Podcasts about yale

Shirzad Chamine offers quick but powerful strategies to rewire your brain for better results.— YOU'LL LEARN — 1) Why you can't think your way out of stress2) How to take command of your mind in just 10 seconds3) How strengths become saboteursSubscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep1107 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT SHIRZAD — Shirzad Chamine is the author of the New York Times bestselling Positive Intelligence. Shirzad has lectured on Positive Intelligence® at Stanford University and has trained faculty at Stanford and Yale business schools.Shirzad has been the CEO of the largest coach training organization in the world. A preeminent C-suite advisor, Shirzad has coached hundreds of CEOs and their executive teams. His background includes a BA in psychology, an MS in electrical engineering, and an MBA from Stanford.• Book: Positive Intelligence: Why Only 20% of Teams and Individuals Achieve Their True Potential AND HOW YOU CAN ACHIEVE YOURS• Free assessment: “Saboteur Assessment"• Website: PositiveIntelligence.com— RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • Book: The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment by Eckhart Tolle— THANK YOU SPONSORS! — • Vanguard. Give your clients consistent results year in and year out with vanguard.com/AUDIO• Quince. Get free shipping and 365-day returns on your order with Quince.com/Awesome• Cashflow Podcasting. Explore launching (or outsourcing) your podcast with a free 10-minute call with Pete.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Do you ever feel overwhelmed by the news and social media, struggling to find the right English words to discuss your emotions without "freaking out"? This lesson https://adeptenglish.com/lessons/ transforms that challenge into a powerful opportunity to advance your listening skills and spoken fluency. You will learn specific, high-value vocabulary, including essential idioms for overreaction like "flip your lid" and "lose your cool," learn practical emotional regulation tips from a Yale expert, and practice comprehension with authentic, learner-paced English. By connecting psychological concepts with real-world language, this English listening lesson directly builds the advanced vocabulary and calm, articulate response style crucial for IELTS Speaking success, more confident real-world conversations, and professional communication. Watch now to understand native speakers more easily and express complex ideas with clarity and confidence.FREE 7Rules English Course: https://adeptenglish.com/7rules/FREE Transcript: https://adeptenglish.com/lessons/english-listening-practice-idioms-for-emotional-control/Level up your English for less than the price of a coffee, get 8 exclusive, ad-free podcast episodes every month. Improve your listening skills and enjoy real English conversations. Learn more: https://adeptenglish.com/faq/subscription-faq/ Subscribe on Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/adeptenglish/subscribehttps://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/adeptenglish/subscribe or Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/learn-english-through-listening/id1134891957Follow and subscribe to our podcast https://open.spotify.com/show/7ixeOS7ezPTZSaISIx2TTw and channel for more English listening lessons, IELTS listening practice, and spoken English training to support your journey to fluency.#EnglishImmersion #B2Listening #C1Listening #EnglishListeningPractice #IELTSListening #LearnEnglish #EmotionalIntelligence #EnglishVocabulary #EnglishFluency #AdvancedEnglish

From July 18, 2024: On today's episode, Matt Gluck, Research Fellow at Lawfare, spoke with Michael Beckley, Associate Professor of Political Science at Tufts, and Arne Westad, the Elihu Professor of History at Yale.They discussed Beckley's and Westad's articles in Foreign Affairs on the best path forward for the U.S.-China strategic relationship—in the economic and military contexts. Beckley argues that in the short term, the U.S. should focus on winning its security competition with China, rather than significant engagement, to prevent conflict. Westad compares the current moment to the period preceding World War I. He cautions that the U.S. and China should maintain strategic communication and avoid an overly narrow focus on competition to stave off large-scale conflict.They broke down the authors' arguments and where they agree and disagree. Does U.S. engagement lower the temperature in the relationship? Will entrenched economic interests move the countries closer to conflict? How can the U.S. credibly deter China from invading Taiwan without provoking Beijing?To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

antiochindy.com

Depuis plus de deux ans et demi, la guerre civile fait rage au Soudan, devenu un « trou noir de l'information ». Alors que s'y rendre est très compliqué, comment informer sur ce qui se passe dans ce pays ? Le journaliste Eliott Brachet, ancien correspondant de RFI à Khartoum, est l'invité de L'atelier des médias pour en discuter. La guerre civile qui ravage le Soudan depuis le 15 avril 2023 oppose les forces armées soudanaises du général Burhan aux paramilitaires des Forces de soutien rapide (FSR) du général Hemetti. L'ONU décrit la situation comme la « pire crise humanitaire au monde » : 150 000 morts, 13 millions de déplacés et 25 millions de personnes en proie à la famine. Dans ce contexte, le journaliste indépendant Eliott Brachet, ancien correspondant à Khartoum (2020-2023) désormais installé au Caire, décrypte les défis qu'il rencontre pour continuer d'informer sur le Soudan. Eliott Brachet rappelle que son arrivée en octobre 2020 visait à raconter « la fenêtre de liberté qui venait de s'entrouvrir avec la chute d'Omar el-Béchir ». La révolution soudanaise de décembre 2018 avait engendré une effervescence culturelle et une grande liberté de ton, favorisant la naissance d'un journalisme indépendant. Mais la nouvelle génération de journalistes a vu son travail prendre « un grand coup dans l'aile » depuis l'éclatement du conflit et a souvent été contrainte à l'exil. L'une des difficultés majeures pour la couverture médiatique est de faire franchir au Soudan le « plafond de verre dans les médias et dans l'espace public ». L'exposition Soudan, la guerre sur les cendre de la révolution, qu'Eliott Brachet a supervisée à Bayeux, en Normandie, visait d'ailleurs à recontextualiser cette guerre, en rappelant les avertissements des manifestants après le coup d'État de 2021 : la présence des deux généraux à la tête de l'État ne pouvait mener qu'au chaos. Difficulté d'accès et courage des journalistes soudanais Informer sur ce conflit est rendu extrêmement complexe par les difficultés d'accès pour la presse internationale. Les visas sont délivrés «au compte-goutte», et tout journaliste qui parvient à entrer dans les zones contrôlées par l'armée régulière est souvent suivi de près. C'est ce qu'Eliott Brachet a pu constater lors de son dernier reportage au Soudan, fin 2024. Les accès sont encore plus compliqués du côté des FSR, milice aux lignes de commandement floues, où le risque est de «servir la propagande des groupes en place». Le danger le plus grand pèse sur les journalistes soudanais : 32 ont été tués depuis le début de la guerre, indique Eliott Brachet qui insiste sur l'importance de ces regards locaux, souvent équipés d'un simple téléphone portable, qui documentent la guerre. Ces sources, issues de la génération révolutionnaire (activistes, bénévoles dans des réseaux d'entraide civils), sont essentielles pour obtenir des informations. Malgré les risques, la population reste désireuse de parler aux journalistes étrangers, explique Eliott Brachet pour qui ce conflit n'est pas une «guerre oubliée, c'est plutôt une guerre négligée ou une guerre ignorée», car les informations et les images existent, même si elles sont difficiles à obtenir.  Guerre d'influence et enjeu technologique Au-delà de l'affrontement fratricide, le conflit est une « guerre d'influence » avec des ramifications régionales. Le Soudan, riche en ressources comme l'or et le pétrole, voit l'exportation de ses ressources doubler, alimentant cette « économie de guerre » qui permet aux belligérants de s'armer. Chaque camp est soutenu par un réseau d'influence : l'armée régulière reçoit l'appui de l'Égypte, du Qatar, de l'Iran et de la Turquie, tandis que les FSR bénéficient d'un soutien des Émirats arabes unis, qui fournissent notamment des drones chinois de dernière technologie. Un autre défi moderne réside dans le rôle de Starlink. Ces connexions internet, souvent amenées par les acteurs armés (notamment les FSR), créent «une dépendance énorme des populations civiles aux acteurs militaires». Les civils doivent payer «un forfait à la minute pour pouvoir se connecter», transformant la communication en une source de revenus et un moyen de contrôle pour les forces en présence. Le recours aux sources ouvertes (OSINT) Face aux restrictions d'accès sur le terrain, le croisement des informations est crucial en raison de l'énorme propagande diffusée par les deux belligérants. L'utilisation de l'OSINT (enquête en sources ouvertes) et des images satellites est un moyen essentiel de suivre le conflit à distance. Eliott Brachet s'est rapproché de réseaux de journalistes et chercheurs, comme le laboratoire de recherche humanitaire de l'université de Yale, dont le travail permet de « documenter le pillage et la mise à sac et l'incendie en fait de nombreux villages au Darfour ». Ces outils, associés aux témoignages des jeunes Soudanais, constituent aujourd'hui les sources d'information les plus fiables sur ce conflit qui dure.

