going to get a nil in a place where I'd expect true or false because the compiler would prevent that from happening. I know that I'm not going to get an empty value, potentially. There's ways you can do things with a type system where you can explicitly say no empty values are even allowed at this point. And if you do allow them, then the type system will say, "Hey, you forgot to check for the empty case. Bad program. I'm rejecting that." And then you have to write that explicit branch for, oh, if empty versus if present. So I really appreciate that style of programming. But then, when you're in a language like Ruby where you're not dealing with explicit types on purpose, how do you shift that mindset so that you don't need to know the type of the value that you're dealing with? You only want to say, hey, in this context, here's the minimal interface that I want it to conform to. And maybe it's just the truthy or falsiness interface, and everything beyond that is not relevant. STEPHANIE: I think it's kind of wild to me that this idea of a binary that theoretically seems very clear turns out is actually quite confusing, ambiguous, philosophical, even. [chuckles] JOËL: Yeah. It's definitely...you can get into some deep, philosophical questions there, language design as well. One aspect, though, that I'm really curious about your thoughts is bringing new people in who are learning a language. It's really common for people who are learning a language for the first time, learning to code for the first time to write code that you and I would immediately know, like, that's not going to work. You can't add a Boolean and a number. You're just learning to code. You've never done that before. You don't know. And then how the language reacts to that kind of thing can help guide that experience. So, do you think that truthiness maybe makes things more confusing for newcomers? Or, maybe on the other side, it helps to smooth that learning curve because you don't have to be like, oh, wait, I have a user here. I can't put that in a condition because that's not a strict true or false. I'm going to coerce it, or I've got to find a predicate method or something. You can just be like, no, put it in. The interpreter will figure it out for you. STEPHANIE: Wow. That's a great question. I'm trying to put myself in the beginner's mindset a little bit and think about what it's like to just try something and the magic of it working. Because, like you said, the interpreter does it for you, or whatever, and something happens, and you're like, wow, like, that was really cool. And I didn't have to know all of the ins and outs of the types of things I was working with. That can be really helpful in just getting them, like, started and getting them just, like, on the ground writing code. And having that feeling of satisfaction that, like, that they didn't have to, you know, have to learn all these things that can be really scary to make their program work. But I do think it also kind of bites them later once they really realize [laughs] what is going on and the minute that they get that, like, unexpected behavior, right? Like, that becomes a time when you do have to figure out what might be going on under the hood. So two sides of the same coin. JOËL: What you're saying there about, like, maybe smoothing that initial curve but then it biting them later got me thinking. You know how we have the concept of technical debt where we write code in a way that's maybe not quite as clean today so we can move faster but that then later on we have to pay it back? And I almost wonder if what we have here is almost like a pedagogical debt where it's going to cost us a month from now, but today it helps us move faster and actually kind of get that momentum going. STEPHANIE: Pedagogical debt. I like that. I think you've coined a new term. Because I really relate to that where you learn just enough to do the thing now. But, you know, it's probably not, like, the right way or, like, the most informed—I think most informed is probably how I would best describe it—way of doing it. And later, you, yeah, just have to invest a little more into it. And I think that's okay. I think sometimes I do tend to, like, beat myself up over something down the line when I have to deal with some piece of less-than-ideal code that I'd written earlier. Like, I think that, oh, I could have avoided this if only I knew. But the whole point is that I didn't know. [laughs] And, like, that's okay, like, maybe I didn't need to know at the time. JOËL: Yeah, and code that's never shipped is of zero value. So having something that you could ship is better than having something perfect that you didn't ship. STEPHANIE: On that note, shall we wrap up? JOËL: Let's wrap up. STEPHANIE: Show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. JOËL: This show has been produced and edited by Mandy Moore. STEPHANIE: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review in iTunes. It really helps other folks find the show. JOËL: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us @_bikeshed, or you can reach me @joelquen on Twitter. STEPHANIE: Or reach both of us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. JOËL: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. ALL: Byeeeeeeee!!!!!! ANNOUNCER: This podcast is brought to you by thoughtbot, your expert strategy, design, development, and product management partner. We bring digital products from idea to success and teach you how because we care. Learn more at thoughtbot.com.

