Podcasts about us department

The hosts of Project Synapse discuss how people and companies often claim to value privacy, security, and human-made content while behaving otherwise, then cover major AI news including the US Department of Defense labeling Anthropic a supply chain risk tied to its positions on autonomous weapons and surveillance, and the fallout including the QuitGPT boycott claims and criticism of Sam Altman's response. They examine Claude 4.6 with Cowork and ChatGPT 5.4, emphasizing deeper Office/Gmail integration, larger context windows, and data analytics that could transform corporate data work and accelerate job replacement, while token costs rise and stolen API keys create urgent financial risk. They also warn about the "death of privacy" via profiling and potential anti-anonymity laws, and explore robotics trends, costs, factory adoption, healthcare use cases, and growing investment in humanoid robots from firms like Figure, Tesla, Boston Dynamics, and Unitree. Hashtag Trending would like to thank Meter for their support in bringing you this podcast. Meter delivers a complete networking stack, wired, wireless and cellular in one integrated solution that's built for performance and scale. You can find them at Meter.com/htt 00:00 Sponsor Message 00:18 People Say They Care 01:23 Cybersecurity Reality Check 02:46 Show Intro and Robots 03:35 US Targets Anthropic 09:20 Altman Optics and Boycott 16:52 Anthropic vs OpenAI Safety 21:27 Office Agents Replace Jobs 26:06 Cowork Hands On Debate 35:02 Token Costs and API Keys 38:37 AI Wallet Safety Limits 39:55 Hardware Shortages From AI 42:25 Cloud Control Conspiracy 44:00 Data Brokers Kill Privacy 46:09 AI Builds A Copy Of You 48:26 Embodied AI And Robots 51:17 Humanoids In Factories 01:00:07 Why Humanoids Aren't Everywhere 01:02:06 Robots In Healthcare And Homes 01:06:28 Cheap Humanoids And Companions 01:11:52 Robotics Boom And Wrap Up 01:13:21 Sponsor Message And Sign Off

As insurance costs rocket for shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, Asian countries brace for an energy shock. The rapid expansion of American-owned data centres in the Middle East has opened up a new front for Iran's retaliation against the US. Plus, Donald Trump fires the head of the US Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, and the FT's Joshua Franklin explains what JPMorgan wants with an historic New York City hotel. Mentioned in this podcast:Industry casts doubt on Trump plan to insure Gulf oil tankers as Iran war halts transitAsia's big economies brace for Iran war energy shock Donald Trump fires controversial homeland security secretary Kristi NoemPakistan thwarts JPMorgan's efforts to buy historic New York hotelNote: The FT does not use generative AI to voice its podcasts Today's FT News Briefing was hosted by Victoria Craig, and produced by Saffeya Ahmed and Marc Filippino. Our show was mixed by Kelly Garry. Additional help from Michael Lello. Our executive producer is Topher Forhecz. Cheryl Brumley is the FT's Global Head of Audio. The show's theme music is by Metaphor Music. Read a transcript of this episode on FT.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

An explosive fallout between AI giant Anthropic, OpenAI and the US Department of War has ignited a fierce debate in Silicon Valley about who gets to decide how artificial intelligence is used in defence. Former Pentagon adviser and founder of Primer.ai, Sean Gourley, joins Danny and Katie to explain how this technology is already embedded in military operations, and explore whether Silicon Valley bosses should get a say when it comes to national security. Is AI making war smarter or more dangerous?Clip: Bloomberg TVProducer: Marnie DukeExecutive Producer: Priyanka DeladiaGet in touch: techpod@thetimes.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Episode Title: Tesla's Building A Robot Army — And A $1.5 Trillion Merger | Cern Basher Short Description: Bitcoin isn't money — it's a cyber security technology. And we're going to need it desperately. Cern Basher, CFA, breaks down why AI agents will choose Bitcoin, the Tesla robotaxi economics, the SpaceX–xAI mega-merger, and why Strategy might be the world's largest digital security company. Full Description: How do you constrain trillions of AI agents roaming the internet? Not with passwords and code — AI will hack all of that. You do it with physics. You do it with Bitcoin. In Part 2 of my conversation with Cern Basher — CFA charterholder, CIO of Brilliant Advice, and one of the sharpest analysts at the intersection of AI, Bitcoin, and macroeconomics — we go deep on Jason Lowery's classified Softwar thesis and why the US Department of Defence placed it under security review. Cern explains why Bitcoin is actually a cyber security protocol hiding in plain sight, disguised by the word "coin" in its name — just like gunpowder was disguised as medicine for years before engineers figured out what it really was. We also break down the deflationary tsunami hitting every industry — SaaS companies losing billions in market cap overnight, Salesforce and the consulting industry being hollowed out by AI agents, and why deflation is actually something we should celebrate, not fear. We already lived through it with the iPhone and we loved it. Cern shares his brilliant analogy for why Tesla is massively undervalued — a kid running a lemonade stand who's secretly training to become a surgeon, but Wall Street only sees the lemonade. We get into whether SpaceX and Tesla will merge, the economics of putting AI data centres in space, manufacturing pharmaceuticals in zero gravity, and the incredible opportunity for any individual to own a small fleet of robotaxis and replace their income. For New Zealand, this is a call to action. Be first. Be forward-thinking. Or watch other countries leapfrog us. In this episode we discuss: Bitcoin as a cyber security technology, not just money — and why that's even more valuable Jason Lowery's Softwar thesis — proof of work as digital defence Why AI agents unanimously choose Bitcoin for transactions The gunpowder analogy — Bitcoin's real use case is hiding in plain sight Google's centralised censorship of health and supplement companies OpenClaw and the Pandora's box of billions of AI agents SaaS is cooked — Salesforce, consulting, and legal getting hollowed out Deflation is good — the iPhone proved it and we all benefited The ice cutter disruption story — this is nothing new The K-shaped economy — will abundance lift the bottom 50%? Universal high income and making goods freely available like water Strategy (MicroStrategy) as the world's largest digital security company Tesla undervalued — the lemonade stand to surgeon analogy Will SpaceX and Tesla merge? Pros, cons, and what Cern is hearing AI data centres in space, pharma in zero gravity, and Starship economics Owning your own robotaxi fleet — replacing your income New Zealand's opportunity to leapfrog the world Links mentioned: Cern Basher on X: https://x.com/CernBasher Brilliant Advice: https://www.brilliantadvice.net Jason Lowery's Softwar thesis (MIT): https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/153030 Cern's GDP & Dematerialisation post: https://x.com/CernBasher/status/1913993658572984440 Part 1 of this episode: https://youtu.be/eh0hKibH6Zs

Joyce talks about: The partial shutdown of the US Department of Homeland Security during a war. The media's misrepresentation of Marco Rubio and the conspiracy theory that Israel forced the US into war with Iran. Political lines seem more important to politicians than the American people. Jasmine Crockett loses her primary to James Talarico and blames racism and the republicans. Speculations that grass roots MAGA people are turning away from President Trump despite evidence of the opposite. JD Vance speaking out about the war with Iran after remaining silent over the weekend. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Negah Angha, Visiting Fellow at Kings College London and former Senior Advisor at the US Department of State and National Security Council under Joe Biden, discussed the US's strategy in the ongoing Iran war.

Cleveland police investigating after the bodies of two girls were found in suitcases; six people from the same family died in a Clinton County house fire; Ohio's voter registration data has been shared with the US Department of Justice; a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee wants to add another name to this year's nominee list.