#656: What would you do if someone in authority told you to do something that felt wrong? Most of us like to think we'd speak up, push back, stand our ground. But research tells a very different story. In fact, when Yale researchers conducted a famous experiment in the 1960s, they found that 65% of people would administer what they believed to be deadly electric shocks to another human being... simply because someone in a lab coat told them to. Today's guest has spent over 15 years studying why humans comply with authority - even when every fiber of our being is screaming that we shouldn't. And when it comes to our money, this tendency to comply with authority figures - from financial advisors to real estate agents to car salespeople - can cost us dearly. Dr. Sunita Sah began her career as a physician in the UK's National Health Service. During one particularly exhausting period as a junior doctor, she agreed to meet with a financial advisor who had contacted her at work. That meeting sparked questions that would shape the rest of her career: Why did she feel pressured to trust this advisor, even after learning he had a conflict of interest? Today, she's a tenured professor at Cornell University, where her groundbreaking research on compliance and influence has been featured in The New York Times and Scientific American. She's advised government agencies, served on the National Commission on Forensic Science, and helps leaders understand the psychology behind why we say "yes" when we really want to say "no." Whether you're meeting with a financial advisor, negotiating the price of a home, or discussing rates with a contractor, understanding the psychology of compliance could save you thousands of dollars - and help you make better financial decisions. Today's conversation isn't just about psychology - it's about protecting your wealth by learning when and how to say "no." Resources Mentioned in the Episode: - Website: sunitasah.com - Newsletter: Defiant By Design | Dr. Sunita Sah | Substack - Connect with Dr. Sunita Sah - Follow Dr. Sah on Instagram About Dr. Sunita Sah Dr. Sunita Sah is a tenured professor at Cornell University specializing in organizational psychology. Her research focuses on how and why people comply with authority, even against their better judgment. A former physician in the UK's National Health Service, Dr. Sah brings a unique perspective to understanding human behavior and decision-making. Her work has been featured in leading publications including The New York Times and Scientific American, and she has served as a Commissioner on the National Commission on Forensic Science. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week, live from Chicago to celebrate 20 years of the Political Gabfest, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Trump vs. Chicago showdown and the dynamics between progressive and centrist Democrats with former Chicago Mayor and Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, what threat President Trump poses to the future of American elections and how to push back, and memorable moments from Gabfest history. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, live from Chicago to celebrate 20 years of the Political Gabfest, Emily, John, and David take audience questions and discuss whether the damages caused by the Trump administration can ever be reversed, the most controversial topics from the show's history, and more.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book, The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Nina Porzucki and Jake Sorgen   Research by Emily Ditto You can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, live from Chicago to celebrate 20 years of the Political Gabfest, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Trump vs. Chicago showdown and the dynamics between progressive and centrist Democrats with former Chicago Mayor and Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, what threat President Trump poses to the future of American elections and how to push back, and memorable moments from Gabfest history. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, live from Chicago to celebrate 20 years of the Political Gabfest, Emily, John, and David take audience questions and discuss whether the damages caused by the Trump administration can ever be reversed, the most controversial topics from the show's history, and more.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book, The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Nina Porzucki and Jake Sorgen   Research by Emily Ditto You can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, live from Chicago to celebrate 20 years of the Political Gabfest, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Trump vs. Chicago showdown and the dynamics between progressive and centrist Democrats with former Chicago Mayor and Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, what threat President Trump poses to the future of American elections and how to push back, and memorable moments from Gabfest history. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, live from Chicago to celebrate 20 years of the Political Gabfest, Emily, John, and David take audience questions and discuss whether the damages caused by the Trump administration can ever be reversed, the most controversial topics from the show's history, and more.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book, The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Nina Porzucki and Jake Sorgen   Research by Emily Ditto You can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Yesterday, Southern California Edison (SCE), the utility whose power lines may have started the devastating Eaton Fire, announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. Under the program, people affected by the fire can receive hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation, in a matter of months rather than years—but in exchange, they must give up their right to sue.It should come as no surprise that SCE, in designing the program, sought the help of Kenneth Feinberg. For more than 40 years, often in the wake of tragedy or disaster, Feinberg has helped mediate and resolve seemingly intractable crises. He's most well-known for how he and his colleague Camille Biros designed and administered the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. But he has worked on many other headline-making matters over the years, including the Agent Orange product liability litigation, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust, the multidistrict litigation involving Monsanto's Roundup weed killer—and now, of course, the Eaton Fire.How did Ken develop such a fascinating and unique practice? What is the most difficult aspect of administering these giant compensation funds? Do these funds represent the wave of the future, as an alternative to (increasingly expensive) litigation? Having just turned 80, does he have any plans to retire?Last week, I had the pleasure of interviewing Ken—the day after his 80th birthday—and we covered all these topics. The result is what I found to be one of the most moving conversations I've ever had on this podcast.Thanks to Ken Feinberg for joining me—and, of course, for his many years of service as America's go-to mediator in times of crisis.Show Notes:* Kenneth Feinberg bio, Wikipedia* Kenneth Feinberg profile, Chambers and Partners* L.A. Fire Victims Face a Choice, by Jill Cowan for The New York TimesPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fourth episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, October 24.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.I like to think that I've produced some good podcast episodes over the past three-plus years, but I feel that this latest one is a standout. I'm hard-pressed to think of an interview that was more emotionally affecting to me than what you're about to hear.Kenneth Feinberg is a leading figure in the world of mediation and alternative dispute resolution. He is most well-known for having served as special master of the U.S. government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund—and for me, as someone who was in New York City on September 11, I found his discussion of that work profoundly moving. But he has handled many major matters over the years, such as the Agent Orange product liability litigation to the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster Victim Compensation Fund. And he's working right now on a matter that's in the headlines: the California wildfires. Ken has been hired by Southern California Edison to help design a compensation program for victims of the 2025 Eaton fire. Ken has written about his fascinating work in two books: What Is Life Worth?: The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11 and Who Gets What: Fair Compensation after Tragedy and Financial Upheaval. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Ken Feinberg.Ken, thank you so much for joining me.Ken Feinberg: Thank you very much; it's an honor to be here.DL: We are recording this shortly after your 80th birthday, so happy birthday!KF: Thank you very much.DL: Let's go back to your birth; let's start at the beginning. You grew up in Massachusetts, I believe.KF: That's right: Brockton, Massachusetts, about 20 miles south of Boston.DL: Your parents weren't lawyers. Tell us about what they did.KF: My parents were blue-collar workers from Massachusetts, second-generation immigrants. My father ran a wholesale tire distributorship, my mother was a bookkeeper, and we grew up in the 1940s and ‘50s, even the early ‘60s, in a town where there was great optimism, a very vibrant Jewish community, three different synagogues, a very optimistic time in American history—post-World War II, pre-Vietnam, and a time when communitarianism, working together to advance the collective good, was a prominent characteristic of Brockton, and most of the country, during the time that I was in elementary school and high school in Brockton.DL: Did the time in which you grow up shape or influence your decision to go into law?KF: Yes. More than law—the time growing up had a great impact on my decision to give back to the community from which I came. You've got to remember, when I was a teenager, the president of the United States was John F. Kennedy, and I'll never forget because it had a tremendous impact on me—President Kennedy reminding everybody that public service is a noble undertaking, government is not a dirty word, and especially his famous quote (or one of his many quotes), “Every individual can make a difference.” I never forgot that, and it had a personal impact on me and has had an impact on me throughout my life. [Ed. note: The quotation generally attributed to JFK is, “One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.” Whether he actually said these exact words is unclear, but it's certainly consistent with many other sentiments he expressed throughout his life.]DL: When you went to college at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, what did you study?KF: I studied history and political science. I was very interested in how individuals over the centuries change history, the theory of historians that great individuals articulate history and drive it in a certain direction—for good, like President Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, or for ill, like Adolf Hitler or Mussolini. And so it was history that I really delved into in my undergraduate years.DL: What led you then to turn to law school?KF: I always enjoyed acting on the stage—theater, comedies, musicals, dramas—and at the University of Massachusetts, I did quite a bit of that. In my senior year, I anticipated going to drama school at Yale, or some other academic master's program in theater. My father gave me very good advice. He said, “Ken, most actors end up waiting on restaurant tables in Manhattan, waiting for a big break that never comes. Why don't you turn your skills on the stage to a career in the courtroom, in litigation, talking to juries and convincing judges?” That was very sound advice from my father, and I ended up attending NYU Law School and having a career in the law.DL: Yes—and you recount that story in your book, and I just love that. It's really interesting to hear what parents think of our careers. But anyway, you did very well in law school, you were on the law review, and then your first job out of law school was something that we might expect out of someone who did well in law school.KF: Yes. I was a law clerk to the chief judge of New York State, Stanley Fuld, a very famous state jurist, and he had his chambers in New York City. For one week, every six or seven weeks, we would go to the state capitol in Albany to hear cases, and it was Judge Fuld who was my transition from law school to the practice of law.DL: I view clerking as a form of government service—and then you continued in service after that.KF: That's right. Remembering what my father had suggested, I then turned my attention to the courtroom and became an assistant United States attorney, a federal prosecutor, in New York City. I served as a prosecutor and as a trial lawyer for a little over three years. And then I had a wonderful opportunity to go to work for Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington and stayed with him for about five years.DL: You talk about this also in your books—you worked on a pretty diverse range of issues for the senator, right?KF: That's right. For the first three years I worked on his staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee, with some excellent colleagues—soon-to-be Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer was with me, noted litigator David Boies was in the office—and for the first three years, it was law-related issues. Then in 1978, Senator Kennedy asked me to be his chief of staff, and once I went over and became his chief of staff, the issues of course mushroomed. He was running for president, so there were issues of education, health, international relations—a wide diversity of issues, very broad-based.DL: I recall that you didn't love the chief of staff's duties.KF: No. Operations or administration was not my priority. I loved substance, issues—whatever the issues were, trying to work out legislative compromises, trying to give back something in the way of legislation to the people. And internal operations and administration, I quickly discovered, was not my forte. It was not something that excited me.DL: Although it's interesting: what you are most well-known for is overseeing and administering these large funds and compensating victims of these horrific tragedies, and there's a huge amount of administration involved in that.KF: Yes, but I'm a very good delegator. In fact, if you look at the track record of my career in designing and administering these programs—9/11 or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or the Patriots' Day Marathon bombings in Boston—I was indeed fortunate in all of those matters to have at my side, for over 40 years, Camille Biros. She's not a lawyer, but she's the nation's expert on designing, administering, and operating these programs, and as you delve into what I've done and haven't done, her expertise has been invaluable.DL: I would call Camille your secret weapon, except she's not secret. She's been profiled in The New York Times, and she's a well-known figure in her own right.KF: That is correct. She was just in the last few months named one of the 50 Women Over 50 that have had such an impact in the country—that list by Forbes that comes out every year. She's prominently featured in that magazine.DL: Shifting back to your career, where did you go after your time in the Senate?KF: I opened up a Washington office for a prominent New York law firm, and for the next decade or more, that was the center of my professional activity.DL: So that was Kaye Scholer, now Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. What led you to go from your career in the public sector, where you spent a number of your years right out of law school, into so-called Biglaw?KF: Practicality and financial considerations. I had worked for over a decade in public service. I now had a wife, I had three young children, and it was time to give them financial security. And “Biglaw,” as you put it—Biglaw in Washington was lucrative, and it was something that gave me a financial base from which I could try and expand my different interests professionally. And that was the reason that for about 12 years I was in private practice for a major firm, Kaye Scholer.DL: And then tell us what happened next.KF: A great lesson in not planning too far ahead. In 1984, I got a call from a former clerk of Judge Fuld whom I knew from the clerk network: Judge Jack Weinstein, a nationally recognized jurist from Brooklyn, the Eastern District, and a federal judge. He had on his docket the Vietnam veterans' Agent Orange class action.You may recall that there were about 250,000 Vietnam veterans who came home claiming illness or injury or death due to the herbicide Agent Orange, which had been dropped by the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam to burn the foliage and vegetation where the Viet Cong enemy might be hiding. Those Vietnam veterans came home suffering terrible diseases, including cancer and chloracne (a sort of acne on the skin), and they brought a lawsuit. Judge Weinstein had the case. Weinstein realized that if that case went to trial, it could be 10 years before there'd be a result, with appeals and all of that.So he appointed me as mediator, called the “special master,” whose job it was to try and settle the case, all as a mediator. Well, after eight weeks of trying, we were successful. There was a master settlement totaling about $250 million—at the time, one of the largest tort verdicts in history. And that one case, front-page news around the nation, set me on a different track. Instead of remaining a Washington lawyer involved in regulatory and legislative matters, I became a mediator, an individual retained by the courts or by the parties to help resolve a case. And that was the beginning. That one Agent Orange case transformed my entire professional career and moved me in a different direction completely.DL: So you knew the late Judge Weinstein through Fuld alumni circles. What background did you have in mediation already, before you handled this gigantic case?KF: None. I told Judge Weinstein, “Judge, I never took a course in mediation at law school (there wasn't one then), and I don't know anything about bringing the parties together, trying to get them to settle.” He said, “I know you. I know your background. I've followed your career. You worked for Senator Kennedy. You are the perfect person.” And until the day I die, I'm beholden to Judge Weinstein for having faith in me to take this on.DL: And over the years, you actually worked on a number of matters at the request of Judge Weinstein.KF: A dozen. I worked on tobacco cases, on asbestos cases, on drug and medical device cases. I even worked for Judge Weinstein mediating the closing of the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island. I handled a wide range of cases where he called on me to act as his court-appointed mediator to resolve cases on his docket.DL: You've carved out a very unique and fascinating niche within the law, and I'm guessing that most people who meet you nowadays know who you are. But say you're in a foreign country or something, and some total stranger is chatting with you and asks what you do for a living. What would you say?KF: I would say I'm a lawyer, and I specialize in dispute resolution. It might be mediation, it might be arbitration, or it might even be negotiation, where somebody asks me to negotiate on their behalf. So I just tell people there is a growing field of law in the United States called ADR—alternative dispute resolution—and that it is, as you say, David, my niche, my focus when called upon.DL: And I think it's fair to say that you're one of the founding people in this field or early pioneers—or I don't know how you would describe it.KF: I think that's right. When I began with Agent Orange, there was no mediation to speak of. It certainly wasn't institutionalized; it wasn't streamlined. Today, in 2025, the American Bar Association has a special section on alternative dispute resolution, it's taught in every law school in the United States, there are thousands of mediators and arbitrators, and it's become a major leg in law school of different disciplines and specialties.DL: One question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter you are most proud of?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the hardest matter you've ever had to deal with?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter that you're most well-known for?” And I feel in your case, the same matter is responsive to all three of those questions.KF: That's correct. The most difficult, the most challenging, the most rewarding matter, the one that's given me the most exposure, was the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, when I was appointed by President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft to implement, design, and administer a very unique federal law that had been enacted right after 9/11.DL: I got chills as you were just even stating that, very factually, because I was in New York on 9/11, and a lot of us remember the trauma and difficulty of that time. And you basically had to live with that and talk to hundreds, even thousands, of people—survivors, family members—for almost three years. And you did it pro bono. So let me ask you this: what were you thinking?KF: What triggered my interest was the law itself. Thirteen days after the attacks, Congress passed this law, unique in American history, setting up a no-fault administrator compensation system. Don't go to court. Those who volunteer—families of the dead, those who were physically injured at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon—you can voluntarily seek compensation from a taxpayer-funded law. Now, if you don't want it, you don't have to go. It's a voluntary program.The key will be whether the special master or the administrator will be able to convince people that it is a better avenue to pursue than a long, delayed, uncertain lawsuit. And based on my previous experience for the last 15 years, starting with Agent Orange and asbestos and these other tragedies, I volunteered. I went to Senator Kennedy and said, “What about this?” He said, “Leave it to me.” He called President Bush. He knew Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was his former colleague in the U.S. Senate, and he had great admiration for Senator Ashcroft. And so I was invited by the attorney general for an interview, and I told him I was interested. I told him I would only do it pro bono. You can't get paid for a job like this; it's patriotism. And he said, “Go for it.” And he turned out to be my biggest, strongest ally during the 33 months of the program.