In this week's podcast, Rabbi Cosgrove is in dialogue with Rabbis Wendy Zierler and Joshua Garroway, as they discuss America's truth crisis from both the Jewish and civil perspectives. This is a topic that Rabbis Zierler and Garroway cover in their recent book, These Truths We Hold: Judaism in an Age of Truthiness, which they both authored and edited.   For more Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, follow @Elliot_Cosgrove on Instagram and Facebook.   Want to stay connected with PAS? Follow us @ParkAvenueSyn on all platforms, and check out www.pasyn.org for all our virtual and in-person offerings. 

In this episode Marc and Kristina have a philosophical discussion about truth. We chat about the many kinds of truth that exist, how "my truth" has become a hill to die on for many people and how "my truth" can become a place where people hide from accountability for their behaviors. Thanks for listening to us each week, and if you like us please consider sharing us with a friend. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/marc-snediker/support

      The One Thing: The surprisingly simple truth behind extraordinary results  Author: Gary Keller w/ Jay Papasan  EP 57:  Follow The Clues      What'd Up Crew? What's good?      Who Gon' Check Me Boo?! God is! The sermon Pastor Sarah Jakes Roberts preached on New Year's Day! BABY!!!! Titled: An Invitation of Mastery  I have like 3 pages of notes and a bucket of happy tears while watching this message. It's a message for everyone no matter what stage you are at in your walk with God or no walk at all.  Scripture JOHN 14:25-31 The one that checked me the most was  John 14:26  But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you before He came He knew He was leaving.    Pastor Sarah said,” If we're intentional enough to listen there is always a clue for what we are standing in now.”  Then she gave us 6 Strategies for Mastery  A master knows when to tap in and when they want to tap out A master knows when to ask/receive help A master has peace in the struggle A master chooses to rejoice over rejection  A master knows what's in him is more dangerous than wants on the outside of them.  A master doesn't just have a message a master is a message.        Chapter 3: Success Leaves Clues     Now Part 1: The Lies: They mislead and derail us The trouble with “Truthiness” 6 Lies between you and success Everything Matters Equally (CH. 4) Multitasking (CH A disciplined life  Willpower is always on will-call  A balanced life  Big is bad       Challenge of the week Buy the book and start reading.  Inspired by the section One Person on pg. 19 from Ch. 3 Find a person that inspires you in the direction you are trying to go. Who would you want to be your mentor?  For example:  Mine is Oprah and Leonard Mckelvey.  Pg. 20 “Everyone has one person who wither means the most to them or was he first o influence, train, or manage them.”     What Would Crew Do?!  (ask for advice) email the crew @ thecrewbookclub@gmail.com or DM on IG @thecrewbookclub    So much to do and so little time. I have 2 children and pregnant with another. And I feel like there is always things to do for everyone else expect me. I see you have to girls and you mentioned you were married. How do you balance and do it all? Like how do you choose what to do and what not to do? On top of that you are doing the 75 day challenge I see on Instagram. Where do you find the time?    Quote of the week: PG. 24 “The ONE THING sits at the heart of success and is the starting point for achieving extraordinary results.”      Hey CREW!  DON'T FORGET   Crew, I've partnered up with BetterHelp sponsor of this episode; a special offer to The Crew Book Club Podcast listeners, you can get 10% off your first month of professional therapy:   https://www.betterhelp.com/crewlove   You can listen to this book on audible. Click link to get your free 30 day premium plus experience with audible  https://www.audibletrial.com/Crewlove  Thanks for hanging with “The Crew!”   Order Book:https://amzn.to/3WzTBwy   Check Out & Follow  YOUTUBE:https://youtu.be/dGlPf3K5r9k FANBASE: https://www.fanbase.app/thecrewbookclubINSTAGRAM: TikTok:https://www.tiktok.com/@thecrewbookclubpodcast FacebookGroup: https://www.facebook.com/groups/383757116178503/?ref=share&mibextid=S66gvF   www.thecrewbookclub.com   Thanks for hanging with “The Crew!” Subscribe, Share, and tell a friend 

In this episode B and D watch The Office S07E08 Pam's Replacement and Seinfeld S05E22 The Opposite, and then discuss the origins of Jealousy and how gut instincts can lead us astray. We also discuss Truthiness and The Colbert Report pilot episode as well as the Elizabeth Holmes biopic The Dropout.