This week we talk about Anthropic, the Department of Defense, and OpenAI.We also discuss red lines, contracts, and lethal autonomous systems.Recommended Book: Empire of AI by Karen HaoTranscriptLethal autonomous weapons, often called lethal autonomous systems, autonomous weapons systems, or just ‘killer robots,' are military hardware that can operate independent of human control, searching for and engaging with targets based on their programming and thus not needing a human being to point it at things or pull the trigger.The specific nature and capabilities of these devices vary substantially from context to content, and even between scholars writing on the subject, but in general these are systems—be they aerial drones, heavy gun emplacements, some kind of mobile rocket launcher, or a human- or dog-shaped robot—that are capable of carrying out tasks and achieving goals without needing constant attention from a human operator.That's a stark contrast with drones that require either a human controlled or what's called a human-in-the-loop in order to make decisions. Some drones and other robots and weapons require full hands-on control, with a human steering them, pointing their weapons, and pulling the trigger, while others are semi-autonomous in that they can be told to patrol a given area and look for specific things, but then they reach out to a human-in-the-loop to make final decisions about whatever they want to do, including and especially weapon-related things; a human has to be the one to drop the bomb or fire the gun in most cases, today.Fully autonomous weapon systems, without a human in the loop, are far less common at this point, in part because it's difficult to create a system so capable that it doesn't require human intervention at times, but also because it's truly dangerous to create such a device.Modern artificial intelligence systems are incredibly powerful, but they still make mistakes, and just as an LLM-based chatbot might muddle its words or add extra fingers to a made-up person in an image it generates, or a step further, might fabricate research referenced in a paper it produces, an AI-controlled weapon system might see targets where there are no targets, or might flag a friendly, someone on its side, or a peaceful, noncombatant human, as a target. And if there's no human-in-the-loop to check the AI's understanding and correct it, that could mean a lot of non-targets being treated like targets, their lives ended by killer robots that gun them down or launch a missile at their home.On a larger scale, AI systems controlling arrays of weapons, or even entire militaries, becoming strategic commanders, could wipe out all human life by sparking a nuclear war.A recent study conducted at King's College London found that in simulated crises, across 21 scenarios, AI systems which thought they had control of nation-state-scale militaries opted for nuclear signaling, escalation, and tactical nuclear weapon use 95% of the time, never once across all simulations choosing to use one of the eight de-escalatory options that were made available to them.All of which suggests to the researchers behind this study that the norm, approaching the level of taboo, associated with nuclear weapons use globally since WWII, among humans at least, may not have carried over to these AI systems, and full-blown nuclear conflict may thus become more likely under AI-driven military conditions.What I'd like to talk about today is a recent confrontation between one AI company—Anthropic—and its client, the US Department of Defense, and the seeming implications of both this conflict, and what happened as a result.—In late-2024, the US Department of Defense—which by the way is still the official title, despite the President calling it the Department of War, since only Congress can change its name—the US DoD partnered with Anthropic to get a version of its Claude LLM-based AI model that could be used by the Pentagon.Anthropic worked with Palantir, which is a data-aggregation and surveillance company, basically, run by Peter Thiel and very favored by this administration, and Amazon Web Services, to make that Claude-for-the-US-military relationship happen, those interconnections allowing this version of the model to be used for classified missions.Anthropic received a $200 million contract with the Department of Defense in mid-2025, as did a slew of other US-based AI companies, including Google, xAI, and OpenAI. But while the Pentagon has been funding a bunch of US-based AI companies for this utility, only Claude was reportedly used during the early 2026 raid on Venezuela, during which now-former Venezuelan President Maduro was taken by US forces.Word on the street is that Claude is the only model that the Pentagon has found truly useful for these sorts of operations, though publicly they're saying that investments in all of these models have borne fruit, at least to some degree.So Anthropic's Claude model is being used for classified, military and intelligence purposes by the US government. Anthropic has been happy about this, by all accounts, because that's a fair bit of money, but also being used for these purposes by a government is a pretty big deal—if it's good enough for the US military, after all, many CEOs will see that as a strong indication that Claude is definitely good enough for their intended business purposes.On February 24 of 2026, though, the US Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, threatened to remove Anthropic from the DoD's stable of AI systems that they use unless the company allowed the DoD to use Claude for any and all legal purposes—unrestricted use of the model, basically.This threat came with a timeline—accede to these demands by February 27 or be cut from the DoD's supply chain—and the day before that deadline, the 26th, Anthropic's CEO released a statement indicating that the company would not get rid of its red lines that delineated what Claude could and could not be used for, and on the 27th, US President Trump ordered that all US agencies stop using Anthropic tools, and said that he would declare the company a supply chain risk, which would make it illegal for any company doing business with the US government at any level and in any fashion to use Anthropic products or services—a label that's rarely used, and which was previously used by the Trump administration against Chinese tech giant Huawei on the basis that the company might insert spy equipment in communications hardware installed across the US if they were allowed to continue operating in the country.Those red lines that Anthropic's CEO said he wouldn't get rid of, not even for a client as big and important as the US government, and not even in the face of threats by Hegseth, including that he might invoke the Defense Production Act, which would allow him to force the company to allow the Pentagon to use Claude however they like, or Trumps threat that the company be blacklisted from not just the government, but from working with a significant chunk of Fortune 500 companies, those red lines include not allowing Claude to be used for controlling autonomous weapon systems, killer robots, basically, and not allowing Claude to be used for surveilling US citizens.The Pentagon signed a contract with Anthropic in which they agreed to these terms, but Hegseth's new demand was that Anthropic sign a new version of the contract in which they allow the US government to use Claude and their other offerings for ‘all legal purposes,' which apparently includes, at least in some cases and contexts, killer robots and mass surveillance.So the Pentagon tried to strong-arm a US-based AI company into allowing them to use their product for purposes the company doesn't consider to be moral, and that led to this situation in which Anthropic is now being phased out from US government use—it'll apparently take about 6 months to do this, and some analysts speculate that timeline is meant to serve as a period in which further negotiation can occur—but either way, it's being phased out and it may even have trouble getting major clients in the future as a result of being blackballed.As all this was happening, OpenAI stepped in and offered its products and services to fill the void left by Anthropic in the US government.OpenAI's CEO has been cozying up to Trump a lot since he regained office, and has positioned the company as a major US asset, too big to fail because then China will win the AI race, basically, so this makes sense. Its CEO released several statements and press releases in the wake of this further cozying, saying that they believe the same things Anthropic does, and that they're not giving up any credibility for doing this because they have the same red lines, no killer robots, no mass surveillance of US citizens.But this is generally assumed to be bunk, because why would the Pentagon agree to the same terms all over again, and with a company that provides, for their purposes and right now, anyway, inferior services instead of the one they just chased out and blackballed, and which was helping them do purposeful, effective things, like kidnapping a foreign leader from a secure facility, today?Instead, what it sounds like is OpenAI is trying to have its cake and eat it too, saying publicly that they don't want their offerings used to control autonomous weapons systems or mass surveil Americans, but instead of writing that into the contract, they've got some basic guardrails baked into their systems, and they are assuming those guardrails will keep any funny business from happening. So it's a sort of gentleman's agreement with their clients that OpenAI products won't be used for mass surveillance or killer robots, rather than something legally binding, as was the case with Anthropic.The response to all this within the tech world has been illustrative of what we might expect in the coming years. Many people, including folks working on these technologies, are halting their use of OpenAI tech in protest, and in some (at this point at least) fewer cases, people are quitting their OpenAI jobs, because they are strongly opposed to these use-cases and would prefer to support a company that takes a strong stand on these sorts of moral issues.Some analysts also wonder if this will ensure the Pentagon only ever has access to inferior AI models because they intentionally threatened and disempowered a key AI industry CEO in public, saying that they had final say over how these tools are used, and many such CEOs are both unaccustomed to such stripping down, but are also doing the work they're doing for ideological reasons—they have beliefs about what the future, as enabled by AI technologies, will look like, and they believe they will play a vital role in making that future happen.The idea, then, is why would they want to work with the Pentagon, or the US government more broadly, if that means no longer being in charge of the destiny of these tools they're putting so much time, effort, and resources into building? Why would they take on a client, even a big, important one, if that means no longer having any grain of control over the future of the world as shaped by the systems they're building?We'll know a bit more about how all this plays out within the next handful of months, as this could serve as a moral differentiator between otherwise near-match products in the AI category, allowing companies like Anthropic to compete, both in terms of clients and in terms of employees, with the likes of OpenAI and xAI by saying, look, we don't want killer robots or mass surveillance and we gave up a LOT, put our money where our mouths are, in support of that moral stance.That could prove to be a serious feather in their cap, despite the initial cost, though it could also be that the pressure the US government is willing and able to apply to them instead serves as a warning to others, and the likes of OpenAI and Google and so on just get better at speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue, creating sneakier contracts that allow them to say the same on paper, seeming to take the same moral stance Anthropic did, while behind closed doors allowing their clients to do basically whatever they want with their products, including using them to control killer robots and to mass surveil US citizens.Show Noteshttps://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/artificial-intelligence-under-nuclear-pressure-first-large-scale-kings-study-reveals-how-ai-models-reason-and-escalate-under-crisishttps://www.axios.com/2026/02/26/ai-nuclear-weapons-war-pentagon-scenarioshttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/technology/openai-agreement-pentagon-ai.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_autonomous_weaponhttps://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/885963/anthropic-dod-pentagon-tech-workers-ai-labs-reacthttps://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/886816/openai-reached-a-new-agreement-with-the-pentagonhttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/trump-moves-to-ban-anthropic-from-the-us-government/https://apnews.com/article/anthropic-pentagon-ai-dario-amodei-hegseth-0c464a054359b9fdc80cf18b0d4f690chttps://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/whats-really-at-stake-in-the-fight-between-anthropic-and-the-pentagon-d450c1a1https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-of-war/https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/artificial-intelligence-under-nuclear-pressure-first-large-scale-kings-study-reveals-how-ai-models-reason-and-escalate-under-crisishttps://www.axios.com/2026/02/26/ai-nuclear-weapons-war-pentagon-scenarios This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

This week on The Hamilton Review Podcast, we're pleased to welcome Dr. Jaime Deville. In this episode, Dr. Deville joins Dr. Bob for an important conversation about childhood vaccines. They explore common myths versus reality and share what parents need to know to keep their children safe and protected from preventable diseases. Don't miss this informative episode.  Jaime G. Deville, MD is a Clinical Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital and is the Director of the Care-4-Families Clinic at UCLA. Dr. Deville obtained his MD from Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru, and completed a one year Tropical Medicine fellowship at the Alexander Von Humboldt Tropical Medicine Institute in Lima, Peru, a pediatric internship at the Cayetano Heredia University Hospital in Lima, Peru, and subsequently completed his pediatric residency as well as chief residency at State University of New York Downstate Medical Center. Dr. Deville has been at UCLA since 1992 where he completed research and clinical Pediatric Infectious Disease fellowships, including a one year epidemiology fellowship at the UCLA Center for Vaccine Research. Dr. Deville is a member of the Advisory Commission in Childhood Vaccines for the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services, and also is a member of the National Advisory Committee of the National Hispanic Medical Association and serves as a reviewer for 13 leading medical journals. Dr. Deville's main areas of research have been in childhood vaccines, immunology and morbidity of pediatric HIV infection, neonatal and pediatric gram-positive infections. Dr. Deville has conducted studies on safety and immunogenicity of live influenza vaccine in HIV-infected children. He served as vice-chair of ACTG 351 and as a protocol team member of PACTG 1048. How to contact Dr. Bob: Dr. Bob on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChztMVtPCLJkiXvv7H5tpDQ Dr. Bob on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drroberthamilton/ Dr. Bob on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bob.hamilton.1656 Dr. Bob's Seven Secrets Of The Newborn website: https://7secretsofthenewborn.com/ Dr. Bob's website: https://roberthamiltonmd.com/ Pacific Ocean Pediatrics: http://www.pacificoceanpediatrics.com/