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.You talk about this in your books: you were recommended by a very prominent Democratic politician, and the administration at the time was Republican. George W. Bush was president, and John Ashcroft was the attorney general. Why wouldn't they have picked a Republican for this project?KF: Very good question. Senator Kennedy told both of them, “You better be careful here. This is a very, very uncertain program, with taxpayer money used to pay only certain victims. This could be a disaster. And you would be well-advised to pick someone who is not a prominent friend of yours, who is not perceived as just a Republican arm of the Justice Department or the White House. And I've got the perfect person. You couldn't pick a more opposite politician than my former chief of staff, Ken Feinberg. But look at what he's done.” And I think to Senator Kennedy's credit, and certainly to President Bush and to John Ashcroft's, they selected me.DL: As you would expect with a program of this size and complexity, there was controversy and certainly criticism over the years. But overall, looking back, I think people regard it widely as a huge success. Do you have a sense or an estimate of what percentage of people in the position to accept settlements through the program did that, rather than litigate? Because in accepting funds from the program, they did waive their right to bring all sorts of lawsuits.KF: That's correct. If you look at the statistics, if the statistics are a barometer of success, 5,300 applicants were eligible, because of death—about 2,950, somewhere in there—and the remaining claims were for physical injury. Of the 5,300, 97 percent voluntarily accepted the compensation. Only 94 people, 3 percent, opted out, and they all settled their cases five years later. There was never a trial on who was responsible in the law for 9/11. So if statistics are an indication—and I think they are a good indication—the program was a stunning success in accomplishing Congress's objective, which was diverting people voluntarily out of the court system.DL: Absolutely. And that's just a striking statistic. It was really successful in getting funds to families that needed it. They had lost breadwinners; they had lost loved ones. It was hugely successful, and it did not take a decade, as some of these cases involving just thousands of victims often do.I was struck by one thing you just said. You mentioned there was really no trial. And in reading your accounts of your work on this, it seemed almost like people viewed talking to you and your colleagues, Camille and others on this—I think they almost viewed that as their opportunity to be heard, since there wasn't a trial where they would get to testify.KF: That's correct. The primary reason for the success of the 9/11 Fund, and a valuable lesson for me thereafter, was this: give victims the opportunity to be heard, not only in public town-hall meetings where collectively people can vent, but in private, with doors closed. It's just the victim and Feinberg or his designee, Camille. We were the face of the government here. You can't get a meeting with the secretary of defense or the attorney general, the head of the Department of Justice. What you can get is an opportunity behind closed doors to express your anger, your frustration, your disappointment, your sense of uncertainty, with the government official responsible for cutting the checks. And that had an enormous difference in assuring the success of the program.DL: What would you say was the hardest aspect of your work on the Fund?KF: The hardest part of the 9/11 Fund, which I'll never recover from, was not calculating the value of a life. Judges and juries do that every day, David, in every court, in New Jersey and 49 other states. That is not a difficult assignment. What would the victim have earned over a work life? Add something for pain and suffering and emotional distress, and there's your check.The hardest part in any of these funds, starting with 9/11—the most difficult aspect, the challenge—is empathy, and your willingness to sit for over 900 separate hearings, me alone with family members or victims, to hear what they want to tell you, and to make that meeting, from their perspective, worthwhile and constructive. That's the hard part.DL: Did you find it sometimes difficult to remain emotionally composed? Or did you, after a while, develop a sort of thick skin?KF: You remain composed. You are a professional. You have a job to do, for the president of the United States. You can't start wailing and crying in the presence of somebody who was also wailing and crying, so you have to compose yourself. But I tell people who say, “Could I do what you did?” I say, “Sure. There are plenty of people in this country that can do what I did—if you can brace yourself for the emotional trauma that comes with meeting with victim after victim after victim and hearing their stories, which are...” You can't make them up. They're so heart-wrenching and so tragic.I'll give you one example. A lady came to see me, 26 years old, sobbing—one of hundreds of people I met with. “Mr. Feinberg, I lost my husband. He was a fireman at the World Trade Center. He died on 9/11. And he left me with our two children, six and four. Now, Mr. Feinberg, you've calculated and told me I'm going to receive $2.4 million, tax-free, from this 9/11 Fund. I want it in 30 days.”I said to Mrs. Jones, “This is public, taxpayer money. We have to go down to the U.S. Treasury. They've got to cut the checks; they've got to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. It may be 60 days or 90 days, but you'll get your money.”“No. Thirty days.”I said, “Mrs. Jones, why do you need the money in 30 days?”She said, “Why? I'll tell you why, Mr. Feinberg. I have terminal cancer. I have 10 weeks to live. My husband was going to survive me and take care of our two children. Now they're going to be orphans. I have got to get this money, find a guardian, make sure the money's safe, prepare for the kids' schooling. I don't have a lot of time. I need your help.”Well, we ran down to the U.S. Treasury and helped process the check in record time. We got her the money in 30 days—and eight weeks later, she died. Now when you hear story after story like this, you get some indication of the emotional pressure that builds and is debilitating, frankly. And we managed to get through it.DL: Wow. I got a little choked up just even hearing you tell that. Wow—I really don't know what to say.When you were working on the 9/11 Fund, did you have time for any other matters, or was this pretty much exclusively what you were working on for the 33 months?KF: Professionally, it was exclusive. Now what I did was, I stayed in my law firm, so I had a living. Other people in the firm were generating income for the firm; I wasn't on the dole. But it was exclusive. During the day, you are swamped with these individual requests, decisions that have to be made, checks that have to be cut. At night, I escaped: opera, orchestral concerts, chamber music, art museums—the height of civilization. During the day, in the depths of horror of civilization; at night, an escape, an opportunity to just enjoy the benefits of civilization. You better have a loving family, as I did, that stands behind you—because you never get over it, really.DL: That's such an important lesson, to actually have that time—because if you wanted to, you could have worked on this 24/7. But it is important to have some time to just clear your head or spend time with your family, especially just given what you were dealing with day-to-day.KF: That's right. And of course, during the day, we made a point of that as well. If we were holding hearings like the one I just explained, we'd take a one-hour break, go for a walk, go into Central Park or into downtown Washington, buy an ice cream cone, see the kids playing in playgrounds and laughing. You've got to let the steam out of the pressure cooker, or it'll kill you. And that was the most difficult part of the whole program. In all of these programs, that's the common denominator: emotional stress and unhappiness on the part of the victims.DL: One last question, before we turn to some other matters. There was also a very large logistical apparatus associated with this, right? For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers. It wasn't just you and Camille trying to deal with these thousands of survivors and claimants; you did have support.KF: That's right. Pricewaterhouse won the bid at the Justice Department. This is public: Pricewaterhouse, for something like around $100 million, put 450 people to work with us to help us process claims, appraise values, do the research. Pricewaterhouse was a tremendous ally and has gone on, since 9/11, to handle claims design and claims administration, as one of its many specialties. Emily Kent, Chuck Hacker, people like that we worked with for years, very much experts in these areas.DL: So after your work on the 9/11 Fund, you've worked on a number of these types of matters. Is there one that you would say ranks second in terms of complexity or difficulty or meaningfulness to you?KF: Yes. Deepwater Horizon in 2011, 2012—that oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico blew up and killed about, I don't know, 15 to 20 people in the explosion. But the real challenge in that program was how we received, in 16 months, about 1,250,000 claims for business interruption, business losses, property damage. We received over a million claims from 50 states. I think we got probably a dozen claims from New Jersey; I didn't know the oil had gotten to New Jersey. We received claims from 35 foreign countries. And the sheer volume of the disaster overwhelmed us. We had, at one point, something like 40,000 people—vendors—working for us. We had 35 offices throughout the Gulf of Mexico, from Galveston, Texas, all the way to Mobile Bay, Alabama. Nevertheless, in 16 months, on behalf of BP, Deepwater Horizon, we paid out all BP money, a little over $7 billion, to 550,000 eligible claimants. And that, I would say, other than 9/11, had the greatest impact and was the most satisfying.DL: You mentioned some claims coming from some pretty far-flung jurisdictions. In these programs, how much of a problem is fraud?KF: Not much. First of all, with death claims like 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombings or the 20 first-graders who died in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, at the hands of a deranged gunmen—most of the time, in traumatic death and injury, you've got records. No one can beat the system; you have to have a death certificate. In 9/11, where are your military records, if you were at the Pentagon? Where are the airplane manifests? You've got to be on the manifest if you were flying on that plane.Now, the problem becomes more pronounced in something like BP, where you've got over a million claims, and you wonder, how many people can claim injury from this explosion? There we had an anti-fraud unit—Guidepost, Bart Schwartz's company—and they did a tremendous job of spot-checking claims. I think that out of over a million claims, there may have been 25,000 that were suspicious. And we sent those claims to the Justice Department, and they prosecuted a fair number of people. But it wasn't a huge problem. I think the fraud rate was something like 3 percent; that's nothing. So overall, we haven't found—and we have to be ever-vigilant, you're right—but we haven't found much in the way of fraud.DL: I'm glad to hear that, because it would really be very depressing to think that there were people trying to profiteer off these terrible disasters and tragedies. Speaking of continuing disasters and tragedies, turning to current events, you are now working with Southern California Edison in dealing with claims related to the Eaton Fire. And this is a pending matter, so of course you may have some limits in terms of what you can discuss, but what can you say in a general sense about this undertaking?KF: This is the Los Angeles wildfires that everybody knows about, from the last nine or ten months—the tremendous fire damage in Los Angeles. One of the fires, or one of the selected hubs of the fire, was the Eaton Fire. Southern California Edison, the utility involved in the litigation and finger-pointing, decided to set up, à la 9/11, a voluntary claims program. Not so much to deal with death—there were about 19 deaths, and a handful of physical injuries—but terrible fire damage, destroyed homes, damaged businesses, smoke and ash and soot, for miles in every direction. And the utility decided, its executive decided, “We want to do the right thing here. We may be held liable or we may not be held liable for the fire, but we think the right thing to do is nip in the bud this idea of extended litigation. Look at 9/11: only 94 people ended up suing. We want to set up a program.”They came to Camille and me. Over the last eight weeks, we've designed the program, and I think in the last week of October or the first week of November, you will see publicly, “Here is the protocol; here is the claim form. Please submit your claims, and we'll get them paid within 90 days.” And if history is an indicator, Camille and I think that the Eaton Fire Protocol will be a success, and the great bulk of the thousands of victims will voluntarily decide to come into the program. We'll see. [Ed. note: On Wednesday, a few days after Ken and I recorded this episode, Southern California Edison announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program.]DL: That raises a question that I'm curious about. How would you describe the relationship between the work that you and Camille and your colleagues do and the traditional work of the courts, in terms of in-the-trenches litigation? Because I do wonder whether the growth in your field is perhaps related to some developments in litigation, in terms of litigation becoming more expensive over the decades (in a way that far outstrips inflation), more complicated, or more protracted. How would you characterize that relationship?KF: I would say that the programs that we design and administer—like 9/11, like BP, plus the Eaton wildfires—are an exception to the rule. Nobody should think that these programs that we have worked on are the wave of the future. They are not the wave of the future; they are isolated, unique examples, where a company—or in 9/11, the U.S. government—decides, “We ought to set up a special program where the courts aren't involved, certainly not directly.” In 9/11, they were prohibited to be involved, by statute; in some of these other programs, like BP, the courts have a relationship, but they don't interfere with the day-to-day administration of the program.And I think the American people have a lot of faith in the litigation system that you correctly point out can be uncertain, very inefficient, and very costly. But the American people, since the founding of the country, think, “You pick your lawyer, I'll pick my lawyer, and we'll have a judge and jury decide.” That's the American rule of law; I don't think it's going to change. But occasionally there is a groundswell of public pressure to come up with a program, or there'll be a company—like the utility, like BP—that decides to have a program.And I'll give you one other example: the Catholic Church confronted thousands of claims of sexual abuse by priests. It came to us, and we set up a program—just like 9/11, just like BP—where we invited, voluntarily, any minor—any minor from decades ago, now an adult—who had been abused by the church to come into this voluntary program. We paid out, I think, $700 million to $800 million, to victims in dioceses around the country. So there's another example—Camille did most of that—but these programs are all relatively rare. There are thousands of litigations every day, and nothing's going to change that.DL: I had a guest on a few weeks ago, Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss, who does a lot of work in the mass-tort space. It's interesting: I feel that that space has evolved, and maybe in some ways it's more efficient than it used to be. They have these multi-district litigation panels, they have these bellwether trials, and then things often get settled, once people have a sense of the values. That system and your approach seem to have some similarities, in the sense that you're not individually trying each one of these cases, and you're having somebody with liability come forward and voluntarily pay out money, after some kind of negotiation.KF: Well, there's certainly negotiation in what Chris Seeger does; I'm not sure we have much negotiation. We say, “Here's the amount under the administrative scheme.” It's like in workers' compensation: here's the amount. You don't have to take it. There's nothing to really talk about, unless you have new evidence that we're not aware of. And those programs, when we do design them, seem to work very efficiently.Again, if you ask Camille Biros what was the toughest part of valuing individual claims of sexual-abuse directed at minors, she would say, “These hearings: we gave every person who wanted an opportunity to be heard.” And when they come to see Camille, they don't come to talk about money; they want validation for what they went through. “Believe me, will you? Ken, Camille, believe me.” And when Camille says, “We do believe you,” they immediately, or almost immediately, accept the compensation and sign a release: “I will not sue the Catholic diocese.”DL: So you mentioned there isn't really much negotiation, but you did talk in the book about these sort of “appeals.” You had these two tracks, “Appeals A” and “Appeals B.” Can you talk about that? Did you ever revisit what you had set as the award for a particular victim's family, after hearing from them in person?KF: Sure. Now, remember, those appeals came back to us, not to a court; there's no court involvement. But in 9/11, in BP, if somebody said, “You made a mistake—you didn't account for these profits or this revenue, or you didn't take into account this contract that my dead firefighter husband had that would've given him a lot more money”—of course, we'll revisit that. We invited that. But that's an internal appeals process. The people who calculated the value of the claim are the same people that are going to be looking at revisiting the claim. But again, that's due process, and that's something that we thought was important.DL: You and Camille have been doing this really important work for decades. Since this is, of course, shortly after your 80th birthday, I should ask: do you have future plans? You're tackling some of the most complicated matters, headline-making matters. Would you ever want to retire at some point?KF: I have no intention of retiring. I do agree that when you reach a certain pinnacle in what you've done, you do slow down. We are much more selective in what we do. I used to have maybe 15 mediations going on at once; now, we have one or two matters, like the Los Angeles wildfires. As long as I'm capable, as long as Camille's willing, we'll continue to do it, but we'll be very careful about what we select to do. We don't travel much. The Los Angeles wildfires was largely Zooms, going back and forth. And we're not going to administer that program. We had administered 9/11 and BP; we're trying to move away from that. It's very time-consuming and stressful. So we've accomplished a great deal over the last 50 years—but as long as we can do it, we'll continue to do it.DL: Do you have any junior colleagues who would take over what you and Camille have built?KF: We don't have junior colleagues. There's just the two of us and Cindy Sanzotta, our receptionist. But it's an interesting question: “Who's after Feinberg? Who's next in doing this?” I think there are thousands of people in this country who could do what we do. It is not rocket science. It really isn't. I'll tell you what's difficult: the emotion. If somebody wants to do what we do, you better brace yourself for the emotion, the anger, the frustration, the finger pointing. It goes with the territory. And if you don't have the psychological ability to handle this type of stress, stay away. But I'm sure somebody will be there, and no one's irreplaceable.DL: Well, I know I personally could not handle it. I worked when I was at a law firm on civil litigation over insurance proceeds related to the World Trade Center, and that was a very draining case, and I was very glad to no longer be on it. So I could not do what you and Camille do. But let me ask you, to end this section on a positive note: what would you say is the most rewarding or meaningful or satisfying aspect of the work that you do on these programs?KF: Giving back to the community. Public service. Helping the community heal. Not so much the individuals; the individuals are part of the community. “Every individual can make a difference.” I remember that every day, what John F. Kennedy said: government service is a noble undertaking. So what's most rewarding for me is that although I'm a private practitioner—I am no longer in government service, since my days with Senator Kennedy—I'd like to think that I performed a valuable service for the community, the resilience of the community, the charity exhibited by the community. And that gives me a great sense of self-satisfaction.DL: You absolutely have. It's been amazing, and I'm so grateful for you taking the time to join me.So now, onto our speed round. These are four questions that are standardized. My first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law in a more abstract sense.KF: Uncertainty. What I don't like about the law is—and I guess maybe it's the flip side of the best way to get to a result—I don't like the uncertainty of the law. I don't like the fact that until the very end of the process, you don't know if your view and opinion will prevail. And I think losing control over your destiny in that regard is problematic.DL: My second question—and maybe we touched on this a little bit, when we talked about your father's opinions—what would you be if you were not a lawyer?KF: Probably an actor. As I say, I almost became an actor. And I still love theater and the movies and Broadway shows. If my father hadn't given me that advice, I was on the cusp of pursuing a career in the theater.DL: Have you dabbled in anything in your (probably limited) spare time—community theater, anything like that?KF: No, but I certainly have prioritized in my spare time classical music and the peace and optimism it brings to the listener. It's been an important part of my life.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?KF: Well, it varies from program to program. I'd like to get seven hours. That's what my doctors tell me: “Ken, very important—more important than pills and exercise and diet—is sleep. Your body needs a minimum of seven hours.” Well, for me, seven hours is rare—it's more like six or even five, and during 9/11 or during Eaton wildfires, it might be more like four or five. And that's not enough, and that is a problem.DL: My last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?KF: Yes, I'll give you some career and life advice. It's very simple: don't plan too far ahead. People have this view—you may think you know what you want to do with your career. You may think you know what life holds for you. You don't know. If I've learned anything over the last decades, life has a way of changing the best-laid plans. These 9/11 husbands and wives said goodbye to their children, “we'll see you for dinner,” a perfunctory wave—and they never saw them again. Dust, not even a body. And the idea I tell law students—who say, ”I'm going to be a corporate lawyer,” or “I'm going to be a litigator”—I tell them, “You have no idea what your legal career will look like. Look at Feinberg; he never planned on this. He never thought, in his wildest dreams, that this would be his chosen avenue of the law.”My advice: enjoy the moment. Do what you like now. Don't worry too much about what you'll be doing two years, five years, 10 years, a lifetime ahead of you. It doesn't work that way. Everybody gets thrown curveballs, and that's advice I give to everybody.DL: Well, you did not plan out your career, but it has turned out wonderfully, and the country is better for it. Thank you, Ken, both for your work on all these matters over the years and for joining me today.KF: A privilege and an honor. Thanks, David.DL: Thanks so much to Ken for joining me—and, of course, for his decades of work resolving some of the thorniest disputes in the country, which is truly a form of public service.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 12. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