On the panel this week: Andrea Reimer, Founder and Principal of Tawaw Strategies Mary Polak, Strategic Advisor for Maple Leaf Strategies and former MLA for Langley Khelsilem, Squamish Nation Council Chair

Truthiness joins us again as we discuss the Hannover Open World Qualifier from July 31st. Listen in as we break down the Top 8, discuss the European meta, and laugh it up in Hot Take 30!See the Top 12 lists here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kyp3gId3J7mv9OqAZ75BeKQcBi2qanGpW6ZPlxYNvhg/edit?usp=sharing The Top 12 Cut results can be found here: https://tabletop.to/amg-star-wars-2022-world-open-qualifier-star-wars-armada-top-cut/ladder Join in the discussion on discord at: https://discord.gg/3StPRmsFSt

Truthiness from Blissfully Ignorant Gaming joins us in part 2 of a 2 part series on how to fix what's perceived to be wrong with Armada! Visit Truthi and friends at Blissfully Ignorant Gaming: https://www.blissfullyignorantgaming.com/ Join in the discussion on discord at: https://discord.gg/3StPRmsFSt

Truthiness from Blissfully Ignorant Gaming joins us in part 1 of a 2 part series on how to fix what's perceived to be wrong with Armada! Visit Truthi and friends at Blissfully Ignorant Gaming: https://www.blissfullyignorantgaming.com/ Join in the discussion on discord at: https://discord.gg/3StPRmsFSt

We welcome to the show Fr. Jeffrey Kirby of Belmont Abbey College to discuss Abortion, Proportionalism, and Homosexuality. Be sure to check out his latest book, Sanctify Them in Truth: How the Church's Social Doctrine Addresses the Issues of Our Time. Sanctify Them in Truth: How the Church's Social Doctrine Addresses the Issues of Our Time What Will Make People More Likely to Accept the “Truthiness” of Truth? Educators Need to Be Reminded: The Truth Will Set You Free Courage International

Gospel TruthinessSeries: Power Through Weakness Preacher: Rev. Thomas HinsonDate: 5th June 2022Passage: 2 Corinthians 11:1-33

Geek, Biggs, and Truthiness break down some of their favorite current Separatist fleets.

Ashley Pontius is a super funny comedian who grew up near Hagerstown, Md., and performs all over the DMV area. She got her start in stand-up by lying about how she knew Myq Kaplan and then worked semi-illegally for Stephen Colbert's Campaign for Truthiness. Over the last decade, she's established herself as one of the best up-and-coming comedians in the Mid-Atlantic. She's a regular just about everywhere from Harrisburg to Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Virginia and co-hosts a podcast called Quality Time with brothers Erik and Jeremy Woodorth. Ashley is a master of revenge and she described some of the best instances of payback I've ever heard. Follow Ashley Pontious:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ashleypontiuslaughs/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ashleypontiuslaughsSupport the show

Systematic attacks on the truth, supercharged through social media, trolling and cancel culture, have Americans angry, frustrated and unsure as to where to turn for knowledge. It's a crisis of historic proportions, but author Jonathan Rauch argues we already have in place a structure from which to repel these assaults of disinformation. He locates it within the global network of professionals, experts and institutions that has transformed the human species into the sort of knowledge machine that can, for example, decode the genome of a new virus and design a vaccine on a global scale in a matter of days. In his latest book,The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth, Rauch challenges readers to understand and defend this system's potential for harnessing disagreement and disinformation.

