Ignite your curiosity with world-class professors and researchers from the country’s top universities. From Chemistry to Literature, Public Policy to Business, top scholars from across the globe are here to answer all of your questions.
Revenue sources for newsrooms include the Guardian (UK) and Reuters (owned by Canadian family Thomsons), the New York Times subscription model, Amazon ad technology, public media in the US/Canada/UK, and a pay-per-read model. Transcript: "This is such a good question because I think people don't know this common landscape of who has money and news right now. So what newsrooms have revenue enough to survive, and what is working? So there is a few-- some are easy to replicate, and some not so easy. So two of the ones that I think are just so great because they're neutral and they're around for a long time as a bucket of money are the Guardian in the UK. It has money from the Scott trust, which was made through the sale of Auto Trader. And so the guy who sold Auto Trader put it in a trust, and so the Guardian has this really nice bucket of money. The other is Reuters. Reuters is owned by the Canadian family the Thomsons through their Woodbridge organization. And they sold their Refinitiv terminals, which are like Bloomberg terminals. They sold those to Blackstone, and then Blackstone I think sold it to the London Stock Exchange-- double-check that one. But as a result, Reuters, for the next-- it was a 30-year deal. And at least for the next 26, if not 27, years, Reuters has $300 million every year to put out news. So that's another really good neutral source. The New York Times is doing a great job with the subscription. So it's also a public company, and its stock trades very well. Amazon is doing very well because Jeff Bezos helped build its backbone of his digital transformation, and he's also building this very cool ad technology to serve up ads. And he's including other publications now who can use his ad technology to compete with Facebook and Google, who get a lot of the digital ads. So The Washington Post is something I'm very bullish on. When you look at public media in the US, Biden just bumped it up, but we pay $1.50 per person in America for our public media, which is PBS and NPR. Canada pays $33 a person. So $1.50 in the US, $33 in Canada, and the UK pays like $70 a person. And then Norway and Japan are like over $100. So those are other sources. But subscription is the name of the game. I personally think a pay-per-read model will work. And my friend Dominic over in the UK-- he's become a colleague because we talk about this all the time-- he has something called Axate. I guess it's kind of like iTunes where you swipe to listen to a song. I think that would work, but the publishers aren't there yet. I think they're worried it's going to eat into their subscription base."
Over the years, there has been a great shift in students' understanding of entrepreneurship. Today, students come from all kinds of backgrounds and are eager to learn about how to identify an opportunity, get access to resources, and run tests - skills that can be applied to many different careers. Transcript: "You know, I've had at least 6,000 students. A little complicated because I've given lots of talks. I would say that the students-- the great shift over the years has been in their understanding of the basic phenomenon, because in the early 1980s, there were a few dabblers in entrepreneurial activity. There wasn't much venture capital. It certainly was mainly a US phenomenon. And today we have students from 70 countries. We have almost half women. We've got a tremendous mix of backgrounds, people from not-for-profit, from military, from marketing, from human resources, management. And so I think they're all eager to learn about how to identify an opportunity, how to get access to the resources, how to run those tests. And that's going to be something that's useful no matter what they do in their careers."
One thing that still keeps me awake at night about the human brain is what makes it uniquely human - why are our brains so different to those of other animals, and what evolutionary switch caused us to develop the capacity for complex thought, language, and social structures? Transcript: "What is one thing about the human brain which still keeps you awake at night? Well, let me start by saying that I try not to let the human brain keep me awake at night. One thing we've learned over the years is how important sleep is to our mental health, our physical health, our stress reactivity, our learning, our memory, and our brain health-- that I really take it seriously. I try very much to get good sleep. So yeah, my daughter might wake me up, my dog might wake me up, but I try not to let thinking about the human brain keep me awake at night. Having said that, there are some things I wonder about the human brain. So one of them is, what makes a human brain human? So if we look at brains and what they look like and how they function across species, there aren't that many differences. If we look at our closest primate relatives and their brains, we have the same basic parts, the same basic functions, and the same basic parts. And the neurons work roughly the same. And in fact, as scientists, we take advantage of that. We study other animals to get insight into human brain function. But we know that, of course, humans are very different than other animals in many important ways. We have generative language. We have this ability to have complex thoughts and communicate them with each other-- sort of infinite number of potential thoughts. We have complex societies and structures that govern how we operate in the world that other animals don't have. So there must be something that happened in brain development, some switch that occurred that made humans and their brains different, that enabled all these things that make us uniquely humans. But I have no idea what that switch is because when I look at the brains, they don't look so drastically different. So what is it about human brains that make us human? I have no idea. That's something I wonder about."
On the Road was an incredibly controversial book that was an instant hit due to its lyrical and intimate voice. It inspired many people to escape the conventional realities of 1950s and early 1960s by criss-crossing the US. Its influence is also seen in American songwriting, with Bob Dylan being the prime example of how Kerouac's voice has changed it. Transcript: "Jack Kerouac, 1957 novel on the road, went off like a bomb shell, it was a best-seller almost instantaneously. Got a wonderful review in the New York Times. It's it was incredibly controversial novel at the time, and I think that that was partially responsible, for its success. It is an account of criss-crossing United States by care. And a group of his friends, hitching, riding buses, and so forth. It inspired a lot of people to do the same to leave home to escape from the conventional realities of 1950s and early 1960s and had off Across America. I think it also was influential in the sense that it's Established a new kind of voice in American culture, incredibly Intimates, interior, yet, lyrical, voice. That is in my view, the beauty of care wax Pros. Nothing much happens in Kerouac novels, or the same things happen again. And again, he gets to California. On the road, and he turns brown and comes back, you know? But the voice is incredible. And although, I think that Kerouac has been influential especially in American, Poetry, the realm in which he has been most influential is an American song writing. It's, it's pretty hard to To imagine the mid-1960s Bob Dylan without care or wax voice. It's difficult to imagine the sophistication and incredible sense of texture in those lyrics, which went on to change American song writing without Kerouac."
Mia is holding her baby brother and Zuri is grooming them. X is embracing Missouri and Mia is grooming her mother. The third infant has no name, but they have a Resort painted chest. X is now grabbing the third infant. Transcript: "You have 10 in the center? You've Mia and she's carrying. Her baby brother and she just put him next to her. She's holding him now. Running a girl. Tim's is looking at them. to the mother of times, it's been mother of Mia and Zuri is grooming much and Now, X is grabbing Missouri. These are two miles from different communities that you've now made on infant. Male X is embracing Missouri. Mia's turning back around. She's going to groom her mother. I think. And then the little baby behind them is the infinitive darling that doesn't have a name. And darling behind them is grooming thin. The darling from the koko-san from, for Coco. And we have again on top 10 teams with Resort painted chest. Now, he's grabbing the third infant. Start."
Dynamic stretching is better suited for warm-ups because it increases blood flow, body temperature and prepares the body for more active activity. Static stretching can actually have a negative impact during a workout. Transcript: "Dynamic stretching, as far as a warm-up goes, is just an actual movement of the body getting ready for physical activity. So it might be leg swings, arm swings, arm circles, walking lunges. Where static stretching, of course, is stretching a muscle, getting into a position where it's stretched, and you feel some slight discomfort, and then you hold that position for a minimum of 30 seconds. Dynamic stretching is most suited for warm-up because you actually are moving, you're contracting the muscles, you're increasing blood flow, actually getting a slight increase in your respiratory. So it's going to do a better job as to actually increasing your body temperature and getting your body ready for more active activity. Static stretching doesn't really do a whole lot to warm up your body, and it can actually inhibit the stretch reflex, which could have a negative impact during your actual workout."