A Yale study says Musk's partisan turn cost Tesla 1.0–1.26M U.S. sales. I break down the math, the market whiplash, and who scooped up those buyers.

Un grup de economiști americani a calculat cât a pierdut marca Tesla din cauza implicării politice a lui Elon Musk. Peste un milion de mașini ar fi putut fi vândute în plus dacă Musk nu ar fi intrat atât de adânc în politică. Revenirea la conducerea Tesla pare că reabilitează ceva din imaginea omului de afaceri și a brandului auto. Patru economiști de la Universitatea americană Yale s-au hotărât să analizeze influența pe care a avut-o aventura politică a lui Elon Musk asupra companiei Tesla. Studiul a fost publicat de către „Biroul Național de Cercetări Economice” și concluzionează că șeful Tesla a avut un impact negativ semnificativ asupra vânzărilor de automobile din cauza activităților politice partizane. Astfel, vânzările de mașini electrice au înregistrat creșteri în ultimii doi ani (7%, anul trecut, și 1,5%, în prima jumătate a anului acesta), în timp ce vânzările Tesla au scăzut. Studiul celor patru economiști americani arată că fără abordările politice ale lui Elon Musk, în perioada octombrie 2022-aprilie 2025, vânzările Tesla pe piața americană ar fi fost cu 67%-83% mai mari, ceea ce înseamnă între un milion și 1,26 milioane de vehicule vândute. Mai mult, autorii analizei arată că Tesla ar putea fi întrecută în materie de vânzări la nivel global de către o companie chineză producătoare de mașini electrice. Scăderea vânzărilor de mașini Tesla a fost cauzată de consumatorii cu preferințe politice democrate. Astfel, înainte de octombrie 2022, consumatorii cu simpatii de stânga au cumpărat mașini Tesla fie datorită preocupărilor legate de mediu, fie datorită notorietății mărcii. Dar, după octombrie 2022 tendința se schimbă. Însă, nu doar că Elon Musk a afectat vânzările brandului pe care îl conducea, ci se observă, în același timp, o creștere a vânzărilor mărcilor concurente cu procentaje cuprinse între 17% și 22%. Deci nu doar că și-a sabotat propria marcă, dar deciziile lui Elon Musk au dus la creșterea vânzărilor concurenței. Problemele lui Musk încep în momentul în care preia controlul asupra rețelei sociale Twitter, pe care o redenumește X, declanșează un proces masiv de concedieri și schimbă politica de moderare a postărilor făcând-o mult mai relaxată și permițând o abordare extremistă, considerată de dreapta. Din cauza acestor schimbări, mulți utilizatori au părăsit rețeaua. Percepția negativă a continuat o dată cu acțiunile lui Musk. Părerile sale politice tranșante, implicarea în candidatura lui Donald Trump, inclusiv prin donații care au totalizat 300 milioane de dolari și apoi preluarea conducerii Departamentului de Eficiență Guvernamentală. Toată această evoluție politică la care putem adăuga prietenia afișată cu președintele american au dus la o scădere a vânzărilor Tesla și mai mult în unele cazuri chiar la proteste și chemări la boicot a mărcii care se confundă cu imaginea omului de afaceri american. În luna mai a.c., Elon Musk își încheie scurtul, dar intensul periplu politic. Ieșirea din zonă se face cu scântei, respectiv cu o ceartă publică între Trump și Musk pe tema legii de susținere a economiei. Studiul celor patru economiști americani arată că după părăsirea scenei politice de către Elon Musk, vânzările Tesla își revin. Astfel, în perioada iulie-octombrie a.c. producătorul american a vândut 500.000 de vehicule pe întreaga piață mondială, ceea ce îl plaseză din nou într-o poziție bună în industrie în materie de vânzări. Ceea ce nu va opri reculul pe întregul an, mai ales că există analiști care sunt de părere că avansul vânzărilor s-a datorat și unei conjuncturi, în sensul că se așteaptă ca unele facilități acordate la achiziția unei mașini electrice să fie sistate. Nu doar acțiunile și opiniile politice ale lui Elon Musk au contat, ci și strategia aplicată pentru Tesla. De exemplu, marca nu a mai lansat niciun produs nou în ultimii cinci ani, ceea ce arată că nu au ținut pasul cu concurenții. Cu toate acestea, capitalizarea Tesla rămâne la un nivel record, 1.360 miliarde de dolari. Alte companii din sectorul auto au capitalizări importante, dar departe de Tesla. Este cazul Toyota, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Renault sau Stellantis. În concluzie, în materie de business, intrarea lui Musk în politică a adus mai multe prejudicii decât beneficii.

Dr. Marc Brackett has spent decades at Yale studying the one skill that determines the quality of your entire life: emotional intelligence. He reveals why even experts struggle to regulate their emotions, especially during crisis. Lewis opens up about his own journey from explosive reactions and ruined relationships to finding emotional mastery at 30, and Marc shares the RULER method that's transforming how millions of people understand their inner world. This isn't theory, it's survival tools for modern life. You'll learn why permission to feel is revolutionary, how to break cycles of emotional trauma, and why your emotions aren't the enemy. They're the roadmap.Marc's book's:Dealing with Feeling: Use Your Emotions to Create the Life You WantPermission to Feel: The Power of Emotional Intelligence to Achieve Well-Being and SuccessLearn more about Dr. Marc BrackettIn this episode you will:Discover why 90% of people never received emotional education and how this one gap sabotages relationships, careers, and healthLearn the RULER method, a five-step framework to recognize, understand, label, express, and regulate emotions in real timeBreak free from childhood patterns of gaslighting and narcissistic parenting by becoming an emotion scientist of your own lifeTransform how you show up in relationships through co-regulation, the skill of managing emotions together instead of aloneUnderstand why giving yourself permission to feel all emotions, even the uncomfortable ones, is the first step to genuine freedomFor more information go to https://lewishowes.com/1843For more Greatness text PODCAST to +1 (614) 350-3960More SOG episodes we think you'll love:Jerry Wise – greatness.lnk.to/1747SCDr. Becky Kennedy  – greatness.lnk.to/1586SCDr. Mariel Buqué – greatness.lnk.to/1555SC Get more from Lewis! Get my New York Times Bestselling book, Make Money Easy!Get The Greatness Mindset audiobook on SpotifyText Lewis AIYouTubeInstagramWebsiteTiktokFacebookX Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What if your story is the key to your success? Join Maraya Brown for an enlightening conversation with Khaïry Varre, a powerhouse in business strategy and personal transformation. Khaïry shares how embracing her story — from her beginnings in Saudi Arabia to becoming a sought-after business coach — helped her turn adversity into strength, confidence, and authentic success. Together, Maraya and Khaïry explore mindset transformation, personal empowerment, and how self-awareness and conviction shape true business growth. This episode invites you to reflect, realign, and step boldly into your own power. Episode Highlights: Master Your Inner Dialogue: Transform your thoughts to influence your results. Own Your Story: Turn your unique journey into your biggest strength. Lead with Conviction: Confidence and clarity open doors to success. Embrace Imperfection: Authenticity builds stronger, more genuine connections. Stay Consistent: Repetition and alignment reinforce your message and growth. Meet Khaïry Varre: Khaïry Varre is an executive leader known as THE TIME BENDER. She is a business strategist and mindset/productivity master coach to 6-, and 7-fig CEOs, she helps elite entrepreneurs become game changers in their field and achieve million dollar + breakthroughs in their business. As a martial artist fanatic, former MBA lecturer and former Director of project management consulting in a Canadian firm specialized in mega projects (up to $6B in scope), she brings decades of business and life principles, strategic expertise and actionable tools that help her clients bring their vision to life in record time. Discover How to Reclaim Your Most Vibrant, Turned On Life: https://marayabrown.com/video-optin/ The Women's Vibrancy Accelerator Trifecta: Your 90-Day Health Reset Ready to take your health to the next level? The Women's Vibrancy Accelerator Trifecta offers deep, personalized support to help you regain control of your energy, hormones, and well-being. This program includes: Three one-on-one calls with Maraya Dutch Plus Test and full assessment Bi-weekly live Q&A sessions Self-paced health portal covering energy, hormones, libido, and confidence Podcast listeners get an exclusive discount. Use code PODCAST. Learn more and enroll now: https://marayabrown.com/trifecta/ _______________________ Free Wellness Resources Access free tools like the Menstrual Tracker, Adaptogen Elixir Recipes, Two-Week Soul Cleanse, Food Facial, and more. Download now: https://marayabrown.com/resources/ _______________________ Subscribe to The Women's Vibrancy Code Podcast Listen on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, and Spotify. _______________________ Connect with the Show Find us on Facebook, Linkedin | Website | Tiktok | Facebook Group _______________________ Apply for a Call with Maraya Brown Start your journey with personalized support. Apply here: https://marayabrown.com/call _______________________ About Maraya Brown Maraya is a Yale and Functional Medicine-trained Women's Health and Wellness Expert (CNM, MSN). She helps women feel energized, confident, and connected to themselves and their lives. With over 25 years of experience, she specializes in energy, hormones, libido, confidence, and deep transformation. _______________________ Disclaimer The content of this podcast is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute medical or professional advice. Listeners should consult with a qualified professional before making any health decisions. This Podcast Is Produced, Engineered & Edited By: Simplified Impact