The Cognitive Crucible is a forum that presents different perspectives and emerging thought leadership related to the information environment. The opinions expressed by guests are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of or endorsement by the Information Professionals Association. During this episode, Doug Abdiel discusses the vivid operational problem of GPS-denied or GPS-degraded environments and how Advanced Navigation is helping operators cut through the fog of modern warfare. Recording Date: 16 Feb 2026 Research Question: Doug Abdiel suggests an interested student or researcher examine the computationally challenging problem of peer-to-peer solutions for signals. Resources: Cognitive Crucible Podcast Episodes Mentioned #237 Josh Segal on Ukraine, Electronic Warfare, and Fast Battlefield Innovation Advanced Navigation P&G Purpose: We believe that every person deserves a chance to obtain long-term, sustainable employment for themselves and their families. For some people, this has never been a problem. For others, through circumstances outside of their control, be it war, famine, or countless other issues, they have never been able to have this sustainable employment. We aim to bridge that gap, helping those people obtain the job skills that they need to succeed. Global Navigation Satellite Systems, Inertial Navigation, and Integration by Mohinder S. Grewal, Angus P. Andrews, and Chris G. Bartone Battlefield Cellphone Usage Cigarette Lighter Airport Jammer Link to full show notes and resources Guest Bio: Doug Abdiel is Global VP Customer Experience and Support at Advanced Navigation, a global leader in autonomous systems and navigation technology. In addition to being a Navigator, Doug is a U.S. Marine, and has served on active duty and in the reserves, where he is currently a Lieutenant Colonel, since 2003. Doug is an experienced leader with a record of driving change in the internet, defence, and social sectors for the past two decades. He has practiced in competitive intelligence, strategic/operational planning, and partnership business development across the Asia-Pacific. Doug is recognized for high-double-digit YoY growth and concurrent cost reduction on eleven-figure P&Ls. He is a community-minded founder, director, and chair of a multimillion-dollar social enterprise that provided over 50 people their first, and most importantly a pathway to their second, jobs in Australia. Doug's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Department of War, Department of the Navy, or the US Marine Corps. About: The Information Professionals Association (IPA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to exploring the role of information activities, such as influence and cognitive security, within the national security sector and helping to bridge the divide between operations and research. Its goal is to increase interdisciplinary collaboration between scholars and practitioners and policymakers with an interest in this domain. For more information, please contact us at communications@information-professionals.org. Or, connect directly with The Cognitive Crucible podcast host, John Bicknell, on LinkedIn. Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, 1) IPA earns from qualifying purchases, 2) IPA gets commissions for purchases made through links in this post.

The energy grid needs reliable, carbon-free power around the clock and geothermal might be the most underestimated solution on the table. A century of oil and gas expertise is now being repurposed to unlock heat sitting beneath our feet almost anywhere on Earth, and in doing so, it's also unlocking a new form of long-duration energy storage that requires no mountain, no reservoir, and no battery chemistry.In this episode, host Alejandro Diego sits down with Cindy Taff, CEO of Sage Geo Systems. Together they explore how Sage is moving beyond the geological constraints of conventional geothermal, what it takes to engineer a reservoir from scratch, how their underground pressure storage system works like an inverted pumped hydro plant, and why companies like Meta and the US Department of Defense are already signing on.You can watch or listen to new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday.Transmission is a Modo Energy production. Your host is Alejandro De Diego - US Market AnalystModo Energy helps the owners, operators, builders, and financiers of battery energy storage understand the market — and make the most out of their assets. Want all the latest power market news? Sign up for our free Weekly Dispatch newsletter:https://bit.ly/TheWeeklyDispatch Chapters:00:00 Next-gen geothermal intro01:49 Cindy Taff background04:51 Geothermal opportunity07:19 Conventional geothermal limits08:39 How geothermal works10:38 Geothermal grid baseload11:44 US heat resource map13:13 Oil and gas drilling tech16:50 Discovering underground storage17:21 Earth Store technology18:07 Storage capacity explained19:35 Fast dispatch no degradation21:42 Pelton turbine explained23:47 Why viable now25:30 Energy storage business model27:12 Target customers28:27 Development obstacles29:52 Permitting process31:36 Meta 150MW deal33:41 5.5 terawatt potential36:17 Grid transformation impact37:49 What drives Cindy39:16 Direct heating use case40:30 Sage 2035 milestones42:20 Energy expansion contrarian view

The energy grid needs reliable, carbon-free power around the clock and geothermal might be the most underestimated solution on the table. A century of oil and gas expertise is now being repurposed to unlock heat sitting beneath our feet almost anywhere on Earth, and in doing so, it's also unlocking a new form of long-duration energy storage that requires no mountain, no reservoir, and no battery chemistry.In this episode, host Alejandro Diego sits down with Cindy Taff, CEO of Sage Geo Systems. Together they explore how Sage is moving beyond the geological constraints of conventional geothermal, what it takes to engineer a reservoir from scratch, how their underground pressure storage system works like an inverted pumped hydro plant, and why companies like Meta and the US Department of Defense are already signing on.You can watch or listen to new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday.Transmission is a Modo Energy production. Your host is Alejandro De Diego - US Market AnalystModo Energy helps the owners, operators, builders, and financiers of battery energy storage understand the market — and make the most out of their assets. Want all the latest power market news? Sign up for our free Weekly Dispatch newsletter:https://bit.ly/TheWeeklyDispatch Chapters:00:00 Next-gen geothermal intro01:49 Cindy Taff background04:51 Geothermal opportunity07:19 Conventional geothermal limits08:39 How geothermal works10:38 Geothermal grid baseload11:44 US heat resource map13:13 Oil and gas drilling tech16:50 Discovering underground storage17:21 Earth Store technology18:07 Storage capacity explained19:35 Fast dispatch no degradation21:42 Pelton turbine explained23:47 Why viable now25:30 Energy storage business model27:12 Target customers28:27 Development obstacles29:52 Permitting process31:36 Meta 150MW deal33:41 5.5 terawatt potential36:17 Grid transformation impact37:49 What drives Cindy39:16 Direct heating use case40:30 Sage 2035 milestones42:20 Energy expansion contrarian view

In this episode, we explore the high-stakes confrontation between Anthropic and the US Department of Defense, detailing Anthropic's red lines for AI usage and the Pentagon's subsequent blacklisting. We also discuss how OpenAI, led by Sam Altman, stepped in to secure a canceled Department of Defense contract from Anthropic, raising questions about AI ethics, government control, and the future of AI in national security.Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Conflict01:51 Anthropic's Red Lines03:41 Pentagon's Stance and Risks04:55 Anthropic Blacklisted, OpenAI Steps In07:44 Deployment Differences and Public Reaction08:58 Strategic Implications and Future Outlook LinksGet the top 40+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiAI Chat YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@JaedenSchaferJoin my AI Hustle Community: https://www.skool.com/aihustle

This podcast explores the science, policy, and clinical reasoning behind updated pediatric immunization schedules. This CE episode reviews current 2026 American Academy of Pediatrics and US Department of Health and Human Services pediatric immunization recommendations, examines the data supporting vaccine timing, and compares U.S. practices with international approaches. Through a patient-centered lens, the discussion highlights how shared decision-making can be applied in real-world pediatric care. The information presented during the podcast reflects solely the opinions of the presenter. The information and materials are not, and are not intended as, a comprehensive source of drug information on this topic. The contents of the podcast have not been reviewed by ASHP, and should neither be interpreted as the official policies of ASHP, nor an endorsement of any product(s), nor should they be considered as a substitute for the professional judgment of the pharmacist or physician.

"I became extremely fascinated with Mansa Musa's story."Why would an African-founded luxury brand choose to build its headquarters in the United States?In this episode of Limitless Africa, host Claude Grunitzky speaks with Armando Cabral, founder of Armando Cabral Footwear, who was born in Guinea-Bissau and now runs his brand from New York. Cabral explains how his African heritage shapes his design philosophy, why he describes himself as a “cultural design activist,” and how the pandemic pushed him to research West African history more deeply, including the Mali Empire and Mansa Musa.Cabral also breaks down the practical business logic behind locating in the U.S. market: access to entrepreneurial energy, stronger retail networks, and an ecosystem that responds to ambition with enthusiasm rather than skepticism. He shares what it took to land major American retail partnerships, including Bloomingdale's, and how collaborations with brands like Allen Edmonds validated the global appetite for authentic African storytelling paired with uncompromising quality.Finally, the episode confronts a hard question: why not manufacture in Africa today? Cabral offers an unglamorous but important answer about infrastructure, expertise, and the realities of scaling craft at luxury standards, while still articulating a long-term vision of expanding retail presence across the African continent.Plus: Three tips for entrepreneurs

Apple is kicking off a 3‑day product launch event with at least five new devices rumoured, including the iPhone 17 E, new iPads, and MacBooks with M4 and M5 chips. Steven Scott and Shaun Preece break down what this means for blind and visually impaired users, plus the latest in AI, accessibility, and tech news from Sonos, Mobile World Congress, and beyond. This lively episode of Double Tap dives into Apple's 3‑day event running 2–4 March, with speculation around an affordable MacBook, iPhone 17 E, and next‑gen iPads. Steven and Shaun share personal experiences with old and new Apple gear, including an 18‑year‑old MacBook still running Snow Leopard and performing surprisingly well with VoiceOver. The discussion expands to AI ethics, including Be My Eyes' new partnership with Meta to enhance inclusive AI training, and OpenAI's controversial deal with the US Department of Defence. The hosts also explore the flood of AI‑generated disinformation on X during recent global events. Other highlights include accessibility updates for Twitch and WhatsApp via new scripts and add‑ons, the rise of modular laptops at Mobile World Congress, and a nostalgic detour into CD ripping, 3D printing for blind users, and the enduring value of accessible tech tools. Call to Action Support accessible tech conversations!