Today on Kenny Webster's Pursuit of Happiness: Biden is coming for your Russian salad dressing The DHS now has a disinformation department Amber Heard's fecal problems special guests Brandon Darby, Michael Quinn Sullivan, and DL Jennings

Today on Kenny Webster's Pursuit of Happiness: Biden is coming for your Russian salad dressing The DHS now has a disinformation department Amber Heard's fecal problems special guests Brandon Darby, Michael Quinn Sullivan, and DL Jennings

Biden's Ministry of Truthiness. Stop the method cigarette ban! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Biden's Ministry of Truthiness. Stop the method cigarette ban!

Shmitty and Truthiness sit down to discuss the universe of our favorite games Dropzone Commander and Dropfleet Commander.

FEATURING: (00:02:16) New Business: Prelude to Kirby and the Forgotten World. (00:24:09) The Wonderful 101. (00:28:07) Final Fantasy XII. (00:55:39) Triangle Strategy. (01:15:59) Listener Mail: Digital game organisation. (01:40:08) Our Nintendo roleplay mods.

Gisela Strnad spricht mit Dr. Mario Herger über sein Buch „Future Angst“. Die „gute alte Zeit“ gab es nie, nur die Zukunft können wir proaktiv gestalten. Es geht im Buch u.a. um den Umgang mit Technologien, die damit verbundene Psychologie und den notwendigen Perspektivwechsel. Erfindungen und Veränderungen ist kein Phänomen unserer Zeit. Auch in der Vergangenheit brauchten Neuerungen oftmals sehr lange, um akzeptiert zu werden und im Alltag Einzug halten zu können. Anhand von Beispielen wie dem Spiegel, Plüschbären, Fahrstühle, Stethoskop usw. wird deutlich, welche unsinnigen Argumente gegen die Nutzung gebracht wurden. Erstaunlich ist, das ablehnende Argumente, von vor vielen hundert Jahren, auch heute noch aktuell sind. Wir leben schon immer in Übergangszeiten, das ist nichts neues. Übergänge müssen gemeistert werden und disruptive Ansätze sind Herausforderungen an uns alle. Jedoch wo ist die Ambition für Neues in Deutschland geblieben? Dr. Mario Herger zitiert aus einer Studie: „Deutschland hatte im Jahr 2001 noch 1,5 Mio. Gründer. 2019 waren es nur noch 500.000 Firmengründer.“ Zudem ist das Image von Menschen die Firmen gründen, massiv gesunken. Ein Ratschlag zur Veränderung ist: „Technik nicht nur aus den technischen Features heraus darstellen, sondern Geschichten um die Technik erzählen und Visionen aufbauen“. Es gibt dazu bereits heute gute Beispiele auf der Welt. Lassen Sie sich inspirieren.

In this episode of r/LegbeardStories we are introduced to Babybeard. This legbeard is in her 30s, and still in a state of suspended adolescence. It's a sad case but you won't manage to feel pity for long. This legbeard evaporates any good will on first contact, which is an impressive feat! Let's just kick back and enjoy the carnage of this office worker legbeard story.YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/reddxyDiscord: https://discord.gg/Sju7YckUWuPayPal: https://www.paypal.me/daytondoesPatreon: http://patreon.com/daytondoesTwitter: http://www.twitter.com/daytondoesFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/ReddXD/Teespring: https://teespring.com/stores/reddx

In this week's TRUTH: In 1000 Words or Less, Steven suggests that Critical Race Theory isn't a theory at all.  It's the TRUTH, plain and simple.

After the Median invasion, the Ionian philosopher Xenophanes, a student of the Anaximander, was forced to flee to Elea in Magna Graecia and brought the philosophy of the Ionians to the Eleans. His student, Parmenides, then founded the Eleatic School, which was skeptical of the senses, and argued that despite its appearance to the contrary, the Earth was round. Parmenides's student, Zeno, in turn developed his famous paradoxes to prove his teacher's assertion that motion was an illusion.