Amale Andraos and Dan Wood are the founders of WORKac, an architecture office working across a range of scales with an emphasis on public, cultural, or civic projects all around the world. Amale is also professor at Columbia GSAPP, where she also served as dean from 2014-2021, and Dan has taught most recently at Columbia and Yale. They've also published a series of books including 49 Cities, Above the Pavement, the Farm, We'll Get There When We Cross That Bridge, and their new monograph, Buildings for People and Plants. In this conversation, Amale and Dan talk with Jarrett about the threads that connect their body of work, the role of publishing in the studio, and why they think of their work as “pop”. Links from this episode are available at www.scratchingthesurface.fm/276-amale-andraos-dan-wood. — Help support the show by joining our Substack: surfacepodcast.substack.com

On the surface, Halloween looks like harmless fun—costumes, candy, and spooky decorations. But peel back the mask, and you'll find something far darker. In this episode, we trace the roots of October 31 from the pagan fire rituals of Samhain, through Rome's rebranding as “All Hallows' Eve,” into modern occult practice, and finally to the billion-dollar candy industry that keeps it alive. We'll uncover how elites use fear, ritual, and inversion to keep the masses distracted—burying the true meaning of this day, the Protestant Reformation of 1517, under pumpkins and ghosts. Halloween isn't just a holiday; it's a ritual of death dressed up in sugar.Email: thefaacthunter@mail.com

Analyzing Brian Kelly's $54M LSU firing, Miami's "horrendous" uniforms, and if the Packers are a legit Super Bowl team. Full CFB & NFL weekend recap. Plus, a look at this week's Thursday Night Football matchup between the Ravens and Dolphins.—In this episode:*We break down the shocking firing of LSU's Brian Kelly, including the tense meeting with the governor and the staggering $54 million buyout.*The crew debates Miami's “horrendous” military appreciation uniforms, which were so ugly they “stayed ugly” and made players invisible on TV.*Vanderbilt is 7-1 for the first time since World War II, led by quarterback Diego Pavia, who is all moxie.*The panel discusses whether the Packers are a legitimate Super Bowl team, citing the “27-year-old mark” for their quarterbacks as Love follows Favre and Rodgers.*We highlight under-the-radar NFL prospects, including Indiana's “cerebral” QB Fernando Mendoza, who was once bound for Yale.—Timestamps:00:00 - Miami's “So Ugly They Stayed Ugly” Military Uniforms 02:37 - South Carolina vs. Alabama Recap 02:55 - Alabama QB Ty Simpson & his 2028 prospect brother 03:45 - Is South Carolina QB LaNorris Sellers the next Anthony Richardson? 05:00 - Nyck Harbor: “Built like Achilles with the hands of stone” 06:49 - Texas vs. Mississippi State & the cooling Arch Manning hype 07:46 - Will Texas coach Steve Sarkisian leave for the NFL? 09:47 - Indiana Football is “really, really good” 10:03 - Meet Indiana's “cerebral” QB, Fernando Mendoza 12:14 - Brian Kelly FIRED by LSU after A&M loss 12:49 - The staggering $54 MILLION Brian Kelly buyout 15:22 - Is Matt Rhule the top candidate for the Penn State job? 16:22 - Cursed? Nebraska's struggles since firing Frank Solich 18:09 - Luke Fickell & Wisconsin's struggles 20:18 - Undefeated Georgia Tech: Why they can be a problem 22:28 - Ole Miss's D2 QB, Carson Chambliss 23:32 - Vanderbilt is 7-1, their best start since WWII 26:22 - Houston is the Big 12 Dark Horse 27:10 - Chargers vs. Vikings: A “wasted season” for Minnesota? 29:51 - Saquon Barkley's breakout game vs. Eagles 30:14 - Giants lose another one of their young stars32:20 - Myles Garrett's 5-sack game 32:53 - The Bengals' defense is “bad” 35:53 - Broncos' dominant win over the Cowboys 36:37 - Are the Packers a “legitimate Super Bowl team”? 37:16 - Thursday Night Preview: Ravens vs. Dolphins 37:51 - Ravens DC Zach Orr vs. Dolphins DC Anthony Weaver 41:49 - The value of an athletic backup QB (Snoop Huntley) 42:29 - Caleb Williams' “quintessential” bad game—» Join Felix and Cody each Wednesday as we dive deep into the game we love!MatchQuarters is a reader-supported publication. So, make sure to subscribe.—© 2025 MatchQuarters | Cody Alexander | All rights reserved. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.matchquarters.com/subscribe

Taz Niederauer joins the podcast this week! We have a really great conversation that touches on his time at Yale, touring with Jon Batiste, becoming a songwriter, and more. Here are some of the highlights: New Haven Pizza Yale secret societies Growing up on the road and fitting in with his own generation Becoming a songwriter and finding your own sound Andy's love life - Taz's advice Going shirtless NBA basketball Andy's newest embarassing tour story

Our show today is being sponsored by Free Float Analytics, the only platform measuring board power, connections, and performance for FREE.DAMIONAmazon to announce largest layoffs in company history, in AI push. WHO DO YOU BLAME?Former CEO Jeff BezosAICovid (This wave of layoffs results from overhiring during the pandemic)Executive Chair and largest shareholder Jeff BezosF5 Expects Revenue Hit From Cyber Attack. F5, a $20B billion technology company with impressive gross profit margins of 81%, experienced a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to certain company systems by a sophisticated nation-state threat actor. WHO DO YOU BLAME?The Risk committee: Dreyer, Klein, Montoya, Budnik*Chair Marianne Budnik is deemed to have Cybersecurity experience because she serves as a Chief Marketing Officer in the cybersecurity industryPeter Klein was the CFO at Microsoft for less than 4 years, then was the CFO for WME for 6 months and then has only been a director since 2014.Risk committee member Michael Montoya specifically. F5 revealed that the director mysteriously resigned in the same filing it disclosed the cyberattack, despite having served for only 4 years. According to the proxy, had “extensive experience as an information security executive.” Following his resignation from the Board, Mr. Montoya continued his service with the Company and has been appointed as F5's Chief Technology Operations Officer.The entire board, for doing dumb modern day board things: announced that CEO François Locoh-Donou, would assume the additional role of Chair of the Board following the Company's next Annual Meeting of Shareholders 12 days after they announced the cyberattack.Investors. 98% YES average this year: 7 over 99.2%, including Risk Committee Chair Marriane Budnik with 99.6%. Nobody feels like they have to work hard to impress anyoneF5! It's a god damn cybersecurity company!How climate change is fueling Hurricane Melissa's ferocity. WHO DO YOU BLAME?Exxon CEO Darren Woods because he sued his own shareholders last year: Arjuna Capital, LLC and Follow ThisExxon CEO Darren Woods because just yesterday: Exxon sues California over new laws requiring corporate climate disclosuresExxon CEO Darren Woods because gas and oilClimate ChangeOpenAI says U.S. needs more power to stay ahead of China in AI: ‘Electrons are the new oil' WHO DO YOU BLAME?The fear-and-spending geniuses behind the original Cold War: Truman, Stalin, ChurchillPeople who historically ignored Eisenhower and his statements on the U.S. military-industrial complex when he explicitly warned that defense contractors and the military could exert undue influence on government policy. Sound familiar?Anyone who empowered the board to not be empowered when they tried to fire Sam Altman for such reasons as:Conflicts over OpenAI's rapid growth and direction, especially the tension between aggressive AI deployment vs. safety oversight.Power dynamics between Altman, key researchers, and board members — some may have felt he had too much unilateral control.The college that let Sam Altman drop outSammy Altman Citi's Jane Fraser consolidates power with board chair vote — and a $25 million-plus bonus to boot. WHO DO YOU BLAME?The entire Compensation, Performance Management and Culture CommitteeThese two long-tenured Compensation, Performance Management and Culture Committee membersDiana L. Taylor* 10 other directorships: Brookfield Corporation, Accion (Chair), Columbia Business School (Board of Overseers),Friends of Hudson River Park (Chair), Mailman School of Public Health (Board of Overseers), The Economic Club of New York (Member), Council on Foreign Relations (Member), Hot Bread Kitchen (Board Chair), Cold Spring Harbor Lab (Member), and New York City Ballet (Board Chair)Peter B. Henry*8 other directorships: Nike, Inc., Analog Devices, Inc., National Bureau of Economic Research (Board), The Economic Club of New York (Board), Protiviti (Advisory Board), Biospring Partners (Advisory Board), Makena Capital (Advisory Board), and Two Bridges Football Club (Board)The lowest common denominator effect of bank compensation committees:Wells Fargo CEO Charlie Scharf: ~$30M special equity grant tied to becoming Chair as well as CEO (3 months after meeting)Goldman Sachs: CEO David Solomon & COO John Waldron ~$80M each (retention RSUs vesting in ~5 yrs)KeyCorp: CEO Chris Gorman & four other senior execs: ~$8M for Gorman; ~$17M combined for the five NEOsThe passive ownership (re: management-friendly) of BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard (combined 22%): without their votes at Goldman then Say on Pay was nearly tied, which might have dissuaded the year of one-off bonuses for banking CEOs??The world is about $4.5 trillion short of securing a sustainable food supply for the future, global food and ag business CEO [Sunny Verghese, CEO of food and ag company Olam Group] says. WHO DO YOU BLAME?The world's top 28 richest people (those worth ~$160 B each) together would equal $4.5 trillionThe world's greatest sycophant Tesla chair RobynDenholm: “On the pay package specifically: “It's not about the money for him. If there had been a way of delivering voting rights that didn't necessarily deliver dollars, that would have been an interesting proposition.”Any two of these basically redundant techbro companies' market caps would sufficeNvidia ~$4.2 trillion Microsoft ~$3.8 trillion Apple ~$3.1 trillion Amazon ~$2.4 trillion Alphabet ~$2.2 trillion Meta Platforms ~$1.8 trillion Broadcom ~$1.3 trillion Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company ~$1.2 trillionBill Ackman. Because he's a douche.MATTTarget is eliminating 1,800 roles as new CEO Michael Fiddelke gets set to take over the struggling retailer - WHO DO YOU BLAME?Current CEO Brian Cornell, who's “stepping down” to the role of Executive Chair - which is basically still CEO, just on the board and doesn't have to talk to employees anymore, so he can eliminate 1800 jobs and then fade away into a multimillion dollar unaccountable board roleFuture CEO Michael Fiddelke, who starts February 1, 2026, but is current COO and was forced to send the memo to employees telling them 8% of the workforce will be cutMonica Lozano, chair of the compensation and human capital management committee of the board, who's also on the BofA and Apple boards and is the most connected board member at a highly connected board - does the chair of the human capital committee have to weigh in on firing?OpenAI - the memo makes zero mention of the fact that part of Target's problem is that it shit on gays and blacks because of a feckless internet toad named Robby Starbuck, but feels very written by AI which would account for phrases like:“Adjusting our structure is one part of the work ahead of us. It will also require new behaviors and sharper priorities that strengthen our retail leadership in style and design and enable faster execution so we can: Lead with merchandising authority; Elevate the guest experience with every interaction; and Accelerate technology to enable our team and delight our guests.”Does anyone know what that word salad actually means? Doesn't it just mean “you're fired because we basically sucked at our jobs”?Hormel recalls 4.9M pounds of chicken possibly 'contaminated with pieces of metal' - WHO DO YOU BLAME?The audit committee, the closest committee responsible for enterprise risk (ie, metal in chicken) - Stephen M. Lacy, William A. Newlands (also lead director), Debbra L. Schoneman, Sally J. Smith (chair), Steven A. White, Michael P. ZechmeisterThe governance committee - James Snee, the now retired CEO who retired somehow in January but the company still hasn't found a permanent replacement 9 months later - so they're being run by Jeff Ettinger, interim CEO? Chair Gary C. Bhojwani, Elsa A. Murano, Ph.D., William A. Newlands (also lead director), Debbra L. Schoneman, Steven A. WhiteThe one black guy on the board - Steve White - who works at Comcast, is somehow qualified to be on Hormel board, and is on BOTH the audit committee AND governance committeeThe conveyor belt that spit pieces of metal as large as 17mm long into “fire braised chicken” sent to hotels and restaurantsCervoMed appoints McKinsey veteran David Quigley to board of directors - WHO DO YOU BLAME? Board is 2 VCs, a longtime biotech CFO, and five MD/PhDs. And among those 8, there are just two woman - the co-founder/wife of the CEO and a VC. And when they did their search, they could only find a longtime professional opinion haver - a consultant from the big three?Nominating committee for lack of imaginationEx or current McKinsey, Bain, and BCG employed directors - the opinion industrial complex - make up a whopping 4% of ALL US DIRECTORSAmong boards with MULTIPLE ex opinion directors: Kohl's is 25% consultantStarbucks is 27% consultantDisney is 30% consultantsWilliams-Sonoma is 38% consultantCBRE is 40% consultant!Nominating committee chair Jane Hollingsworth, for not looking around the room and saying, “hey dudes, can we add, like, maybe, ONE other lady?”Co founders Sylvie Gregoire and John Alam (also CEO) who own 17.3% of voting power - add in Josh Boger, board chair and 12.3% voter, and you basically have the CEO daddy and his buddy Josh with 29.6% of voting controlSylvie and John's bios, which neglect to mention they're married to one anotherWe are all terrified of the future - which headline is worse for your terror? WHO DO YOU BLAME?The world is about $4.5 trillion short of securing a sustainable food supply for the future, global food and ag business CEO saysBill Gates Says Climate Change ‘Will Not Lead to Humanity's Demise' - ostensibly because billionaires in bunkers will, in fact, survive on cans of metal-filled Hormel chili.Sorry, Yoda. Mentors are going out of styleMan Alarmed to Discover His Smart Vacuum Was Broadcasting a Secret Map of His HouseJennifer Garner's baby food company is going public on the NYSE — should investors be putting their eggs in this basket?Woman Repeatedly Warned by Canadian Exchange Not to Transfer Crypto, Gets Scammed AnywayOpenAI completes restructure, solidifying Microsoft as a major shareholder - MSFT owns 27%, the non profit which controlled the company “for the benefit of humanity” now will only control it for 26% of humanity?Tesla risks losing CEO Musk if $1 trillion pay package isn't approved, board chair says - IF MUSK LEAVES, WHO DO YOU BLAME?Robyn Denholm, board chair, whose job it is to manage Musk, but does it like an overwhelmed permissive mother who parents with chocolate and Teletubbies when the kid has a tantrumKimbal Musk - I was told by a bunch of directors and institutional investors at a conference, no joke, that Kimbal was still on the board (ie, not voted out) to control his brother's ketamine intake and crazy episodes. So if he throws a tantrum and leaves, isn't it bro's fault? This is a binary trade - Musk gets extra pay/control, stock goes up and isn't de-meme'd. Musk doesn't, he leaves and the stock is de-meme'd and drops arguably by 66% or more to be more like a car company with some tech. So do we blame investors, no matter what they do? They meme'd the stock in the first place, he couldn't get a trillion extra dollars if they hadn't pumped up the stock - and now they could vote with humanity (no pay) or meme capitalism (pay)!Techbro middle school conservatism - is this Ben Shapiro and Joe Rogan's fault? A Yale economist paper suggests that Musk's politics cost between 1 and 1.26 million Tesla car sales… Would we even be worried if Musk stayed out of politics? Wouldn't the market have just paid him whatever?Pop quiz: which directors stay on the board if Musk leaves in a tantrum?Jeffrey StraubelKimbal MuskRobyn DenholmJames MurdochKathleen Wilson-ThompsonIra EhrenpreisJack HartungJoe Gebbia