In this episode, we explore the high-stakes confrontation between Anthropic and the US Department of Defense, detailing Anthropic's red lines for AI usage and the Pentagon's subsequent blacklisting. We also discuss how OpenAI, led by Sam Altman, stepped in to secure a canceled Department of Defense contract from Anthropic, raising questions about AI ethics, government control, and the future of AI in national security.Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Conflict01:51 Anthropic's Red Lines03:41 Pentagon's Stance and Risks04:55 Anthropic Blacklisted, OpenAI Steps In07:44 Deployment Differences and Public Reaction08:58 Strategic Implications and Future Outlook LinksGet the top 40+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiAI Chat YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@JaedenSchaferJoin my AI Hustle Community: https://www.skool.com/aihustle See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, we explore the high-stakes confrontation between Anthropic and the US Department of Defense, detailing Anthropic's red lines for AI usage and the Pentagon's subsequent blacklisting. We also discuss how OpenAI, led by Sam Altman, stepped in to secure a canceled Department of Defense contract from Anthropic, raising questions about AI ethics, government control, and the future of AI in national security.Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Conflict01:51 Anthropic's Red Lines03:41 Pentagon's Stance and Risks04:55 Anthropic Blacklisted, OpenAI Steps In07:44 Deployment Differences and Public Reaction08:58 Strategic Implications and Future Outlook LinksGet the top 40+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiAI Chat YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@JaedenSchaferJoin my AI Hustle Community: https://www.skool.com/aihustle See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, we explore the high-stakes confrontation between Anthropic and the US Department of Defense, detailing Anthropic's red lines for AI usage and the Pentagon's subsequent blacklisting. We also discuss how OpenAI, led by Sam Altman, stepped in to secure a canceled Department of Defense contract from Anthropic, raising questions about AI ethics, government control, and the future of AI in national security.Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Conflict01:51 Anthropic's Red Lines03:41 Pentagon's Stance and Risks04:55 Anthropic Blacklisted, OpenAI Steps In07:44 Deployment Differences and Public Reaction08:58 Strategic Implications and Future Outlook LinksGet the top 40+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiAI Chat YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@JaedenSchaferJoin my AI Hustle Community: https://www.skool.com/aihustle

In this episode, we explore the high-stakes confrontation between Anthropic and the US Department of Defense, detailing Anthropic's red lines for AI usage and the Pentagon's subsequent blacklisting. We also discuss how OpenAI, led by Sam Altman, stepped in to secure a canceled Department of Defense contract from Anthropic, raising questions about AI ethics, government control, and the future of AI in national security.Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Conflict01:51 Anthropic's Red Lines03:41 Pentagon's Stance and Risks04:55 Anthropic Blacklisted, OpenAI Steps In07:44 Deployment Differences and Public Reaction08:58 Strategic Implications and Future Outlook LinksGet the top 40+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiAI Chat YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@JaedenSchaferJoin my AI Hustle Community: https://www.skool.com/aihustle See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, we explore the high-stakes confrontation between Anthropic and the US Department of Defense, detailing Anthropic's red lines for AI usage and the Pentagon's subsequent blacklisting. We also discuss how OpenAI, led by Sam Altman, stepped in to secure a canceled Department of Defense contract from Anthropic, raising questions about AI ethics, government control, and the future of AI in national security.Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Conflict01:51 Anthropic's Red Lines03:41 Pentagon's Stance and Risks04:55 Anthropic Blacklisted, OpenAI Steps In07:44 Deployment Differences and Public Reaction08:58 Strategic Implications and Future Outlook LinksGet the top 40+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiAI Chat YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@JaedenSchaferJoin my AI Hustle Community: https://www.skool.com/aihustle See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, we explore the high-stakes confrontation between Anthropic and the US Department of Defense, detailing Anthropic's red lines for AI usage and the Pentagon's subsequent blacklisting. We also discuss how OpenAI, led by Sam Altman, stepped in to secure a canceled Department of Defense contract from Anthropic, raising questions about AI ethics, government control, and the future of AI in national security.Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Conflict01:51 Anthropic's Red Lines03:41 Pentagon's Stance and Risks04:55 Anthropic Blacklisted, OpenAI Steps In07:44 Deployment Differences and Public Reaction08:58 Strategic Implications and Future Outlook LinksGet the top 40+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiAI Chat YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@JaedenSchaferJoin my AI Hustle Community: https://www.skool.com/aihustle

In this episode, we explore the high-stakes confrontation between Anthropic and the US Department of Defense, detailing Anthropic's red lines for AI usage and the Pentagon's subsequent blacklisting. We also discuss how OpenAI, led by Sam Altman, stepped in to secure a canceled Department of Defense contract from Anthropic, raising questions about AI ethics, government control, and the future of AI in national security.Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Conflict01:51 Anthropic's Red Lines03:41 Pentagon's Stance and Risks04:55 Anthropic Blacklisted, OpenAI Steps In07:44 Deployment Differences and Public Reaction08:58 Strategic Implications and Future Outlook LinksGet the top 40+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiAI Chat YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@JaedenSchaferJoin my AI Hustle Community: https://www.skool.com/aihustle See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What happens when AI makes intelligence essentially free — and unlimited energy plus humanoid robots make physical labour free too? The economic models we've built our entire civilisation on stop working. In this episode I sit down with Cern Basher — a CFA charterholder, CIO of Brilliant Advice, and one of the sharpest minds at the intersection of AI, Bitcoin, and macroeconomics. Originally from New Zealand, Cern has built a massive following for his work connecting the dots between exponential technology and the future of money. We go deep on his thesis that AI and Bitcoin are two sides of the same coin — AI collapses the cost of intelligence (deflationary), and Bitcoin provides a monetary system that can't be inflated away. We explore Jason Lowery's Softwar thesis (which the US Department of Defence placed under security review), why AI agents will naturally adopt Bitcoin for autonomous transactions, and Cern's provocative argument that infinite output multiplied by zero price equals zero GDP — making our most fundamental economic metric meaningless. If you've ever wondered what the economy actually looks like when abundance replaces scarcity, this is the conversation. In this episode we discuss: Why AI and Bitcoin are "two sides of the same coin" Jason Lowery's Softwar thesis and why the DoD took notice How AI is already contributing more to US GDP growth than consumer spending Why AI agents need Bitcoin — permissionless, no KYC, no intermediaries Cern's "death of GDP" thesis — infinite supply × zero price = zero GDP The dematerialisation of physical products (cameras, maps, books, money) What this means for New Zealand and small economies How abundance economics breaks traditional supply and demand Links mentioned: Cern Basher on X: https://x.com/CernBasher Brilliant Advice: https://www.brilliantadvice.net Cern's GDP post: https://x.com/CernBasher/status/1913993658572984440 Jason Lowery's Softwar thesis: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/153030

Last Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the President is not authorized to impose tariffs, affirming that Congress alone has the power to tax. Entrepreneur and pastor Mark Franco joins Russell, Mike, and Clarissa to discuss the future of tariffs. Then, President Trump suggests that he would launch a strike on Iran if they do not back down from their nuclear weapons program. Jonathan Schanzer stops by to share about Iranian protests and possible regime change. Finally, President Trump's annual State of the Union address lasted a record breaking 1 hour and 48 minutes. Mike, Clarissa and Harvest Prude recap the highlights. REFERENCED IN THE EPISODE: Trump's SOTU Heralded a Revival. The Data Is Mixed. - Harvest Prude ABOUT THE GUESTS: Mark Franco is the president and CEO at MXD Process, a company that oversees the manufacturing and supply of industrial process equipment, and serves as the managing partner at Soterra Capital. Prior to that, he was the principal at Franconia Enterprises and president at Unified Manufacturing and Design, LLC. Mark is a pastor at Sojourn Community Church. Jonathan Schanzer is senior vice president for research at Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), and he is also on the leadership team of FDD's Center on Economic and Financial Power. He previously worked as a terrorism finance analyst at the US Department of the Treasury. Schanzer has appeared on CNN, Fox News, Al-Arabiya, and Al-Jazeera. Harvest Prude is Christianity Today's national political correspondent and a congressional reporter based in Washington, DC. She is a former reporter for The Dispatch and World, having served there as political reporter for their Washington bureau. GO DEEPER WITH THE BULLETIN: Join the conversation at our Substack. Find us on YouTube. Rate and review the show in your podcast app of choice. ABOUT THE BULLETIN: The Bulletin is a twice-weekly politics and current events show from Christianity Today moderated by Clarissa Moll, with senior commentary from Russell Moore (Christianity Today's editor-at-large and columnist) and Mike Cosper (senior contributor). Each week, the show explores current events and breaking news and shares a Christian perspective on issues that are shaping our world. We also offer special one-on-one conversations with writers, artists, and thought leaders whose impact on the world brings important significance to a Christian worldview, like Bono, Sharon McMahon, Harrison Scott Key, Frank Bruni, and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

State Rep Brad Christ joins Maria Keena after the US Department of Justice released a report on seclusion and restraint practices used by the Special School District. He has unrelated pending legislation that would allow school districts to withdraw from SSD.

The AI companies are in a battle with the US Department of Defense/War The US government has plans to use AI and wants to work with Anthropic but anthropic isn't so sure. The government wants unrestricted access, no guardrails, no safety protection that is usually built into the Claude chatbot to prevent misuse. Anthropic is especially concerned about using AI to survey the public, and carry out lethal strikes without human involvement. The DOD/W is threatening to invoke the Defence Production Act - which would force the company to make its product available - or label it a 'supply chain risk' to prevent military suppliers from using it. Anthropic has pointed out that it's a little contradictory to say that it is both essential and not to be used in the same threat. Open AI is backing Anthropic. Open AI raised more money - more circular money merry-go-rounds This time Amazon is throwing them tens of billions of dollars in exchange to use their in-house made chips and the AWS products. Bloomberg created a graphic showing all the AI deals and investments and it's wild just how many arrows are pointing every which way. Some analysts are nervous that if the AI boom turns to bust, there will be massive ripple effects. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"One thing that I really was not as aware of as perhaps I should have been, was the deep and abiding Congolese sense of having a long term relationship with the United States."Ambassador Tamlyn has spent much of her career working across Africa, from Sudan and the Central African Republic to Mozambique, Chad, and now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The DRC has Africa's fourth-largest population at around 112 million. Yet it remains one of its poorest countries and that's despite being the world's biggest producer of cobalt. Vast mineral wealth has in part fuelled a two-decade-long conflict in the east, one the United States has been trying to end. Could this be a breakthrough for a new foreign policy approach known as 'commercial diplomacy'? I spoke to one of Washington's most experienced ambassadors. Plus: Why the US needs to care about Congo

The US Department of Defense has required tech company Anthropic to fully release its AI tools for military purposes. If the CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, does not agree to this by Friday, the Pentagon is threatening with severe consequences... - Das US-Verteidigungsministerium hat von dem Tech-Konzern Anthropic verlangt, seine KI-Tools vollständig für militärische Anwendungen freizugeben. Sollte der CEO von Anthropic, Dario Amodei, dem bis Freitag nicht zustimmen, droht das Pentagon mit scharfen Konsequenzen.