(Replay) Welcome to episode #10 of The Debt Free Dad Podcast. There are some common beliefs about debt and money that are actually LIES. They ARE NOT TRUE! You may have heard the term, "Truthiness" But what does that even mean… and why does it matter to you when it comes to having success with money and getting out of debt? Find out in today's episode.In an Information Age driven by round the clock news, ranting talk radio and editorless blogging, truthiness captures all the incidental, accidental, and even intentional falsehoods that sound just truthy enough for us to accept as true. The problem is we tend to act on what we believe even when what we believe isn't anything we should.We are going to be discussing 9 Truthiness statements when it comes to debt that society has come to accept as true even though they are a big huge LIE.What You'll LearnWhat you know about money and debt may be false.Hear the real truth behind these truthiness beliefs about money and debt.Challenge your normal thinking, because that thinking could be keeping you broke.Question of the Show"I am getting married, but we are also getting out of debt. We don't want our payments holding us down as we begin our lives together. How can we pay cash for a nice wedding, but still be aggressive in paying off our debts?"Resources MentionedThe One Thing by Gary Keller10 Money Saving Ideas You Can Start Today - FREE COURSEBrad's Totally Awesome Debt Freedom PlannerFor more help, and a step-by-step process to get started, enroll in Brad's FREE online course, LIFE WITHOUT PAYMENTS.Free Tools and Downloads at www.therealdebtfreedad.com-Connect With Brad-Website - https://www.therealdebtfreedad.comFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/therealdebtfreedad/Private Facebook Group - http://www.facebook.com/lifewithoutpaymentsInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/brad_nelson_debt_free_dad/Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/bradnelson0044/LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/balancedcents/Thanks For ListeningLike what you hear? Please, subscribe on the platform you listen to most: Apple Podcasts, iHeartRadio, Spotify, Tune-In, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, YouTube.We LOVE feedback, and also helps us grow our podcast! Please leave us an honest review in Apple Podcasts, we read every single one.Is there someone that you think would benefit from the Debt Free Dad podcast? Please, share this episode with them on your favorite social netwo

Sophie Elsworth, media correspondent for The Australian, joins the Swill team to lament the sorry state of Main Stream Media and its conspiracy of silence during Covid-19. Plus farmer Jock Munro radios in from Rankin Springs, NSW. The Six O'Clock Swill is an independent production featuring Tim Blair, Nick Cater and Simon Collins. Email us: nick@radiobcc.com and shower us with starts in your podcast provider.

Cover Photo:  Captain Richard Vaux(left), and Brad Kuhn(right): Co-Authors of Dirty Work. Brad Kuhn is a professional author.  He has often performed as a ghost-writer.   He helped Captain Richard Vaux tell the story of recovering the hijacked TWA B-727 from war torn Beirut, Lebanon in 1985.   He can be reached at BradKuhnandassociates.com   2:30 Ghostwriter vs Co-Author   6:00 From pilot stories to relevant context   8:00 Afghanistan    10:45 Geopolitical Context of the Times   13:00 Sense of Duty   15:00 TWA in Turmoil   16:10 Naabi Berri (SP?)   18:00. Hijackers let free   20:00 Carl Seeland   20:40 Memories over time   22:30  Corrections to a Print on Demand Book   25:35  Print on Demand as a business model   29:00  Where this Podcast is headed   29:45 Great Aviation Stories   31:00 The Craft of Making a Good Book   32:50. Sense of camaraderie after a job well done   34:40 Shared Stories   38:00  Respect the telling of a story   39:00 Lou Rehr   41:30 Evolution of a Story.. Maine ANG Training Runs   47:15 Twa Cargo for US Military Over Iran   53:00 White Line Fever   60:00  When you fail at trucking   62:50 Truckers and Pilots   67:00 Truthiness   70:30 Talking Heads and Conflict   78:00 Getting into a Hobby   79:33 Dedication

Show Subjects; Chili's now has WiFi once again so you can watch our show while you eat! Scott has rescued a 6 month old kitten that has just had kittens. Steve talks about Crypto. Funguy The Entertainer has the positive message of the day. Steve can't wait to feel those soft robotic hands, as long [...] The post #399 – Chilis WiFi – Crypto Currency – Soft Robotic Hands – Honda Baiku – Truthiness appeared first on What Happened.