As a psychology professor at Yale University, Dr. Laurie Santos witnessed a severe mental health crisis among her students. One in four were too depressed to function on most days, and over 60% felt overwhelmingly anxious. This experience inspired her to create Yale's most popular course, Psychology and the Good Life, which teaches evidence-based strategies to rewire one's mindset and find true fulfillment. In this episode, Dr. Laurie dives into the science of happiness and shares practical, research-based techniques to break free from common happiness myths and mental traps that keep us from experiencing true joy.  In this episode, Hala and Dr. Laurie will discuss: (00:00) Introduction (02:10) The College Mental Health Crisis (05:37) The Scientific Definitions of Happiness (07:34) How Culture and Mindset Shape Happiness (12:13) Debunking Common Happiness Myths (25:25) Savoring Relationships and Valuing Health (29:08) Turning What We Know Into Everyday Positivity (38:20) Overcoming the Social Comparison Bias Trap (41:43) Rewiring Your Mindset for Lasting Fulfillment (49:24) Expert Takes on Modern Happiness Concepts Dr. Laurie Santos is a cognitive scientist, psychology professor at Yale University, and host of The Happiness Lab podcast. Her Yale course, Psychology and the Good Life, became the most popular class in the university's history and has reached millions worldwide. As a leading expert in the science of happiness, Dr. Laurie helps people understand why our brains mislead us and how to rewire our minds for overall wellness and genuine joy. Sponsored By: Indeed - Get a $75 sponsored job credit to boost your job's visibility at Indeed.com/PROFITING  Shopify - Start your $1/month trial at Shopify.com/profiting.  Mercury streamlines your banking and finances in one place. Learn more at mercury.com/profiting. Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided through Choice Financial Group, Column N.A., and Evolve Bank & Trust; Members FDIC. Quo - Get 20% off your first 6 months at Quo.com/PROFITING  Revolve - Head to REVOLVE.com/PROFITING and take 15% off your first order with code PROFITING  Framer- Go to Framer.com and use code PROFITING to launch your site for free.  Merit Beauty - Go to meritbeauty.com to get your free signature makeup bag with your first order.  Pipedrive - Get a 30-day free trial at pipedrive.com/profiting  Airbnb - Find yourself a cohost at airbnb.com/host  Resources Mentioned: Dr. Laurie's Podcast, The Happiness Lab: bit.ly/THL-apple  Dr. Laurie's Website: drlauriesantos.com/  YAP E197 with Scott Galloway: youngandprofiting.co/StrugglngGen   YAP E247 with Arthur Brooks: youngandprofiting.co/Happiness  YAP E342 with Mark Manson: youngandprofiting.co/HardTruth  YAP E29 with Gretchen Rubin: youngandprofiting.co/Secret  Active Deals - youngandprofiting.com/deals  Key YAP Links Reviews - ratethispodcast.com/yap YouTube - youtube.com/c/YoungandProfiting Newsletter - youngandprofiting.co/newsletter  LinkedIn - linkedin.com/in/htaha/ Instagram - instagram.com/yapwithhala/ Social + Podcast Services: yapmedia.com Transcripts - youngandprofiting.com/episodes-new  Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Podcast, Business, Business Podcast, Self Improvement, Self-Improvement, Personal Development, Starting a Business, Strategy, Investing, Sales, Selling, Psychology, Productivity, Entrepreneurs, AI, Artificial Intelligence, Technology, Marketing, Negotiation, Money, Finance, Side Hustle, Startup, Mental Health, Career, Leadership, Mindset, Health, Growth Mindset, Biohacking, Motivation, Manifestation, Brain Health, Life Balance, Self-Healing, Sleep, Diet

Dirigido y presentado por Rosa Vidal La búsqueda de la felicidad es un denominador común en la historia humana, pero hoy en día ha alcanzado un interés sin precedentes, impulsado por una sociedad enfocada en el desarrollo personal. Sin embargo, el programa pondrá sobre la mesa la visión de expertos que señalan a la «cultura del yo» como un factor que nos aleja del verdadero bienestar. Ésta es promovida por el «positivismo tóxico», que ejerce una gran presión social por sentir o aparentar estar feliz y positivo todo el tiempo, independientemente de las circunstancias reales. En este sentido, ‘Siempre nos quedará París’ hablará de este tema basándose en las claves de la reconocida psicóloga Laurie Santos, directora de los Laboratorios de Cognición de Yale, quien desmitifica creencias populares y ofrece una «receta universal» de actitudes para alcanzar la felicidad. En dicha receta se encuentra la aceptación ante las adversidades y de las emociones negativas, o tener la resiliencia necesaria. Su fórmula se resume en acciones concretas y accesibles, como dedicar tiempo al altruismo, la gratitud, el ejercicio, el sueño de calidad o la práctica de mindfulness. Además, como invitado especial, el programa tendrá en sus estudios al chef Alberto Margallo.

Não é de hoje que a quântica carrega um ar de misticismo e a reputação de ser a solução para os mais diversos tipos de problemas, sejam eles relacionados ao corpo ou à alma. Essa fama faz com que o termo seja usado de maneira irresponsável por charlatões que procuram lucrar com a venda de produtos e serviços pseudocientíficos, baseados em mentiras. Mas fato é que a quântica tem, sim, muitas aplicações reais e é uma área muito importante da ciência - não à toa, foi o tema central do Prêmio Nobel de Física em 2025. Por isso, no quarto episódio da série Parcerias, produzido por Eduarda Moreira e Mayra Trinca junto com o Fronteiras da Ciência, da UFRGS, e em comemoração ao centenário da Física Quântica, trazemos dicas e informações que ajudam a diferenciar o que é do que não é quântica. ___________________________________________________________________ ROTEIRO Eduarda: Imagina a seguinte cena: um professor entra na sala de aula no primeiro dia do curso e diz: Pedro: Hoje é um dia muito emocionante pra mim porque vamos começar a estudar Mecânica Quântica, e faremos isso até o fim do período. Agora, eu tenho más notícias e boas notícias: a má notícia é que é um assunto um pouco difícil de acompanhar intuitivamente, e a boa notícia é que ninguém consegue acompanhar intuitivamente. O Richard Feynman, uma das grandes figuras da física, costumava dizer que ninguém entende mecânica quântica. Então, de certa forma, a pressão foi tirada de vocês, porque eu não entendo, vocês não entendem e Feynman não entendia. O ponto é que…o meu objetivo é o seguinte: nesse momento eu sou o único que não entende mecânica quântica nessa sala, mas daqui uns sete dias, todos vocês serão incapazes de entender mecânica quântica também, e aí vão poder espalhar a ignorância de vocês por vários lugares. Esse é o único legado que um professor pode desejar! Guili: Isso realmente aconteceu! O físico indiano Ramamurti Shankar, professor da Universidade de Yale, nos Estados Unidos, ficou famoso por esse discurso de boas-vindas - um tanto quanto sincero - aos seus alunos. Eduarda: Se a quântica é esse negócio tão complicado de entender até pra especialistas da área, imagina pra gente que nem lembra mais as equações que decorou pro vestibular. Não é à toa que muita gente usa o termo “quântico” pra dar um ar científico a produtos que não têm nada de científico, muito menos de quântico. Guili: A lista é bastante longa: tem “terapia quântica”, “coach quântico”, “sal quântico”, “emagrecimento quântico”... eu tenho certeza que você já se deparou com algum desses por aí. Mas, afinal, como saber o que não é, e, principalmente, o que realmente é a ciência quântica? Eduarda: É isso que eu, Eduarda Moreira, e o Guili Arenzon vamos te contar no episódio de hoje, que é uma parceria entre o Oxigênio e o Fronteiras da Ciência, podcast de divulgação científica do Instituto de Física da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Eduarda: Esse episódio é mais um da série comemorativa dos 10 anos do Oxigênio! Marcelo Knobel: Então, recentemente eu recebi um, inclusive de um aluno, que era uma mesa quântica estelar para resolver processos judiciais, para dar um exemplo extremo do que pode acontecer, mas tem aí cursos de pedagogia quântica, brincadeira quântica para criança, tem pulseiras quânticas e assim vai, é infinita a imaginação humana. Guili: Esse é o Professor Marcelo Knobel Marcelo Knobel: …eu sou professor de Física da Unicamp, sou professor há mais de 35 anos, fui reitor da Unicamp, atualmente estou em Trieste, na Itália, como diretor executivo da Academia Mundial de Ciências para Países em Desenvolvimento. E tenho trabalhado com divulgação científica, com gestão universitária, gestão da ciência, e é um prazer estar aqui com vocês. Guili: O Marcelo tem um gosto pessoal por investigar pseudociências, especialmente as quânticas, o que faz sentido, já que ele também é físico. Eduarda: Então,