Over the weekend the Mexican military killed a top cartel leader in a capture operation. Violence erupted after the news broke. To talk about how this will impact U.S. security is John Cohen, former undersecretary of intelligence and counter-terrorism coordinator for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The former US ambassador Peter Mandelson is on bail after being arrested on suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office. Police have been investigating claims that when he was Business secretary, he shared market-sensitive government information with the financier Jeffrey Epstein. His arrest comes a few days after police arrested Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, also on suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office, when he was a trade envoy. He is suspected of sharing confidential government documents with Epstein. The arrests come after the release of a large number of files by the US Department of Justice. These relate to the activities of Jeffrey Epstein, who was a convicted sex offender. He died in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of the sex-trafficking of underage girls. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was friends with Epstein. So was Lord Mandelson. The BBC has approached Andrew Mountbatten Windsor for a response to these claims. He has always rejected any wrongdoing in connection with Jeffrey Epstein and denied any personal gain from his role as trade envoy. Lord Mandelson has not publicly commented in recent weeks on the Epstein files, but the BBC understands his position is he has not acted in any way criminally and that he was not motivated by financial gain.But what exactly is Misconduct in Public Office? It's a common law offence, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but the Law Commission of England and Wales describes it as "ill-defined ". So how did it evolve, who does it apply to, how does it work in practice? Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan Editor: Tom Bigwood Senior Producer: Ravi Naik Producer: Charlotte RowlesContributors: Gareth Roberts, Barrister, Exchange chambers Kate Bex KC, Red Lion chambers Jeremy Horder, Professor of Criminal Law, the London School of Economics Dr Hayleigh Bosher, a Reader in Intellectual Property Law at Brunel, University of London.

In this episode - John discusses the recent blizzard affecting the Northeast, the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's tariffs, and the ongoing political drama surrounding the State of the Union address. Then, he is joined by Professor Corey Brettschneider. The conversation touches on critical issues such as executive overreach, judicial accountability, and the state of democracy. Next, John speaks with Miles Taylor who is a national security expert that works in Washington, DC. Taylor previously served as chief of staff at the US Department of Homeland Security, where he published an “Anonymous” essay in The New York Times, blowing the whistle on presidential misconduct. He later published the #1 national bestseller A Warning, revealed himself to be the author, and launched a campaign of ex-officials to oppose Donald Trump's reelection. He's worked as an advisor in the George W. Bush administration, on Capitol Hill, as a CNN contributor, and is the cofounder of a DC-based charter school and multiple democracy-reform groups. His latest book is "BLOWBACK". And winding it up, comedian Rhonda Hansome returns to joke with John and listeners about the State of the Union boycotts and Toddler Trump's Tirades and Tantrums.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Trump has aggressively used tariffs as an economic tool, but a US Supreme Court decision on Friday struck down his sweeping tariffs, bringing new uncertainty. The court, in a 6-to-3 decision, ruled that the president had exceeded his authority when he imposed tariffs on nearly every US trading partner last year. President Trump moved swiftly to work around the court by imposing levies using other trade powers. On Saturday, Trump said that he would raise the new global tariff rate to 15%, using a provision in a law that allows him to impose an across-the-board tariff. This measure can only be enacted for 150 days unless Congress agrees to extend it. Trump also said he would use the act to investigate other countries' unfair trade practices, which could result in additional tariffs.  What does the Supreme Court ruling mean for the president's ability to wield tariffs for geopolitical pressure? How will this impact US trading partners and existing trade deals? And what about the impact on the energy sector, from oil and gas to clean energy products?  Today on the show, Jason Bordoff speaks with two researchers from the Center on Global Energy Policy, Richard Nephew and Trevor Sutton, to unpack the ruling. Richard formerly served as the US deputy special envoy for Iran under the Biden administration, where he played a key role in negotiations over the Iran nuclear deal. From 2013-2015, Richard also served as the Principal Deputy Sanctions Coordinator at the US Department of State. Trevor focuses on the intersection of trade, climate, and industrial policy. He leads the center's program on trade and the clean energy transition. Trevor previously served as research director of the Remaking Trade for a Sustainable Future project. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Doug McHoney (PwC's International Tax Services Global Leader) is joined by Wade Sutton, a PwC principal who leads the International Tax Team in PwC's Washington National Tax Services Practice and previously served as Deputy International Tax Counsel at the US Department of the Treasury. Doug and Wade discuss late-2025 Treasury and IRS guidance implementing cross-border provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), focusing on transition and compliance mechanics that surface on 2025 returns. They walk through Notice 2025-72 (CFC year-end conformity and short-period foreign tax allocation), Notice 2025-75 (final-year coordination of the 'hot potato' rule with Section 951A(2)(B) as the regime shifts to pro rata attribution), Notice 2025-77 (a 10% foreign tax credit haircut for taxes tied to certain previously taxed distributions), and Notice 2025-78 (limits on deduction-eligible export income for certain property and IP sales). They close with downstream interactions (especially CAMT and loss/FTC limitations) and how Pillar Two 'side-by-side' dynamics may influence structuring.

The Cognitive Crucible is a forum that presents different perspectives and emerging thought leadership related to the information environment. The opinions expressed by guests are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of or endorsement by the Information Professionals Association. During this episode, Doug Abdiel discusses the vivid operational problem of GPS-denied or GPS-degraded environments and how Advanced Navigation is helping operators cut through the fog of modern warfare. Recording Date: 16 Feb 2026 Research Question: Doug Abdiel suggests an interested student or researcher examine the computationally challenging problem of peer-to-peer solutions for signals. Resources: Cognitive Crucible Podcast Episodes Mentioned #237 Josh Segal on Ukraine, Electronic Warfare, and Fast Battlefield Innovation Advanced Navigation P&G Purpose: We believe that every person deserves a chance to obtain long-term, sustainable employment for themselves and their families. For some people, this has never been a problem. For others, through circumstances outside of their control, be it war, famine, or countless other issues, they have never been able to have this sustainable employment. We aim to bridge that gap, helping those people obtain the job skills that they need to succeed. Cigarette Lighter Airport Jammer Battlefield Cellphone Usage Global Navigation Satellite Systems, Inertial Navigation, and Integration by Mohinder S. Grewal, Angus P. Andrews, and Chris G. Bartone Link to full show notes and resources Guest Bio: Doug Abdiel is Global VP Customer Experience and Support at Advanced Navigation, a global leader in autonomous systems and navigation technology. In addition to being a Navigator, Doug is a U.S. Marine, and has served on active duty and in the reserves, where he is currently a Lieutenant Colonel, since 2003. Doug is an experienced leader with a record of driving change in the internet, defence, and social sectors for the past two decades. He has practiced in competitive intelligence, strategic/operational planning, and partnership business development across the Asia-Pacific. Doug is recognized for high-double-digit YoY growth and concurrent cost reduction on eleven-figure P&Ls. He is a community-minded founder, director, and chair of a multimillion-dollar social enterprise that provided over 50 people their first, and most importantly a pathway to their second, jobs in Australia. Doug's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Department of War, Department of the Navy, or the US Marine Corps. About: The Information Professionals Association (IPA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to exploring the role of information activities, such as influence and cognitive security, within the national security sector and helping to bridge the divide between operations and research. Its goal is to increase interdisciplinary collaboration between scholars and practitioners and policymakers with an interest in this domain. For more information, please contact us at communications@information-professionals.org. Or, connect directly with The Cognitive Crucible podcast host, John Bicknell, on LinkedIn. Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, 1) IPA earns from qualifying purchases, 2) IPA gets commissions for purchases made through links in this post.