Show Notes      

Womaniacal House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—another Democrat leader with compromised cognitive abilities and no moral principles—has womanaged to womangle her first day of the new congressional session. read more

Welcome to episode #10 of The Debt Free Dad Podcast. There are some common beliefs about debt and money that are actually LIES. They ARE NOT TRUE! You may have heard the term, "Truthiness" But what does that even mean… and why does it matter to you when it comes to having success with money and getting out of debt? Find out in today's episode.In an Information Age driven by round the clock news, ranting talk radio and editorless blogging, truthiness captures all the incidental, accidental, and even intentional falsehoods that sound just truthy enough for us to accept as true. The problem is we tend to act on what we believe even when what we believe isn't anything we should.We are going to be discussing 9 Truthiness statements when it comes to debt that society has come to accept as true even though they are a big huge LIE.What You'll LearnWhat you know about money and debt may be false.Hear the real truth behind these truthiness beliefs about money and debt.Challenge your normal thinking, because that thinking could be keeping you broke.Question of the Show"I am getting married, but we are also getting out of debt. We don't want our payments holding us down as we begin our lives together. How can we pay cash for a nice wedding, but still be aggressive in paying off our debts?"Resources MentionedThe One Thing by Gary Keller10 Money Saving Ideas You Can Start Today - FREE COURSEBrad's Totally Awesome Debt Freedom PlannerFor more help, and a step-by-step process to get started, enroll in Brad's FREE online course, LIFE WITHOUT PAYMENTS.Free Tools and Downloads at www.therealdebtfreedad.com-Connect With Brad-Website - https://www.therealdebtfreedad.comFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/therealdebtfreedad/Private Facebook Group - http://www.facebook.com/lifewithoutpaymentsInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/brad_nelson_debt_free_dad/Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/bradnelson0044/LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/balancedcents/Thanks For ListeningLike what you hear? Please, subscribe on the platform you listen to most: Apple Podcasts, iHeartRadio, Spotify, Tune-In, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, YouTube.We LOVE feedback, and also helps us grow our podcast! Please leave us an honest review in Apple Podcasts, we read every single one.Is there someone that you think would benefit from the Debt Free Dad podcast? Please, share this episode with them on your favorite social network!

Remember 2017? Adam doesn't. This week finds the boys grasping for ANYTHING to talk about from last year... and failing spectacularly as they try to hype 2018. Also, Matthew got a dog! Talking Points: Inverting the Earth! (00:00) New Year's Baby vs. Nazis vs. the Disney Vault! (5:15) Future toilet terror! (11:12) The (fake) root of all fake news! (14:15) Newborn celebrities! (18:50) Fun Time Larry! (25:30) Au naturale fashion! (28:43) The best movie of 2017! (34:18) In Thanos we trust! (40:15) Moviepass: Matthew's downfall! (44:28) A dog named Stilts?! (46:40) Big ups! (56:08) As always, we'd like to thank Laura Hammond of the webcomic XP for our show's art, Bensound.com for our outro music, everyone who contributed to this week's episode, and you the listener for sticking with us! If you like what you hear, consider subscribing and rating on iTunes, sharing our sampler, or becoming a TWAIkNtributor at patreon.com/theworstadults!

The Spirit of God in scripture is never contained to the places most people think it "should" be... Kris tells a story from Numbers 11:24-30 (and Acts 2:1-21) about God inspiring people to speak truth, even when they're not in the "right place" at the "right time." Then we talk about the other people who continue to speak truth to us now, in art, science, and every other discipline. (To see some of the art works that Kris discusses, check out  Harmonia Rosales' "Creation of Adam" and Kristen Visbal's "Fearless Girl.")

Hitesh Patel (@F5Hitesh) Solutions Architect for F5 (@F5Networks) joins us this week on The Hot Aisle to talk about how F5 is evolving for and fully embracing the new “Cloud” model. Your hosts Brent Piatti (@BrentPiatti) and Brian Carpenter (@intheDC) dig into  building a 250K+ person community with DevCentral, how Open Source & GitHub have […]

It's Friday! Today, Nicole takes on the news conundrum and Brian Williams' lies and the rest of the news of the week. Criminologist Scott Bonn tells us about America's obsession with serial killers. And we rock into the weekend with a Flashback Friday music session from the Wild Colonials