What if your mental struggle isn't a personal failure, but a logical reaction to a broken society?This week on A Mental Health Break, we are joined by poet, playwright, Yale graduate, and cultural critic D.C. Copeland, author of the forthcoming book, Societal Dropout: A Culture Manifesto for the New Millennium. D.C. brings a unique, potent voice to the show, leveraging the philosophy of Jung, Freud, and Nietzsche to dissect our modern anxieties.In this profound and provocative discussion, we dive deep into:The Societal Roots of Illness: We tackle the core question: How do we fundamentally remove the negative stigmatization about mental illness by shifting the focus from individual flaw to systemic failure?The Millennial Divide: D.C. offers a compelling analysis of the generation caught between extremes—why are Millennials either doing incredibly well or struggling with housing insecurity, and what does this financial anxiety do to their mental health?Gender and Constraint: We dissect a powerful quote from D.C.'s book: "My experience of the feminine is one of deep pain and glorious power." We explore how rigid gender constraints limit not only art, but the soul, and why finding power requires creating outside those boundaries.Life Beyond the Line: D.C. defines what "dropping out of society" truly means—is it a physical exit, or a necessary philosophical break to protect your well-being?If you've ever felt that you don't fit into the demands of modern life, this episode is your permission slip to rethink the system and prioritize your own mental freedom.Find D.C. Copeland's upcoming book, Societal Dropout: A Culture Manifesto for the New Millennium, on Amazon today.Support the showHave a question for the host or guest? Want their freebee? Are you looking to become a guest or show partner? Email Danica at PodcastsByLanci@gmail.com.This show is brought to you by Coming Alive Podcast Production.CRISIS LINE: DIAL 988

At the intersection of African and Latin American heritage lies Afro-Latinidad — a vibrant, complex identity that challenges monolithic understandings of race, ethnicity, and belonging. In this episode, the House's host, Aby Haile, sits down with Myah Salazar (MY '28) and Sebas Perez (MY '28) to unpack what it means to be Afro-Latinx at Yale. Through their Dominican and Cuban identities, they discuss navigating spaces of identity, building community, and redefining what multiculturalism looks like within elite academic spaces.

Dennis and Brady react to week 9, Ryan saw the PHN-SC game, SC likely out of the playoffs, Marysville beats Marine City, Armada falls vs Frankenmuth, Joe talks about the Cros-Lex season ending Yale cashes their ticket, BWAC applications open and more!

Keep the narrative flow going! Subscribe now for ad-free listening, bonus content, and access to the entire catalog of 500 episodes. After Donald Trump was first elected in 2016, Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism became a surprise bestseller. Arendt, who died in 1975, became a sort of prophet for the liberal "Resistance" based on her insights into lying and politics and the origins of fascism. Today, as President Trump acts with increasing authoritarianism and corruption, Arendt is still frequently quoted, but she's not the star she once was on the American left. Why? Yale historian and law professor Samuel Moyn discusses the uses and abuses of Hannah Arendt, one of the twentieth century's towering philosophers. Further reading: You Have Misunderstood the Relevance of Hannah Arendt by Samuel Moyn, Prospect (2020) Men in Dark Times by Rebecca Panovka, Harper's (2021) Lying in Politics: Hannah Arendt on Deception, Self-Deception, and the Psychology of Defactualization by Maria Popova, The Marginalian Big Racket Man by Martin Jay for Verso Books (2023)

durée : 00:58:25 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit, Maïwenn Guiziou - Dès le 12ᵉ siècle, l'exploitation productive d'espaces naturels devient un impératif. De la quête d'une sécurité alimentaire à l'expansion de réseaux commerciaux, quels furent les vecteurs de transformation des milieux naturels ? En quoi cette histoire rencontre-t-elle la crise climatique actuelle ? - réalisation : Laurence Millet - invités : Sunil Amrith Professeur d'histoire à l'université de Yale aux États-Unis, directeur du département d'histoire environnementale

In this conversation, Trent and Kevin explore the multifaceted relationship between design, architecture, and human experience. They discuss how design serves as a storytelling medium, the emotional impact of spaces, and the cultural reflections inherent in architecture. The dialogue also touches on societal issues, the role of architects in fostering community, and the importance of understanding cultural differences. Kevin emphasizes the need for optimism and collaboration in addressing contemporary challenges, while also reflecting on the interconnectedness of society and the potential for future growth through shared experiences.Kevin Kennon is an internationally renowned architect with over 40 years of experience, specializing in environmentally sustainable and innovative design. As the founder and CEO of Beyond Zero DDC Inc., Kevin leads the development of zero-carbon emission luxury eco-resorts in remote wilderness locations worldwide, merging design excellence with ecological responsibility. His extensive portfolio includes projects like the 1.5 million square foot Barclays North American Headquarters, the Rodin Museum in Seoul, and multiple award-winning Bloomingdale's stores. Additionally, he led United Architects, a finalist in the prestigious World Trade Center design competition, further solidifying his impact on architectural innovation. Kevin's expertise spans adaptive reuse, urban planning, and large-scale developments, with projects featured in the permanent collection of MoMA, New York. He has earned over 40 international design awards and is a sought-after thought leader, contributing to discussions on urban development, climate change, and sustainable architecture. His work extends beyond architecture; as an expert witness and lecturer at leading institutions like Yale and Columbia, he brings a multidisciplinary approach to his craft.More from Kevin Kennon: Website: https://www.kdcaia.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pkk2418/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinkennonarchitect/  More from us: Website: www.adppodcast.com Instagram: http://instagram.com/adppod_

In this episode, I'm joined by Dr. Alexandra Fuss, Ph.D., Director of Behavioral Medicine in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital and Instructor in Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Alexandra previously served as Director of Behavioral Health in Digestive Diseases and Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Yale, and is a National Scientific Advisor for the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation and Associate Editor of Crohn's & Colitis 360 Journal. Together, we unpack the topic of medical gaslighting and invalidation in gastrointestinal care, what it is, why patients with gut–brain disorders are particularly vulnerable, and how subtle or systemic factors can leave patients feeling dismissed. Alexandra also shares practical strategies clinicians can use to build trust, improve communication, and ensure patients feel genuinely heard and cared for. Whether you've ever felt your symptoms weren't taken seriously, or you're a clinician wanting to better support your patients, this episode offers insightful and actionable guidance you won't want to miss. Please enjoy my conversation with Dr. Alexandra Fuss.

In this week's episode, joined by 2024 New Orleans-Matsue Sister City Exchange Program participants Katherine Heller & Wade Trosclair, the Krewe looks back & celebrates 30 years of friendship between Matsue, Japan & New Orleans, Louisiana... a sister city relationship built on cultural exchange, mutual curiosity, &shared spirit. Together, they reflect on their time in Matsue during the exchange program, their experiences with host families, and the deep connections that form when two communities separated by an ocean come together.------ About the Krewe ------The Krewe of Japan Podcast is a weekly episodic podcast sponsored by the Japan Society of New Orleans. Check them out every Friday afternoon around noon CST on Apple, Google, Spotify, Amazon, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.  Want to share your experiences with the Krewe? Or perhaps you have ideas for episodes, feedback, comments, or questions? Let the Krewe know by e-mail at kreweofjapanpodcast@gmail.com or on social media (Twitter: @kreweofjapan, Instagram: @kreweofjapanpodcast, Facebook: Krewe of Japan Podcast Page, TikTok: @kreweofjapanpodcast, LinkedIn: Krewe of Japan LinkedIn Page, Blue Sky Social: @kreweofjapan.bsky.social, & the Krewe of Japan Youtube Channel). Until next time, enjoy!------ Support the Krewe! Offer Links for Affiliates ------Use the referral links below & our promo code from the episode (timestamps [hh:mm:ss] where you can find the code)!Support your favorite NFL Team AND podcast! Shop NFLShop to gear up for football season!Zencastr Offer Link - Use my special link to save 30% off your 1st month of any Zencastr paid plan!  (00:53:00)------ Past Matsue/Sister City Episodes ------Lafcadio Hearn: 2024 King of Carnival (S5Bonus)Explore Matsue ft. Nicholas McCullough (S4E19)Jokichi Takamine: The Earliest Bridge Between New Orleans & Japan ft. Stephen Lyman (S4E13)The Life & Legacy of Lafcadio Hearn ft. Bon & Shoko Koizumi (S1E9)Matsue & New Orleans: Sister Cities ft. Dr. Samantha Perez (S1E2)------ Links about the Exchange ------2024 Exchange Program Info/PicturesShogun Martial Arts Dojo (Katie's family's dojo)------ JSNO Upcoming Events ------JSNO Event CalendarJoin JSNO Today!

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss how President Trump reacted to the No Kings protests by embracing his own “cult of the ruler” in particularly dramatic fashion, whether the shutdown will eventually break enough government functions to force more urgency in negotiations, and why Young Republicans are fawning over Hitler in group chats. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David talk to Rabbi Angela Buchdahl about what it means to be a rabbi these days, the importance of empathy as a first principle for all of us, and her new memoir, Heart of a Stranger: An Unlikely Rabbi's Story of Faith, Identity, and Belonging.    In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book, The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements.    Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Nina Porzucki   Research by Emily Ditto You can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss how President Trump reacted to the No Kings protests by embracing his own “cult of the ruler” in particularly dramatic fashion, whether the shutdown will eventually break enough government functions to force more urgency in negotiations, and why Young Republicans are fawning over Hitler in group chats. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David talk to Rabbi Angela Buchdahl about what it means to be a rabbi these days, the importance of empathy as a first principle for all of us, and her new memoir, Heart of a Stranger: An Unlikely Rabbi's Story of Faith, Identity, and Belonging.    In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book, The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements.    Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Nina Porzucki   Research by Emily Ditto You can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss how President Trump reacted to the No Kings protests by embracing his own “cult of the ruler” in particularly dramatic fashion, whether the shutdown will eventually break enough government functions to force more urgency in negotiations, and why Young Republicans are fawning over Hitler in group chats. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David talk to Rabbi Angela Buchdahl about what it means to be a rabbi these days, the importance of empathy as a first principle for all of us, and her new memoir, Heart of a Stranger: An Unlikely Rabbi's Story of Faith, Identity, and Belonging.    In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book, The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements.    Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Nina Porzucki   Research by Emily Ditto You can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thank you for tuning in for another episode of Life's Best Medicine. Theresa Lyons, MS, MS, PhD is a Yale University trained scientist, medical strategist, and autism parent. Theresa combines the rigor of a Yale-trained scientist with the compassion of a dedicated mom to transform how we understand autism. Through her research and coaching, she explores the metabolic and nutritional roots of neurological health.   In this episode, Dr. Brian and Theresa talk about… (00:00) Intro (04:27) Theresa's background and why she chose to pursue autism research (09:15) The beginning ofTheresa's autism reversal journey (15:53) Autism diagnosis criteria (17:50) Whether or not the reported increase in autism cases is accurate (20:42) What the big, root cause factors are for autism (23:58) Diet and autism (25:56) Low-hanging fruit treatments for people with autism (29:40) Toxin build-up and autism (31:24) B-9 and Leucovorin (38:22) Genetic autism risk (40:18) Diabetes and other co-morbidities associated with autism (41:32) The keto and carnivore diets for people with autism (43:59) Hydration and autism (46:33) GI health and cognitive health (54:17) Outro   For more information, please see the links below. Thank you for listening!   Links:   Theresa Lyons: Navigating AWEtism: https://awetism.net YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@navigatingawetism IG: https://www.instagram.com/navigating_awetism/?hl=en   Dr. Brian Lenzkes:  Arizona Metabolic Health: https://arizonametabolichealth.com/ Low Carb MD Podcast: https://www.lowcarbmd.com/ Brain Bootcamp: https://prescott-now.com/event/brain-bootcamp-resource-event/   HLTH Code: HLTH Code Promo Code: METHEALTH • • HLTH Code Website: https://gethlth.com