As global demand for meat grows, this episode of Duke University's Leading Voices in Food podcast examines cell-cultivated protein—real meat grown from animal cells—and the evolving U.S. policy landscape shaping its future. Host Norbert Wilson (Duke World Food Policy Center) speaks with postdoctoral researchers Kate Consavage Stanley (Duke/Bezos Center for Sustainable Proteins) and Katariina Koivusaari (NC State/Bezos Center) about their article in Trends in Food Science and Technology on U.S. regulatory and legislative activity. The conversation explains the joint FDA–USDA regulatory approach for cell-cultivated meat (FDA oversight through cell cultivation; USDA oversight from harvest through processing, packaging, and labeling) and FDA oversight for cell-cultivated seafood (except catfish). They discuss timelines companies report for approval (often two to three years), the lack of federal public guidance on naming and labeling so far, and how USDA label approvals are currently handled case by case (e.g., "cell-cultivated chicken" and "cell-cultivated pork"). The episode also covers state-level labeling laws and the likelihood of federal preemption if state requirements conflict with federal statutes, as well as a growing wave of state restrictions and bans—Florida and Alabama in 2024, followed by Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and Texas in 2025—plus funding restrictions in South Dakota and Iowa. The guests explore implications for consumers, interstate commerce, innovation, investment, and U.S. leadership, noting ongoing lawsuits in Florida and Texas and continued legislative activity such as a proposed ban in Georgia.   Interview Transcript Kate, let's begin with you. In the paper, you write about the regulatory frameworks that have been developed for cell-cultivated meat and seafood products in the US. To start, let's talk about what's unique about cell-cultivated products from a regulatory standpoint and how the US Department of Agriculture and US Food and Drug Administration have decided to handle cell-cultivated protein products. Kate - Yes, so as you mentioned in the introduction, Norbert, cell-cultivation is a new technology for use of the food supply. So, the US government had to adapt its existing legal frameworks for food safety regulation. As your listeners may already know seafood is regulated by the FDA, so it was within their scope to also regulate cell-cultivated seafood. The FDA therefore regulates all cell-cultivated seafood products with the exception of catfish. When it came to determining the regulatory approach for cell-cultivated products from livestock, poultry, and catfish, it was a bit more nuanced as the processes and components evolved fell under both USDA and FDA purview. In 2019, the FDA and USDA therefore agreed on a joint regulatory approach where the FDA regulates the early stages of the cell cultivation process, including when those cells are taken from the animal, grown in the bioreactor, and matured into specific cell types such as muscle or fat cells. At the point where those cells are ready to be harvested from the bioreactor to use in a food product, oversight transfers to USDA who oversees that harvesting process as well as food processing, packaging, and labeling. I know this joint regulatory approach may sound complicated, but it's important to note that USDA and FDA already coordinate oversight over other foods in the food supply. I'll give you an example that we all love pizza. A frozen cheese pizza is regulated by the FDA, whereas a frozen pizza with meat toppings like pepperoni is regulated by the USDA. It is therefore not unprecedented that FDA and USDA would agree to jointly regulate cell-cultivated products. And while the process is new, the products go through the same safety checks as other foods in the food supply. In the past few years, we've seen four cell-cultivated meat products go through the joint USDA-FDA regulatory process, meaning they can be sold in the US food supply. And one cell-cultivated seafood product has gone through the FDA regulatory process. Kate, thank you for sharing this. And I've used a pizza example in my class, and it is super complex this regulatory maze that we're talking about. It seems like there has been a lot of collaboration between these two agencies, and so that's important to hear. But it is also the case that it seems challenging for cell-cultivated protein companies to get through this process. Is this a fair assessment and would you elaborate? Kate - Yes, absolutely. We've heard from cell-cultivated companies that it can take two to three years to get through this process. And there certainly is a lot of back and forth between the companies and FDA and USDA. Great, thank you. Katariina, now let's turn to you. How do these regulations extend to labeling and what do we know about the federal government's approach to labeling the sale of cultivated products thus far? Katariina – So, labeling regulations are the most consumer facing part of regulations, really. And they are used to ensure that the product label has information that's truthful, that's not misleading. And that the package has sufficient information and consistent information also across products so that the consumer can make an educated decision on what product they want to purchase. And you'd think that how you label the product or just how you call the product on the label would be simple. But there are certain regulations in place that define how food items can or cannot be called. Now, when it comes to cell-cultivated products, as you and Kate mentioned, they are novel in the food supply. So, there is not a long-established term or nomenclature on how we should call these products. The federal regulators, FDA and USDA, to date have not released any public guidance either on how these products should be called on the label. The USDA did release an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking back in 2021, requesting comments from stakeholders on how these products should be labeled. And the FDA has also requested comments when it comes to labeling cell-cultivated fish and seafood. But to date, no guidance has been published yet. Kate gave an overview of the regulatory process between FDA and UFDA when it comes to labeling this product products. The USDA oversees labeling cell-cultivated meat, and the FDA oversees labeling cell-cultivated fish and seafood. The USDA has a pre-market approval process for labels, similarly to conventional meat industry. So, whenever a company wants to bring to market a new product, they first submit their label to the USDA. And the USDA reviews it and make sure that they agree with the language used in the label. The FDA does not have a similar pre-market approval process for labeling fish or seafood or cell-cultivated fish or seafood. So, currently cell-cultivated meat labels are approved on a case-by-case basis. And we can see from the products that have gone through the regulatory review so far that the USDA seem to approve the use of 'cell-cultivated' as a qualifying term, together with a meaty term such as chicken or pork. So, the products that we've seen approved to date or brought to market to date are called cell-cultivated chicken or cell-cultivated pork. This is really helpful to know what's happened at the federal level. We also know that there are several actions happening at the state level, so several states have proposed their own laws outlining how and what to label these products. Katariina, can you talk us through what this study regarding state labeling? Katariina - To date, about half of the US states have enacted or proposed their own labeling legislation on cell-cultivated products. Missouri became the first state in 2018, so well before any of these products was available on the market. And they specifically prohibited the use of word meat unless the food was from harvested production livestock or poultry. Restricting, therefore, the use of meat not only on cell-cultivated, but also on other alternative protein products such as plant-based meat analogs or fermentation derived proteins. And this is true for many state level labeling laws. That they are applicable not only to cell-cultivated meat, but also other alternative proteins aiming to mimic meat. In addition to Missouri, there are six other states that prohibit the use of meat or meat related terms, such as chicken or pork. Now, the other group of states that have restrictions on cell-cultivated meat labeling do not concentrate on prohibiting the use of word meat, but they require the use of qualifying terms or other additional language that clearly states that the product does not come from livestock or poultry. And this group of states, there are 18 states, have quite a bit of variation in what kind of qualifying terms they require to be used. And I thought I'd give a couple of examples here. For example, Indiana requires the package to include the phrase this is an imitation meat product. Iowa requires the product to be labeled with qualifying terms such as cell-cultivated, cell-cultured, fake, grown in a lab, imitation, lab grown, lab created, meat free, or meatless. What's interesting though is that the federal statutes that regulate the US food supply have actual language that prevents states from establishing laws or regulations that conflict with or are additional to the federal labeling regulations. So, this means that the state level labeling laws are actually likely to be preempted if they conflict with the federal regulations. So, we've only talked about labeling so far. Kate, I want to go back to you. More recently, we've seen a number of states propose greater restrictions on these products. Can you describe these attempts to restrict cell-cultivated meat and their immediate implications? And how have cell-cultivated companies and other stakeholders responded? Kate - In the past few years we've seen quite a few attempts by states to ban or restrict cell-cultivated meats. And these attempts fall into two buckets: bans that aim to restrict the manufacturer sale or distribution of cell-cultivated products and bans that aim to limit the use of state funding to support these products. In 2024, Florida was the first state to pass a ban on the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cell-cultivated meats. Alabama followed shortly thereafter. In 2025, five more states passed similar bans on cell-cultivated products, including Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and Texas. And many other states proposed bans that ultimately didn't pass. The language on what is banned differs some between states. For instance, Texas only bans the sale of cell-cultivated products. Whereas Florida and others also ban cell-cultivated manufacturing and distribution. But the core message in all these bans is similar. Cell-cultivated meats are not welcome in those states. The time span for the bans differs too. So, Indiana and Texas have two-year bans while Florida and other states passed indefinite bans. And we've seen two states, South Dakota and Iowa pass legislation to restrict the use of state funding to support cell-cultivated products. What's frustrating about these bands and confusing for those in the alternative protein sector is that cell-cultivated technology is largely still in the early stages. Yes, as I mentioned earlier, five products have passed through the regulatory process. But these products have mainly been made available in small tasting events. And only one has actually made it to retail. Most Americans have never had a chance to actually try these products. So, it begs the question, why is there such resistance? State bans on these products mean that Americans will not have the chance to decide for themselves if they like these products, or if and how they want to incorporate them into what they eat. Another big concern is that these bans create a fragmented policy landscape that's challenging for cell-cultivated startups, especially, to navigate. And it raises a lot of concerns about cross state sales. Concerns like these are the basis for two lawsuits against cell-cultivated bans in Florida and Texas. Those lawsuits are still playing out in court, so we don't yet know how those may Kate, this is really fascinating. And as both you and Katariina described, there's a patchwork of policies and a complex landscape for these companies to navigate. It has the potential of keeping consumers from even trying the products, as you've already suggested, when they're made available. And what I'm hearing from both of you is that this is an ongoing project. So even though there's a paper that's published now, it seems like there will be opportunities to keep going back as new laws and new regulations and new lawsuits are decided. So, this is a policy space that we need to keep an eye on. That's something I want to pick up on this last question. In closing, what does this legislation mean for consumers and the future of cell-cultivated products in the US and even globally? Katariina, let's begin with you. Katariina - Yes. In addition to impeding interstate and international commerce of cell-cultivated products, these bans could negatively impact the US investment climate on these products and technologies. For example, China has included developing cell-cultivated meat in their five-year plan. Within Europe, there's some variation. Some countries are being rather supportive of these technologies and products, whereas others have tried to ban them similarly to some US states. But I think it's important to note that even with some states in the US banning these products, the US will still likely remain a significant market area for cell-cultivated products. And it still takes significant investment and infrastructure to produce the products on a large scale enough to even reach the whole country. Another really important thing to mention here is that the global demand for meat is growing. If we look at global population forecasts, global meat or protein consumption forecasts, we need these alternative proteins. Not only cell-cultivated meat, but also for example, plant-based meat alternatives to help meet the increasing demand for protein and complement conventional meat supply. Kate, what about you?   Kate – I agree with everything that Katariina said. To add on to her points, I note that the US has been a leader in the cell-cultivated research development and innovation spaces to date. We are one of only a few countries that have both developed a framework for regulating these products and had products successfully pass through that process. The bans tell a different story, and they may restrict US innovation in the cell-cultivated space because companies will be limited to only the states where they can produce and sell these products. What this means for US leadership in the space remains to be seen. However, one could ask will cell-cultivated companies choose to set up shop in the US versus another country that isn't facing such legal challenges? We don't yet know the answer to that. You also mentioned consumers. We don't yet know about how these bans and the media surrounding them may influence consumer perceptions of cell-cultivated foods. Products, as you said, they've never even really had the chance to try. But these bans will certainly restrict consumer access to these products in certain states, and the varying state approaches to labeling that Katariina described are likely to confuse consumers. Going back to something you mentioned earlier, Norbert, we're excited to have this paper out in the world. But this work is certainly continuing to evolve. Just recently, a senator in Georgia proposed a new ban on cell-cultivated meat in the state, and other countries have faced similar legislative challenges against these products. So, we'll be watching and learning as these challenges continue to play out. Bios Katariina Koivusaari, Ph.D. is a postdoctoral researcher at the Bezos Center for Sustainable Protein at North Carolina State University. Her work focuses on stakeholder engagement and the regulatory and policy landscape of alternative proteins, including cell-cultivated products, fermentation-derived proteins, and plant-based proteins. She received her Ph.D. in Public Health Nutrition and M.Sc. in Food Sciences from the University of Helsinki. Prior to her current role, she worked in the biotechnology industry as a Senior Regulatory Scientist, where she focused on scientific strategy and regulatory affairs related to cell-cultured human milk ingredients. Katherine (Kate) Consavage Stanley, Ph.D., serves as a postdoctoral associate within the World Food Policy Center at the Sanford School. In this role, Kate supports Duke's research for the Bezos Center for Sustainable Protein housed at NC State. Her research seeks to detail the complexities of the consumer, market, and policy landscapes for alternative protein products. Kate holds a Ph.D. from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where her research focused on how diverse U.S. food and health systems actors can support sustainable diet transitions through promoting plant-rich dietary patterns and reducing red and processed meat intake. She has also published scholarly work on digital food and nutrition literacy, sugary beverage media campaigns, and incorporating sustainability considerations into dietary guidelines, among others. Prior to starting her doctoral studies, Kate worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) where she developed technical, communications, and advocacy-focused materials on key nutrition and maternal and child health issues. Kate holds a Master of Science in global health from Georgetown University and a Bachelor of Science in biology from Emmanuel College.      

-The US Department of Defense has reportedly reached a deal to use Elon Musk's Grok in its classified systems. That's according to a report by Axios. That follows news that the Pentagon is currently in a dispute with another AI company, Anthropic, over limits on its technology for things like mass surveillance. -Anthropic is issuing a call to action against AI "distillation attacks," after accusing three AI companies of misusing its Claude chatbot. On its website, Anthropic claimed that DeepSeek, Moonshot and MiniMax have been conducting "industrial-scale campaigns…to illicitly extract Claude's capabilities to improve their own models." -Bungie isn't taking any prisoners when it comes to cheating on its upcoming extraction shooter, Marathon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Resources shared in this episode: Gallop Poll January 2026 on AI use: https://apnews.com/article/ai-workplace-gemini-chatgpt-poll-4934bc61d039508db32bc49f85d63d99Build Consulting 5 Category AI Implementation Framework by Kyle Haines: https://buildconsulting.com/blog/a-strategic-framework-for-nonprofit-ai-investment/1: Return on Investment - what are you trying to do, and is an AI tool the best way to do it? 2. Technical and Data Feasibility - are you ready? Is your data ready? 3. Mitigating AI Risks - legal, ethical, reputational...4. Anticipating Costs - AI tools are not free5. Change Impacts - making sure intentional change management is in place.How AI is changing search, Yoast wrap up from 2025: https://yoast.com/seo-in-2025-wrap-up/ AI Literacy Measures and Suggestions from US Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEN/2025/TEN%2007-25/TEN%2007-25%20%28complete%20document%29.pdfAI Literacy Measures: 1. Understand AI Concepts2. Explore AI Uses3. Direct AI Effectively4. Evaluate AI Outputs5. Use AI ResponsiblyDelivery Principles for AI Literacy Growth1. Enable Experiential Learning2. Embed Learning in Context3. Build Complementary Human Skills 4. Address Prerequisites to AI Literacy5. Create Pathways for AI Learning6. Prepare Enabling Roles7. Design for AgilityWebinar: How to Use AI Tools Safely at Your Nonprofit with Matthew Eshleman. https://communityit.com/webinar-how-to-use-ai-tools-safely-at-nonprofits/ _______________________________Start a conversation :) Register to attend a webinar in real time, and find all past transcripts at https://communityit.com/webinars/ email Carolyn at cwoodard@communityit.com on LinkedIn Thanks for listening.

"If we stop mining, we stop our way of life."The Lobito Corridor is more than just a railway; it is a strategic lifeline connecting the Atlantic port of Lobito in Angola to the mineral rich Copperbelt in the DRC and Zambia. In this episode, host Claude Grunitzky sits down with explorer and presenter Dwayne Fields and Sam Williams, Head of Communications at Africell, to discuss the revival of this historic infrastructure. We explore why the U.S. government is mobilizing private capital to secure access to critical minerals like copper and rare earths, which are essential for the global economy. From Dwayne's personal genetic journey back to his ancestral roots in the Copperbelt to Africell's mission to digitize the corridor, this episode examines the intersection of high stakes geopolitics and the human stories of the communities on the ground. Can large scale mining truly benefit ordinary Africans? We look at the risks of exploitation and environmental damage versus the potential for jobs, connectivity, and local prosperity.Plus: why a telecommunications company is making a documentary

The former prince has not publicly responded to the latest allegations to emerge after the US Department of Justice released millions of documents related to Epstein. Mountbatten-Windsor has repeatedly denied all allegations of wrongdoing and said he never witnessed or suspected any of the behavior that Epstein was accused of. He has not commented on the recent allegations of misconduct in public office. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Peace Through Strength, America's Navy with LCDR Steve Rogers USN (Ret) – The Secretary of War and his department have helped lead America out of serious danger, addressing the consequences of policies that critics promoted in previous years and still advocate for today. And I mean out of grave danger. I salute, along with millions of Americans, the work the team at America's War Department is...

Historic scenes in Sandringham, as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Our royal experts talk through what we know, and what this means for the royal family.Plain-clothed police officers were seen arriving at the royal property, before Thames Valley Police confirmed the news of an arrest.Shortly afterwards, King Charles III released an unprecedented statement expressing his 'deepest concern' over the news of his brother's arrest. The monarch added that “nobody is above the law”. It comes just weeks after more than 3 million files relating to Jeffrey Epstein were released by the US Department of Justice.So what next for the royal family? What exactly is going on behind palace doors? And should the royal family have acted earlier?

The Department of Justice has faced backlash from members of Congress and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein following the release of millions of documents with inconsistent redactions of key names and details. Vicky Ward, investigative journalist and author of books including Kushner, Inc. (St. Martin's Press, 2019) and, with James Patterson, The Idaho Four: An American Tragedy (Little, Brown and Company, 2025), and David Enrich, deputy investigations editor for The New York Times, talk about some of the recent developments in the Epstein case and its growing international fallout.Photo: This photograph taken in Le-Perreux-sur-Marne, outside Paris on February 9, 2026 shows undated pictures provided by the US Department of Justice on January 30, 2026 as part of the Jeffrey Epstein files (Photo by Martin Bureau/AFP via Getty Images) 

This week we talk about mass surveillance, smart doorbells, and the Patriot Stack.We also discuss Amazon, Alexa, and the Super Bowl.Recommended Book: Red Moon by Benjamin PercyTranscriptIn 2002, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the US government created a new agency—the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, operating under the auspices of the US Department of Homeland Security, which was also formed that year for the same general reason, to defend against 9/11-style attacks in the future.As with a whole lot of what was done in the years following the 9/11 attacks, a lot of what this agency, and its larger department did could be construed as a sort of overcompensation by a government and a people who were reeling from the first real, large-scale attack within their borders from a foreign entity in a very long time. It was a horrific event, everyone felt very vulnerable and scared, and consequently the US government could do a lot of things that typically would not have had the public's support, like rewiring how airports and flying works in the country, creating all sorts of new hurdles and imposing layers of what's often called security theater, to make people feel safe.While the TSA was meant to handle things on the front-lines of air transportation, though, X-raying and patting-down and creating a significant new friction for everyone wanting to get on a plane, ICE was meant to address another purported issue: that of people coming into the US from elsewhere, illegally, and then sticking around long enough to cause trouble. More specifically, ICE was meant to help improve public safety by strictly enforcing at times lax immigration laws, by tracking down and expelling illegal immigrants from the country; the theory being that some would-be terrorists may have snuck into the US and might be getting ready to kill US citizens from within our own borders.There's not a lot of evidence to support that assertion—the vast majority of terrorism that happens in the US is conducted by citizens, mostly those adhering to a far-right or other extremist ideologies. But that hasn't moved the needle on public perception of the issue, which still predominantly leans toward stricter border controls and more assiduous moderation of non-citizens within US borders—for all sorts of reasons, not just security ones.What I'd like to talk about today is an offshoot of the war on terror and this vigilance about immigrants in the US, and how during the second Trump administration, tech companies have been entangling themselves with immigration-enforcement agencies like ICE to create sophisticated surveillance networks.—In mid-July of 2025, the US Department of Defense signed one of its largest contracts in its history with a tech company called Palantir Technologies. Palantir was founded and is run by billionaire Peter Thiel, who among other things is generally considered to be the reason JD Vance was chosen to be Trump's second-term Vice President. He's also generally considered to be one of, if not the main figure behind the so-called Patriot Tech movement, which consists of companies like SpaceX, Anduril, and OpenAI, all of which are connected by a web of funding arms and people who have cross-pollinated between major US tech companies and US agencies, in many cases stepping into government positions that put them in charge of the regulatory bodies that set the rules for the industries in which they worked.As a consequence of this setup and this cross-pollination, the US government now has a bunch of contracts with these entities, which has been good for the companies' bottom lines and led to reduced government regulations, and in exchange the companies are increasingly cozy with the government and its many agencies, toeing the line more than they would have previously, and offering a lot more cooperation and collaboration with the government, as well.This is especially true when it comes to data collection and surveillance, and a great deal of that sort of information and media is funneled into entities like Palantir, which aggregate and crunch it for meaning, and then send predictions and assumptions, and make services like facial-recognition technologies predicated on their vast database, available to police and ICE agents, among others such entities.There has been increasingly stiff pushback against this melding of the tech world with the government—which has always been there to some degree, but which has become even more entwined than usual, of late—and that pushback is international, even long-time allies like Canada and the EU making moves to develop their own replacements for Amazon and Google and OpenAI due to these issues, and the heightened unpredictability and chaos of the US in recent years, but it's also evident within the US, due in part to Trump's moves while in office, but also the on-the-ground realities in places like Minneapolis, where ICE agents have been brutalizing and blackbagging people, sometimes illegal immigrants, sometimes US citizens, usually non-white US citizens, and the ICE agents are being rewarded, getting bonuses, for beating up and kidnapping and in some cases murdering people, whether or not any of these people are actually criminals—and it's illegal to do that kind of thing even if they are criminals, by the way.All of which sets the scene for what happened following the Super Bowl, this year.Ring is a home security and smart home device company that is best known for its line of smart doorbells, but which also makes all sorts of security cameras and other alarm system devices.Even though smart doorbells, complete with cameras and other sorts of functionality, existed before Ring, this company basically created the smart doorbell industry as it exists today back in 2014, when it received a round of equity investment and changed its named from Doorbot to Ring. It was bought by Amazon four years later, in 2018, for a billion dollars.One of Ring's premier features is related to its camera: you can use your phone or other smart home device to see who's at your door when they ring the bell, but it can also be set to record when it detects movement, which makes it easy to check and see who stole your Amazon package from your porch when you weren't at home, for instance, and resultingly Ring door camera footage has become fundamental to reporting, and on occasion pursuing, some types of crime.As a direct result of that utility, Ring introduced its Neighbors service in mid-2018, this service serving as a sort of social network that allows Ring device users to discuss local issues, especially those related to safety and security, anonymously, while also allowing them to share photos and videos taken by their devices. This service also created relationships with local law enforcement, and allowed police to jump onto the network and request footage from Ring customers, if they thought these doorbell cams might have photos or video of someone escaping with a stolen car, for instance, which might then help the police catch that crook.It's generally assumed that Amazon probably bought Ring, at least in part, to entrench itself as the lord of the internet of things world, as it launched its Amazon Sidewalk platform in 2020, which allowed all Amazon devices, including Ring devices, to share a wireless mesh network, all of them communicating with each other and all using Amazon's Alexa as an interface.In 2023, Ring was sued by the FTC for $5.8 million because it allowed its employees and contractors to access private videos by failing to have basic security and privacy features in place—so not only could any Ring employee view their customer's private video feeds, hackers could easily access all this media and data, as well. Just one example surfaced in that lawsuit shows that a Ring employee viewed thousands of video recordings of at least 81 different female users over the course of a few months in 2017.So Amazon was building a surveillance network that worked really well, in the sense that it was predicated on popular, at times quite useful devices that people seemed to love, but which was also quite leaky, giving all sorts of people access to these supposedly private feeds, and it was shared with law enforcement via that social network. It's also been alleged that Ring (and Amazon) have used users' footage without further permission for things like facial recognition and AI training. Their partnership with police agencies also allegedly created incentives for the police to encourage citizens to buy Ring cams and other security devices for their homes, creating perverse incentives. And again, these devices connect wirelessly to other internet of things devices, expanding their reach and the potential for abuse of collected user data.In late 2025, Ring announced a new partnership with Flock Safety, a company that's best known for its security offerings, including automated license plate readers and gunshot detector systems.These are mass surveillance tools used by some governments and law enforcement entities, and they use cameras and microphones to capture license plates, people's faces, and sounds that might be gunfire and aggregate that data to be used by police, neighborhood associations, and in some cases private property owners.This sort of technology is incredibly useful to companies like Palantir, which again, aggregates and crunches it, on scale, and then shares that information with police, ICE, and other such agencies.These tools can sometimes help flag areas where guns are being fired or where crimes are being committed, but they're also imperfect and at times biased against some groups of people and areas, and some data show that not only is crime not reduced by the presence of these systems, but there's a fair bit of evidence that this data often falls into the hands of hackers or is used by employees for nefarious, stalkery purposes, as was the case with Ring's cameras. So most civil liberties groups, like the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are vehemently against them, but governments like the second Trump administration like them, because they create a surveillance mesh they can tap into and use for, for instance, figuring out where to deploy ICE agents, or, in theory at least, spying on your political enemies or ex-spouses for abuse or blackmail purposes.Ring's late-2025 announcement wasn't widely reported, but in early 2026 the company bought a Super Bowl ad to announce a new feature called Search Party, enabled by their partnership with Flock.The ad showed a neighborhood coming together to find a lost dog, using the web of doorbell cameras on all the homes in the area to track the dog and figure out where it went—all the cameras activated at once to create a surveillance mesh of live footage.This ad landed with a resounding thud,, as to many people it felt more menacing than heartwarming, the new feature overtly raising the potential that government agencies, including ICE, could tap into it to surveil and track their neighbors. The response was so negative that Ring quickly issued a statement saying that it was no longer moving forward with its Flock partnership, attempting to reassure its customers that “integration never launched, so no Ring customer videos were ever send to Flock Safety.”This result is notable in part because it's a rare instance of a major tech company backtracking on a major feature decision due to public backlash, but also because it suggests backlash against ICE is reverberating through other aspects of life and interconnected industries.Ring device users mostly buy these things for their surveillance capabilities, but the increasing, and increasingly hostile and violent acts committed by members of ICE seem to have nudged the conversation so that folks are more worried about these agents than about the porch pirates and other criminals that these devices and this partnership could ostensibly help them identify.It's too early to say what this might mean for the burgeoning patriot stack of tech companies and government agencies, but it does suggest there are limits to what people will put up with, even when those in charge are adhering to a playbook that has typically worked well for them, in the past, and the devices and services they're using to build their surveillance network are otherwise beloved by those who use them.Show Noteshttps://restofworld.org/2026/big-tech-backlash-alternatives-upscrolled/https://europeancorrespondent.com/en/r/trumps-power-switchhttps://www.authoritarian-stack.info/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/realestate/smart-home-cameras-nest-ring-privacy.htmlhttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/platforms-bend-over-backward-to-help-dhs-censor-ice-critics-advocates-say/https://www.theverge.com/report/879320/ring-flock-partnership-breakup-does-not-fix-problemshttps://www.theverge.com/news/878447/ring-flock-partnership-canceledhttps://www.404media.co/with-ring-american-consumers-built-a-surveillance-dragnet/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcementhttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/children-of-color-projected-to-be-majority-of-u-s-youth-this-yearhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(company)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flock_Safetyhttps://www.wired.com/story/ice-expansion-across-us-at-heres-where-its-going-next/https://www.wired.com/story/social-security-administration-appointment-details-ice/https://www.wired.com/story/security-news-this-week-ring-kills-flock-safety-deal-after-super-bowl-ad-uproar/https://www.wired.com/story/ice-crashing-us-court-system-minnesota/https://www.wired.com/story/palantir-ceo-alex-karp-employee-questions-on-ice/https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-ice-forum-where-agents-complain-about-their-jobs/ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

Under the second Trump administration, the US Department of Energy significantly shifted its priorities to align with its "energy dominance" agenda. But one significant point of continuity with the Biden years is a continued emphasis on energy security. Energy security means different things today than it did even a decade ago. It's about competing in the global race for artificial intelligence, reshoring manufacturing supply chains, and keeping the lights on as extreme weather events become more frequent and more destructive. But the administration's efforts to bolster energy availability at a time of surging load growth has included emergency orders to keep coal-fired power plants operating. And it has pulled back funding for new energy transmission projects that it says will not quickly lower energy costs for US consumers.  So when it comes to the administration's energy dominance agenda, what are the trade-offs between security and speed? What does the administration's waning support for renewables and low-carbon industries mean for American clean energy innovation in the coming decades? And how will the US build out new power capacity, including advanced nuclear, quickly and safely? Today on the show, Jason Bordoff speaks to the acting under secretary of energy at the US Department of Energy, Alex Fitzsimmons, about the second Trump administration's energy policy priorities. Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Just a week ago, the architect of Starmer's rise to power, Morgan McSweeney, resigned over his connections to Peter Mandelson, after further proof of Mandelson's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein emerged in the newest batch of files released by the US Department of Justice. According to this week's guest, this scandal isn't an anomaly, but an […]

So friends, can I ask you a quick question? When you think of Washington, DC, what's the first thing that comes to mind? Politics? The nation's capital? Maybe, a city where somehow we still have taxation without representation?DC has the Congress. It has the executive branch. It has the judiciary. All populated by federal government employees. All public servants. In a very real sense, DC is like the national hub for public service.The person who said that she views DC as a city of service is Kinney Zalesne. And Kinney is now running to be represent the people of DC in Congress. Kinney is running to be DC's delegate to Congress, and I sat down with Kinney to ask her why she wants to represent people of DC in Congress, and why she views DC as a city of service.Kinney Zalesne came to DC in 1995 for what was supposed to be a short stint in the Clinton White House. But she fell in love with the city, and for 30 years has never wanted to live anywhere else. She and her husband Scott have raised four kids here and been active in the community, serving in leadership positions in DC's schools, pools, parks, and nonprofits.DC gave Kinney opportunities to work across government, business, and the nonprofit sector. After serving as a White House Fellow with Vice President Gore, Kinney was Counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno at the US Department of Justice. She later helped lead the Strategy team at Microsoft. She has rolled up her sleeves in our neighborhoods, where she served as President of College Summit, a global-award-winning nonprofit, founded in a basement in Adams Morgan. College Summit helps students from low-income backgrounds go to college. Kinney was also Board Chair of a school in Ward 4 that doubled in enrollment during her tenure. And most recently, Kinney served as Deputy National Finance Chair of the DNC and National Co-Chair of Women for Harris.Of all those roles, Kinney's favorite was being President of College Summit (now called Peer Forward). The organization's mission was to make sure that every student who could make it IN college made it TO college. Kinney built large-scale, diverse, powerful coalitions across the District and then the nation to make sure tens of thousands of local students got the opportunities they deserved. Kinney's skills and experiences are what DC needs now. She will build a broad-based, lasting, nationwide coalition of people to defend DC and ensure we remain a safe, affordable, and healthy place to live. Find Kinney at: https://www.kinneyfordc.comFind Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.