A Yale college professor (Oscar-winner Julia Roberts) finds herself at a personal and professional crossroads when a star pupil (Emmy-winner Ayo Edibri) levels an accusation against one of her colleagues (Oscar-nominated Andrew Garfield) and a dark secret from her own past threatens to come to light.  Directed by Oscar-nominee Luca Guadagnino (Call Me By Your Name, Challengers, Suspiria), this tense workplace drama also touches on many current hot-button issues and co-stars Emmy-nominee Michael Stuhlbarg (A Serious Man, The Shape of Water) and Oscar-nominee Chloe Sevigny (Boy's Don't Cry, The Last Days of Disco).  Host: Geoff GershonEdited By Ella GershonProducer: Marlene GershonSend us a textSupport the showhttps://livingforthecinema.com/Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/Living-for-the-Cinema-Podcast-101167838847578Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/livingforthecinema/Letterboxd:https://letterboxd.com/Living4Cinema/

Feeling out of sync or disconnected from your energy? Discover how to feel aligned again by tuning into your body's natural rhythms and reclaiming your inner flow. In this episode of The Women's Vibrancy Code, Maraya Brown reveals how tuning into your body's natural rhythms can help you reclaim balance, clarity, and vitality. She helps you explore the connection between the seasons of the year and the cycles within your own body—showing how honoring these rhythms can transform your well-being, creativity, and confidence. If you've been craving more flow, energy, and purpose in your life, this episode is your invitation to reconnect with the rhythm that's been within you all along.   Tips in this episode: Understanding and aligning with the dynamic cycles of the year, the moon, and one's personal biological cycles is crucial for a woman's health and well-being. Regular meditation and self-reflection about one's surroundings and support systems can unlock personal empowerment and aid in navigating personal life rhythms. Recognizing the similarities between the external environment (seasons) and internal cycles can optimize personal routines, from eating habits to sleeping patterns and socializing preferences. Surrounding oneself with inspiring company can mitigate feelings of loneliness, particularly in entrepreneurial journeys.     Discover How to Reclaim Your Most Vibrant, Turned On Life: https://marayabrown.com/video-optin/     The Women's Vibrancy Accelerator Trifecta: Your 90-Day Health Reset Ready to take your health to the next level? The Women's Vibrancy Accelerator Trifecta offers deep, personalized support to help you regain control of your energy, hormones, and well-being. This program includes: Three one-on-one calls with Maraya Dutch Plus Test and full assessment Bi-weekly live Q&A sessions Self-paced health portal covering energy, hormones, libido, and confidence   Podcast listeners get an exclusive discount. Use code PODCAST. Learn more and enroll now: https://marayabrown.com/trifecta/ _______________________ Free Wellness Resources Access free tools like the Menstrual Tracker, Adaptogen Elixir Recipes, Two-Week Soul Cleanse, Food Facial, and more. Download now: https://marayabrown.com/resources/ _______________________ Subscribe to The Women's Vibrancy Code Podcast Listen on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, and Spotify. _______________________ Connect with the Show Find us on Facebook,  Linkedin | Website | Tiktok | Facebook Group _______________________ Apply for a Call with Maraya Brown Start your journey with personalized support. Apply here: https://marayabrown.com/call  _______________________ About Maraya Brown Maraya is a Yale and Functional Medicine-trained Women's Health and Wellness Expert (CNM, MSN). She helps women feel energized, confident, and connected to themselves and their lives. With over 25 years of experience, she specializes in energy, hormones, libido, confidence, and deep transformation. _______________________ Disclaimer The content of this podcast is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute medical or professional advice. Listeners should consult with a qualified professional before making any health decisions.     This Podcast Is Produced, Engineered & Edited By: Simplified Impact 

Marcy Axelrod is a bestselling and award-winning author, TV Contributor, 2X TEDx speaker and management consultant. Her latest book, How We Choose to Show Up, is a #1 Bestseller and was recently awarded the Hayakawa book prize. Marcy has been interviewed in Forbes, Psychology Today, and The Marketing Journal, among others. Her approaches have been tested and proven through projects with some of the world's largest high-tech companies (e.g., HP, SAP, Cisco). With a background on Wall Street (Lehman Brothers) and in Silicon Valley, Marcy's work has been highly praised by professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, and Cornell. Based on 20+ years of research, Marcy's latest book, How We Choose to Show Up, presents in 3-D nature's model of how humans are designed to Show Up to thrive. The resulting model is helping thousands of people connect more deeply with themselves, others and their experiences, adding meaning to their lives, and helping companies around the world to innovate and grow. Showing Up integrates neuroscience, psychology, behavioral economics and evolutionary biology with top consulting strategies and leading business practices, to help people, companies and societies succeed.  https://choosetoshowup.com/  

Welcome to the Tearsheet podcast, where we explore financial services together with an eye on technology, innovation, emerging models and changing expectations. I'm Tearsheet Editor in Chief, Zack Miller. There's an old theory in lending that you can only master two or three things: growth, credit performance and profitability. For decades, this has been accepted wisdom, until AI started changing the fundamentals of how we assess credit risk. Today, I'm joined by Paul Gu, Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer of Upstart. Paul's journey reads like a modern Silicon Valley story—from Chinese immigrant to Yale dropout. He became part of the inaugural class of Thiel Fellows before co-founding Upstart in 2012. Under his leadership, Upstart has gone from zero model training data points in 2013 to processing 91 million data points today. Their AI predicts both default and prepayment likelihood for every month of a loan's term, and Paul believes Upstart's AI is bringing them closer to achieving all three pillars of lending—an approach that could redefine consumer lending across the entire credit lifecycle. We'll explore how this evolution is playing out, dive into Upstart's 2025 roadmap, including their push for 10x AI leadership and GAAP profitability, and discuss what this means for the future of credit.

Your brain on revenge looks like your brain on drugs. Here, Dr. James Kimmel, Jr. explores the neuroscience of vengeance and the power of forgiveness.Full show notes and resources can be found here: jordanharbinger.com/1226What We Discuss with James Kimmel, Jr.:Revenge activates the same brain circuitry as drug addiction. When we experience grievances, our brain's pain centers light up, triggering cravings for revenge that activate the nucleus accumbens and dorsal striatum — the same pleasure and addiction pathways used by cocaine, gambling, and alcohol. This explains why revenge feels temporarily euphoric but leaves us wanting more.Most violence stems from perceived victimization, not inherent evil. Nearly all forms of human violence — from playground bullying to terrorism and genocide — originate from revenge-seeking behavior. The perpetrator almost always views themselves as a victim first, making revenge the root cause of mass shootings, intimate partner violence, gang conflicts, and even war.Imagined grievances trigger real revenge desires with real-world consequences. It doesn't matter whether victimization is real or manufactured — if it feels real in your head, it produces genuine revenge cravings. This explains how leaders like Hitler used the "stab in the back" myth to mobilize a nation, and why mass shooters nurse perceived slights that no one else remembers.Revenge addiction destroys relationships and keeps you trapped in the past. Unlike self-defense (which protects your future), revenge always looks backward, creating a preoccupation with past wrongs. It damages every relationship, increases anger and anxiety, and paradoxically makes you feel worse after the initial dopamine hit fades — all while fearing retaliation.Forgiveness is the neurological cure — and you can learn it. Science now shows we're hardwired for forgiveness as much as revenge. Forgiveness actually stops pain rather than just covering it up, shuts down revenge cravings, and reactivates your prefrontal cortex. Dr. Kimmel's "Nonjustice System" — a role-play trial method tested at Yale — gives you a practical way to be heard, hold someone accountable in your mind, and ultimately release yourself from past wounds. More tools and insights coming in part two later this week.And much more...And if you're still game to support us, please leave a review here — even one sentence helps! Sign up for Six-Minute Networking — our free networking and relationship development mini course — at jordanharbinger.com/course!Subscribe to our once-a-week Wee Bit Wiser newsletter today and start filling your Wednesdays with wisdom!Do you even Reddit, bro? Join us at r/JordanHarbinger!This Episode Is Brought To You By Our Fine Sponsors: Mint Mobile: Shop plans at mintmobile.com/jhsFunction Health: $100 credit: functionhealth.com/jordan, code JORDAN100Hiya: 50% off first order: hiyahealth.com/jordanButcherBox: Free protein for a year + $20 off first box: butcherbox.com/jordanAirbnb: airbnb.com/hostSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Boaventura de Sousa ​Santos, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Coimbra, discusses his professional training from law, to the philosophy of law and then to sociology, covering his time studying in Cold War Berlin, then Yale in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and his eventual involvement with the World Social Forum and his efforts to densify class struggle. Bouncing off his recent article on cancel culture, de Sousa Santos analyses the “narcissism of belongingness” and how identity politics is sabotaging the left, where the connection to the political economy is lost to the language of inclusion. Analysing the weaponisation of victimhood and lies that are used to create narratives that uniquely rely upon the perverse assumption of female innocence and male guilt, de Sousa Santos observes the current social discourse and protofascistic regimes of our times, where the Inquisition of the Dark Ages has returned. Noting the rise of social fascism, which he believes may potentially slide into political fascism, de Sousa Santos argues that the proliferation of victimhood narratives creates the subject as a type of inert res extensa, in Cartesian terms, that simultaneously negates the Spinozean notion of human potentia, something he believes will ultimately kill the feminist movement. Get full access to Savage Minds at savageminds.substack.com/subscribe

Send us a textCoach James Jones joins us on the next step of our tip off road trip. We talk how he's rebuilding his roster after losing some key pieces, building on the momentum from back to back NCAA Tournament appearances, the future of the Ivy League, and a whole lot more.

Stop Choosing the Wrong People! Compatibility Secrets from Therapist Jena Jakehttps://www.jenajake.com/What if you could build your perfect partner—literally?

Our speaker is Robert Malley who is a Senior Fellow at Yale's Jackson School of Global Affairs and previously has worked in the Clinton, Obama, and Biden Administrations.  He is also the co-author of a new book entitled Tomorrow is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine. Get full access to What Happens Next in 6 Minutes with Larry Bernstein at www.whathappensnextin6minutes.com/subscribe

Emily Bazelon talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements. Witt traces how the fund connected race and class politics, supported the intellectual groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education, and anticipated today's challenges around misinformation, inequality, and political disconnection. He and Bazelon also discuss what lessons progressives might take from this forgotten story of organizing during political exile. Tweet us your questions @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages could be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Emily Bazelon talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements. Witt traces how the fund connected race and class politics, supported the intellectual groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education, and anticipated today's challenges around misinformation, inequality, and political disconnection. He and Bazelon also discuss what lessons progressives might take from this forgotten story of organizing during political exile. Tweet us your questions @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages could be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Emily Bazelon talks with Yale law professor John Witt about his new book The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America. They explore the remarkable story of the Garland Fund—a small 1920s foundation that bankrolled early work by A. Philip Randolph, and others who would go on to shape the civil rights and labor movements. Witt traces how the fund connected race and class politics, supported the intellectual groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education, and anticipated today's challenges around misinformation, inequality, and political disconnection. He and Bazelon also discuss what lessons progressives might take from this forgotten story of organizing during political exile. Tweet us your questions @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages could be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Gaza ceasefire and prospects for long-term peace with Rob Malley, Middle East policy expert and co-author (with Hussein Agha) of the new book Tomorrow is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine, which side is likely to fold first in the ongoing government shutdown, and who benefits as the Supreme Court hears arguments about whether the 14th Amendment clashes with the Voting Rights Act. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss the new Paul Thomas Anderson movie “One Battle After Another” and its political and social themes. Is it a love letter to the revolutionary left and community connection, “apologia for radical left-wing terrorism,” or something else entirely? In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with author and Yale professor Judith Resnik about her new book, Impermissible Punishments: How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy. They discuss the history of the prison system's use of punishments like whipping, how the practice came to an end, and more.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Nina Porzucki   Research by Emily Ditto You can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Want more Political Gabfest? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Political Gabfest show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or visit slate.com/gabfestplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Gaza ceasefire and prospects for long-term peace with Rob Malley, Middle East policy expert and co-author (with Hussein Agha) of the new book Tomorrow is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine, which side is likely to fold first in the ongoing government shutdown, and who benefits as the Supreme Court hears arguments about whether the 14th Amendment clashes with the Voting Rights Act. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss the new Paul Thomas Anderson movie “One Battle After Another” and its political and social themes. Is it a love letter to the revolutionary left and community connection, “apologia for radical left-wing terrorism,” or something else entirely? In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with author and Yale professor Judith Resnik about her new book, Impermissible Punishments: How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy. They discuss the history of the prison system's use of punishments like whipping, how the practice came to an end, and more.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Nina Porzucki   Research by Emily Ditto You can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Want more Political Gabfest? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Political Gabfest show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or visit slate.com/gabfestplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the new movie After The Hunt, Julia Roberts plays a Yale professor who finds herself in a hard place when one of her star students (Ayo Edebiri) makes an allegation against another faculty member (Andrew Garfield). Who's telling the truth? Who's the victim? Is there a victim? Directed by Luca Guadagnino (Challengers, Call Me by Your Name) the film poses a lot of questions. But are any of them answered?Follow Pop Culture Happy Hour on Letterboxd at letterboxd.com/nprpopcultureLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy