Split (1)

train · 730k rows

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.

id stringlengths 32 32	url stringlengths 31 1.58k	title stringlengths 0 1.02k	contents stringlengths 92 1.17M
7e0ac2554c44026385cd0bd6e38dd5a4	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/01/06/why-your-boss-lacks-emotional-intelligence/	Why Your Boss Lacks Emotional Intelligence	Why Your Boss Lacks Emotional Intelligence Over the past century, the heartless, no-nonsense CEO has become something of an icon—and a cliché—in American society. Hollywood would have us believe that the Machiavellian chief exec is still alive and well. Whether it’s the Donald from The Apprentice or Jack Donaghy from 30 Rock, these eat-the-weak-for-breakfast-types seem to be as powerful as ever. But that’s just TV, right? How about in the real world? Do businesses today still allow these inhumane relics to survive? To find out, we analyzed the emotional intelligence profiles of the million-plus people in our database—workers from the frontlines to the C-suite. We discovered that the answer is yes, organizations today do promote the emotionally inept ... except when they don't. Allow me to explain. We found that scores climb with titles from the bottom of the corporate ladder upward toward middle management. Middle managers stand out with the highest emotional intelligence (EQ) scores in the workplace because companies tend to promote people into supervisory positions who are level-headed and good with people. The assumption here is that a manager with a high EQ is someone for whom people will want to work. But things change drastically as you move beyond middle management. For the titles of director and above, scores descend faster than a snowboarder on a black diamond. CEOs, on average, have the lowest EQ scores in the workplace. The trick is, for every title in the graph above, the top performers are those with the highest EQ scores. Even though CEOs have the lowest EQ scores in the workplace, the best-performing CEOs are those with the highest EQs. You might get promoted with a low EQ, but you won't outshine your high-EQ competition in your new role. The higher you go above middle management, the more companies focus on metrics to make hiring and promotion decisions. While these bottom-line indicators are important, it's shortsighted to make someone a senior leader solely because of recent monetary achievements. Even worse than metrics, companies also promote leaders for their knowledge and tenure, rather than their skill in inspiring others to excel. Companies sell themselves short by selecting leaders who aren't well-rounded enough to perform at the highest levels for the long term. Once leaders get promoted they enter an environment that tends to erode their emotional intelligence. They spend less time in meaningful interactions with their staff and lose sight of how their emotional states impact those around them. It's so easy to get out of touch that leaders' EQ levels sink further. It truly is lonely at the top. Whether you're a leader now or may become one in the future, you don't have to succumb to this trend. Your emotional intelligence is completely under your control. Work on your EQ and it will boost your performance now and ensure that you don't experience declines as you climb the corporate ladder. Even if your employer promotes you for the wrong reasons, you'll still outperform your contemporaries. To help you get started, here are five of my favorite EQ-boosting strategies for leaders. They apply to anyone, so give them a try, even if you're not a leader. Acknowledge Other People's Feelings Assertive, action-oriented executives don’t exactly ignore other people’s feelings. What they tend to do instead is to marginalize them or “fix” them so that they don’t get in the way of action. While some have suggested that this is a predominantly male problem, it can more accurately be described as a “power problem.” People who fail to acknowledge other people’s feelings fail to realize that lingering emotions inhibit effective action. So the next time you notice someone on your team expressing a strong emotion, ask him or her about it. Then listen intently and play back what you have just heard in summary form. By validating their emotions, you'll help them feel understood so that they can move forward without hindrance. When You Care, Show It This might be the easiest thing you can do—as long as you actually do it. Good leaders always notice when people on their teams are doing good work, but they don’t often show it. When you appreciate something that another person does, let him or her know about it. Even a quick email or pat on the back goes a long way in this regard. There are people who do great work around you every day. Don't put off letting them know how you feel about it. Your praise will build fierce loyalty and inspire your people to work even harder. Watch Your Emotions Like A Hawk The techniques above are extremely effective, but both require an awareness of your own emotions in the moment. You may think you have a world-class poker face, but if you’re like the average executive, your weakest self-awareness skills are “understanding how your emotions impact others” and “recognizing the role you have played in creating difficult circumstances.” In other words, you would become a much more effective leader if you obtained a better understanding of what you feel, when you feel it. Practice this by taking notice of your emotions, thoughts, and behaviors just as a situation unfolds. The goal is to slow yourself down and take in all that is in front of you, so that you can understand how your emotions influence your behavior and alter your perception of reality. Sleep I’ve beaten this one to death over the years and can’t say enough about the importance of sleep to increasing your emotional intelligence and improving your relationships. When you sleep, your brain literally recharges, shuffling through the day’s memories and storing or discarding them (which causes dreams), so that you wake up alert and clear-headed. Your self-control, attention, and memory are all reduced when you don’t get enough—or the right kind—of sleep. Sleep deprivation also raises stress hormone levels on its own, even without a stressor present. The pressure that leaders are under often makes them feel as if they don't have time to sleep, but not taking the time to get a decent night’s sleep is often the one thing keeping you from getting things under control. Quash Negative Self-Talk A big step in developing emotional intelligence involves stopping negative self-talk in its tracks. The more you ruminate on negative thoughts, the more power you give them. Most of our negative thoughts are just that—thoughts, not facts. When you find yourself believing the negative and pessimistic things your inner voice says, it's time to stop and write them down. Literally stop what you're doing and write down what you're thinking. Once you've taken a moment to slow down the negative momentum of your thoughts, you will be more rational and clear-headed in evaluating their veracity. You can bet that your statements aren’t true any time you use words like “never,” “worst,” “ever,” etc. If your statements still look like facts once they’re on paper, take them to a friend or colleague you trust and see if he or she agrees with you. Then the truth will surely come out. When it feels like something always or never happens, this is just your brain’s natural threat tendency inflating the perceived frequency or severity of an event. Identifying and labeling your thoughts as thoughts by separating them from the facts will help you escape the cycle of negativity and move toward a positive new outlook.
4fc8e6657d77a10775dc3dafc0699bc8	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/02/11/15-habits-of-exceptionally-persuasive-people/	15 Habits Of Exceptionally Persuasive People	15 Habits Of Exceptionally Persuasive People Whether you’re convincing your boss to fund your project or your preschooler to wipe his own hiney after using the bathroom, persuasion is instrumental to your success and happiness. Persuasive people have an uncanny ability to get you leaning toward their way of thinking. Their secret weapon? They get you to like more than their ideas; they get you to like them. Here are the tricks of the trade that exceptionally persuasive people use to their advantage. They Know Their Audience Persuasive people know their audience inside and out, and they use this knowledge to speak their audience’s language. Whether it’s toning down your assertiveness when talking to someone who is shy or cranking it up for the aggressive, high-energy type, everyone is different, and catching on to these subtleties goes a long way toward getting them to hear your point of view. They Connect People are much more likely to accept what you have to say once they have a sense of what kind of person you are. In a negotiation study, students were asked to reach agreement in class. Without instruction of any kind, 55% of the students successfully reached agreement. However, when students were instructed to introduce themselves and share their background before attempting to reach agreement, 90% of the students did so successfully. The key here is to avoid getting too caught up in the back and forth of the discussion. The person you are speaking with is a person, not an opponent or a target. No matter how compelling your argument, if you fail to connect on a personal level, he or she will doubt everything you say. The Forbes eBook Of Motivational Quotes Discover the timeless advice that the world’s great thinkers, billionaires, writers and businesspeople have to offer. They Aren’t Pushy Persuasive people establish their ideas assertively and confidently, without being aggressive or pushy. Pushy people are a huge turn off. The in-your-face approach starts the recipient backpedaling, and before long, they’re running for the hills. Persuasive people don’t ask for much, and they don’t argue vehemently for their position because they know that subtlety is what wins people over in the long run. If you tend to come across as too aggressive, focus on being confident but calm. Don’t be impatient and overly persistent. Know that if your idea is really a good one, people will catch on if you give them time. If you don’t, they won’t catch on at all. They Aren’t Mousy On the other hand, presenting your ideas as questions or as though they need approval makes them seem flawed and unconvincing. If you tend to be shy, focus on presenting your ideas as statements and interesting facts for the other party to mull over. Also, remove qualifiers from your speech. When you are trying to be persuasive, there is no room for “I think” or “It is possible that.” They Use Positive Body Language Becoming cognizant of your gestures, expressions, and tone of voice (and making certain they’re positive) will engage people and open them up to your arguments. Using an enthusiastic tone, uncrossing your arms, maintaining eye contact, and leaning towards the person who’s speaking are all forms of positive body language that persuasive people use to draw others in. Positive body language will engage your audience and convince them that what you’re saying is valid. When it comes to persuasion, how you say something can be more important than what you say. They Are Clear and Concise Persuasive people are able to communicate their ideas quickly and clearly. When you have a firm grasp on what you’re talking about, it’s fun and easy to explain it to those who don’t understand. A good strategy here is to know your subject so well that you could explain it to a child. If you can explain yourself effectively to someone who has no background on the subject, you can certainly make a persuasive case with someone who does. They Are Genuine Being genuine and honest is essential to being persuasive. No one likes a fake. People gravitate toward those who are genuine because they know they can trust them. It’s difficult to believe someone when you don’t know who they really are and how they really feel. Persuasive people know who they are. They are confident enough to be comfortable in their own skin. By concentrating on what drives you and makes you happy as an individual, you become a much more interesting and persuasive person than if you attempt to win people over by trying to be the person they want you to be. They Acknowledge Your Point of View An extremely powerful tactic of persuasion is to concede the point. Admit that your argument is not perfect. This shows that you are open minded and willing to make adjustments, instead of stubbornly sticking to your cause. You want your audience to know that you have their best interests at heart. Try using statements such as, “I see where you are coming from,” and “That makes a lot of sense.” This shows that you are actively listening to what they are saying, and you won’t just force your ideas upon them. Persuasive people allow the other person to be entitled to their opinion and they treat this opinion as valid. Persuasive people do this because it shows respect, which makes the other person more likely to consider their point of view. They Ask Good Questions The biggest mistake people make when it comes to listening is failing to hear what’s being said because they are focusing on what they’re going to say next or how what the other person is saying is going to affect them. The words come through loud and clear, but the meaning is lost. A simple way to avoid this is to ask a lot of questions. People like to know you’re listening, and something as simple as a clarification question shows not only that you are listening but also that you care about what they’re saying. You’ll be surprised how much respect and appreciation you gain just by asking questions. They Paint a Picture Research shows that people are far more likely to be persuaded by something that has visuals that bring it to life. Persuasive people capitalize on this by using powerful visual imagery. When actual images aren’t available or appropriate, these people tell vivid stories that breathe life into their ideas. Good stories create images in the mind of the recipients that are easy to relate to and hard to forget. They Leave a Strong First Impression Research shows that most people decide whether or not they like you within the first seven seconds of meeting you. They then spend the rest of the conversation internally justifying their initial reaction. This may sound terrifying, but by knowing this, you can take advantage of it to make huge gains in your likeability and ability to persuade. First impressions are intimately tied to positive body language. Strong posture, a firm handshake, a smile, and opening your shoulders to the person you are talking to will help ensure that your first impression is a good one. They Know When to Step Back Urgency is a direct threat to persuasion, so tread lightly. When you try to force people to agree instantly, studies show that they are actually more likely to stand by their original opinion. Your impatience causes them to counter your arguments in favor of their own. If your position is strong, you shouldn’t be afraid to back off and give it time to sink in. Good ideas are often difficult to process instantly, and a bit of time can go a long way. They Greet People by Name Your name is an essential part of your identity, and it feels terrific when people use it. Persuasive people make certain they use others’ names every time they see them. You shouldn’t use someone’s name only when you greet him or her. Research shows that people feel validated when the person they’re speaking with refers to them by name. If you’re great with faces but have trouble with names, have some fun with it, and make remembering people’s names a brain exercise. When you meet someone, don’t be afraid to ask his or her name a second time if you forget it right after you hear it. You’ll need to keep the name handy if you’re going to remember it the next time you see the person. They Are Pleasers Persuasive people never win the battle only to lose the war. They know how and when to stand their ground, and yet they are constantly making sacrifices that help their cause. They are always giving in, giving ground, and doing things for other people that make them happy. Persuasive people do this because they know in the long run this wins people over. They know it’s better to be successful than it is to be “right.” They Smile People naturally (and unconsciously) mirror the body language of the person they’re talking to. If you want people to like you and believe in you, smile at them during a conversation, and they will unconsciously return the favor and feel good as a result. Persuasive people smile a lot because they have genuine enthusiasm for their ideas. This has a contagious effect on everyone they encounter. Putting It All Together Persuasive people are adept at reading and responding to other people. They rely heavily on the emotional intelligence (EQ) skills of social awareness and self-management to bring people to their way of thinking. With 90% of top performers possessing high EQs, it’s no wonder that persuasive people tend to be highly emotionally intelligent. Add these skills to your repertoire, and you’re on your way to joining this exclusive group. WATCH: Billionaire John Paul DeJoria's Secret To Billion Dollar Sales
a171759ec8fad7e9d5694c14f4b23698	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/04/14/ace-the-top-50-interview-questions/	Ace The Top 50 Interview Questions	Ace The Top 50 Interview Questions Most people’s biggest fear is being put on the spot by oddball interview questions such as these (which are real): “Describe the color yellow to someone who’s blind.” – Spirit Airlines “If you were asked to unload a 747 full of jelly beans, what would you do?” – Bose “Who would win in a fight between Spiderman and Batman?” – Stanford University Offbeat questions are nearly impossible to prepare for, and they don’t achieve the interviewer’s objective—to test out-of-the-box thinking and the ability to perform under pressure. That’s the bad news. The good news is that companies are moving away from them. Recent research shows these questions do little more than boost the interviewer’s confidence. Even companies famous for oddball questions are abandoning them. In the words of Laszlo Bock, Google’s HR chief: “If you’ve heard that Google likes to pose brain-teaser questions to candidates—like why manhole covers are round—your information is out of date. There’s no evidence that they suggest how people perform on the job.” Based on a Glassdoor report covering tens of thousands of interviews, the following list contains the 50 interview questions most commonly asked: What are your strengths? What are your weaknesses? Why are you interested in working for us? Where do you see yourself in 5 years? 10 years? Why do you want to leave your current company? Why was there a gap in your employment between these two dates? What can you offer us that someone else can’t? What are three things your former manager would like you to improve on? Are you willing to relocate? Are you willing to travel? Tell me about an accomplishment you are most proud of. Tell me about a time you made a mistake. What is your dream job? How did you hear about this position? What would you look to accomplish in the first 30 days/60 days/90 days on the job? Discuss your resume. Discuss your educational background. Describe yourself. Tell me how you handled a difficult situation. Why should we hire you? Why are you looking for a new job? Would you work holidays/weekends? How would you deal with an angry or irate customer? What are your salary requirements? Give a time when you went above and beyond the requirements for a project. Who are our competitors? What was your biggest failure? What motivates you? What’s your availability? Who’s your mentor? Tell me about a time when you disagreed with your boss. How do you handle pressure? What is the name of our CEO? What are your career goals? What gets you up in the morning? What would your direct reports say about you? What were your bosses’ strengths/weaknesses? If I called your boss right now and asked him what is an area that you could improve on, what would he say? Are you a leader or a follower? What was the last book you read for fun? What are your co-worker pet peeves? What are your hobbies? What is your favorite website? What makes you uncomfortable? What are some of your leadership experiences? How would you fire someone? What do you like the most and least about working in this industry? Would you work 40+ hours a week? What questions haven’t I asked you? What questions do you have for me? Though these questions may be less exciting to prepare for than “Spiderman vs. Batman,” they are what you need to know if you want to ace your interview. Most interviewees are only prepared for about 10 questions, so this list alone can make you stand out from the rest of the pack. Study the list carefully and have answers ready—but not robotically rehearsed—so that you can speak comfortably, flexibly, and confidently about each of these topics. Let’s face it, interviewing is still tough. It’s hard to show who you really are and what you’re capable of during a quick sit-down chat. The 9 strategies that follow are tried and true methods for acing an interview. Follow them carefully and you’ll not only make a great impression—you’ll stand out from the crowd. 1. Know the Company No matter how prepared you are to talk about yourself, not knowing the essentials of the company you’re interviewing for conveys a lack of preparation and interest. You can’t show an interviewer how you’ll fit in the company until you know the company. Before your interview, delve deeply into the company website to build a strong mental foundation. Make sure you know the basics¾how the company makes money, the top executives, and what the company aims to accomplish in the near future (strategic objectives). Be certain to Google the company and read recent news articles to learn all of the latest. Also check out their Twitter and Facebook pages. 2. Know the Essence of the Job You’re Applying For Get to know the job intimately that you’re applying for. Don’t just read the job description—study it and picture yourself performing every task required of you. When you interview, framing your responses so that you reveal your significant knowledge about the job gives you a massive advantage. 3. …And Know What Makes You A Great Fit For It Know exactly what makes you fit into the position perfectly and speak to it during the interview. What you makes you special? It could be that you’re an idea machine, or a statistical fanatic. Whatever it is, know it and prepare to fit it into your responses. For example, when an interviewer asks, “What are your strengths?” skip the clichés and go right into qualities about you that are unique to the job. You’ll make it clear that you’re the perfect fit. 4. Identify Your “Hook” Most hiring managers interview a lot of people. So many that they generally have to go back to their notes to remember candidates—the exception being candidates with a strong hook. Sometimes these hooks are how people dress or their personality, but the best hook is a strong story that’s work-related. When you can wow an interviewer with a memorable story that shows what a strong candidate you are, you’ll rise to the top of the list. 5. Prepare a List of Questions Prepare a list of potential interview questions and outline key points you will touch on if asked these questions. This preparation will make your responses more pointed, avoid awkward silences and uncertainty, and it will build your confidence prior to the interview. 6. Practice, Practice, Practice You, and everyone else interviewing for the job, already know the majority of questions you’ll be asked. The difference lies in preparation. Preparing unique and position-specific responses will give you the competitive edge over everyone else. You don’t need to memorize answers, but instead know certain points of reference about yourself that you can apply to different questions. Make sure to “mock interview” yourself. Video your responses until you’re able to speak comfortably and flexibly—as opposed to rotely regurgitating answers—about your prepared topics. Videoing yourself may feel awkward when you do it, but it will pay off during your interview. 7. Relax If you can’t relax during your interview, then nothing you do to prepare will matter. Being yourself is essential to the selection process, and interviewers will feel it if you’re too nervous. Showing fear or anxiety appears weak compared to a relaxed smile and genuine confidence. Numerous studies show that smiling not only increases your happiness and confidence, but it also puts the people you’re interacting with at ease. This is mostly due to mirror neurons in the brain that naturally mimic other people’s expressions and emotions. Pulling this off requires emotional intelligence (EQ), a skill that employers are increasingly looking for in candidates. And it’s no surprise, as 90% of top performers on the job are high in EQ. Working on your EQ can also help you to make more money, as people with high EQs earn $29,000 more annually on average. 8. Be Positive It may seem obvious that maintaining positivity is essential in an interview, but it can be very difficult to do when discussing some topics. It’s tough to be positive when describing difficult bosses or coworkers from your past, or explaining why you were fired from your previous job, but that’s exactly what employers want to see in you. Show them that you can maintain a positive attitude about a challenging environment, and they’ll see the resilient and flexible individual they’re looking for. 9. Be Honest Good interviewers have a way of getting to the crux of who you are. They may have an innate sense for reading people, or they might just be really good at asking the right questions. Regardless, it’s essential to approach your interview with honesty. If you interview dishonestly, you’ll either not get the job when the interviewer sees right through you, or you’ll end up in a job that’s a poor fit. Don’t focus on what you think the interviewer wants to hear. Instead focus on giving an honest and passionate breakdown of what you have to offer. Bringing It All Together Are there questions that I’ve missed? What’s the best way to make yourself stand out in an interview? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below as I learn just as much from you as you do from me. Gallery: 25 Oddball Interview Questions 26 images View gallery
540d0e7871058df6f3a07187f89b4fa6	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/05/13/11-things-ultra-productive-people-do-differently/	11 Things Ultra-Productive People Do Differently	11 Things Ultra-Productive People Do Differently When it comes to productivity, we all face the same challenge—there are only 24 hours in a day. Yet some people seem to have twice the time; they have an uncanny ability to get things done. Even when juggling multiple projects, they reach their goals without fail. Time is really the only capital that any human being has, and the only thing he can’t afford to lose. —Thomas Edison It feels incredible when you leave the office after an ultra-productive day. With the right approach, you can make this happen every day. You don’t need to work longer or even do more—you just need to work smarter. Try these 11 productivity hacks that ultra-productive people rely on: 1. They Never Touch Things Twice Productive people never put anything in a holding pattern, because touching things twice is a huge time-waster. Don’t save an email or a phone call to deal with later. As soon as something gets your attention you should act on it, delegate it or delete it. 2. They Get Ready for Tomorrow Before They Leave the Office Productive people end each day by preparing for the next. This practice accomplishes two things: it helps you solidify what you’ve accomplished today, and it ensures you’ll have a productive tomorrow. It only takes a few minutes and it’s a great way to end your workday. For every minute spent organizing, an hour is earned. —Benjamin Franklin Win At Work: An eBook From Forbes Land a great job, handle your boss and get ahead today. 3. They Eat Frogs “Eating a frog” is the best antidote for procrastination, and ultra-productive people start each morning with this tasty treat. In other words, they do the least appetizing, most dreaded item on their to-do list before they do anything else. After that, they’re freed up to tackle the stuff that excites and inspires them. 4. They Fight The Tyranny Of The Urgent The tyranny of the urgent refers to the tendency of little things that have to be done right now to get in the way of what really matters. This creates a huge problem as urgent actions often have little impact. If you succumb to the tyranny of the urgent, you can find yourself going days, or even weeks, without touching the important stuff. Productive people are good at spotting when putting out fires is getting in the way of their performance, and they’re willing to ignore or delegate the things that get in the way of real forward momentum. Time is what we want most, but what we use worst. —William Penn 5. They Stick to the Schedule During Meetings Meetings are the biggest time waster there is. Ultra-productive people know that a meeting will drag on forever if they let it, so they inform everyone at the onset that they’ll stick to the intended schedule. This sets a limit that motivates everyone to be more focused and efficient. The bad news is time flies. The good news is you’re the pilot. —Michael Altshuler 6. They Say No No is a powerful word that ultra-productive people are not afraid to wield. When it’s time to say no, they avoid phrases such as I don’t think I can or I’m not certain. Saying no to a new commitment honors your existing commitments and gives you the opportunity to successfully fulfill them. Research conducted at the University of California in San Francisco shows that the more difficulty that you have saying no, the more likely you are to experience stress, burnout, and even depression. Learn to use no, and it will lift your mood, as well as your productivity. 7. They Only Check E-mail At Designated Times Ultra-productive people don’t allow e-mail to be a constant interruption. In addition to checking e-mail on a schedule, they take advantage of features that prioritize messages by sender. They set alerts for their most important vendors and their best customers, and they save the rest until they reach a stopping point. Some people even set up an autoresponder that lets senders know when they’ll be checking their e-mail again. 8. They Don’t Multitask Ultra-productive people know that multitasking is a real productivity killer. Research conducted at Stanford University confirms that multitasking is less productive than doing a single thing at a time. The researchers found that people who are regularly bombarded with several streams of electronic information cannot pay attention, recall information or switch from one job to another as well as those who complete one task at a time. But what if some people have a special gift for multitasking? The Stanford researchers compared groups of people based on their tendency to multitask and their belief that it helps their performance. They found that heavy multitaskers—those who multitask a lot and feel that it boosts their performance—were actually worse at multitasking than those who like to do a single thing at a time. The frequent multitaskers performed worse because they had more trouble organizing their thoughts and filtering out irrelevant information, and they were slower at switching from one task to another. Ouch. Multitasking reduces your efficiency and performance because your brain can only focus on one thing at a time. When you try to do two things at once, your brain lacks the capacity to perform both tasks successfully. 9. They Go off The Grid Don’t be afraid to go off grid when you need to. Give one trusted person a number to call in case of emergency, and let that person be your filter. Everything has to go through them, and anything they don’t clear has to wait. This strategy is a bulletproof way to complete high-priority projects. One man gets only a week’s value out of a year while another man gets a full year’s value out of a week. —Charles Richards 10. They Delegate Ultra-productive people accept the fact that they’re not the only smart, talented person in their organization. They trust people to do their jobs so that they can focus on their own. 11. They Put Technology to Work for Them Technology catches a lot of flak for being a distraction, but it can also help you focus. Ultra-productive people put technology to work for them. Beyond setting up filters in their email accounts so that messages are sorted and prioritized as they come in, they use apps like IFTTT, which sets up contingencies on your smart phone and alerts you when something important happens. This way, when your stock hits a certain price or you have an email from your best customer, you’ll know it. There’s no need to be constantly checking your phone for status updates. Bringing It All Together We’re all searching for ways to be more efficient and productive. I hope these strategies help you to find that extra edge. What productivity hacks do you rely on? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below as I learn just as much from you as you do from me. Also on Forbes: Gallery: 10 Easy Ways To Be More Productive At Work 10 images View gallery
35ac1fd2909e99bcc92a3ee0253d6e19	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/08/11/8-powerful-ways-to-mold-your-children-into-leaders/	8 Powerful Ways To Mold Your Children Into Leaders	8 Powerful Ways To Mold Your Children Into Leaders We all want our children to become leaders. Whether they spend the bulk of their days in the mailroom or the corner office, we want our children to grow to be courageous, passionate and authentic. We want their actions to inspire other people to be their best, to get more out of life than they ever thought possible. As parents and caretakers of children, their path to leadership is in our hands. We can model and teach the skills that will equip them to lead themselves and others in this hyper-competitive world, or we can allow them to fall victim to the kind of thinking that makes them slaves to the status quo. It’s a big responsibility—but when isn’t being a parent a massive responsibility? The beauty of building children into leaders is that it’s the little things we do every day that mold them into the people they’ll become. Focus on the eight actions below, and you’ll build leadership in your children and yourself. Model Emotional Intelligence (EQ) Emotional intelligence is that “something” in each of us that is a bit intangible; it affects how we manage behavior, navigate social complexities and make personal decisions that achieve positive results. Children learn emotional intelligence from their parents, plain and simple. As your children watch you every day, they absorb your behavior like a sponge. Children are particularly attuned to your awareness of emotions, the behavior you demonstrate in response to strong emotions and how you react and respond to their emotions. EQ is one of the biggest drivers of success in leadership positions. TalentSmart has tested more than a million people and found that EQ is responsible for 58% of a leader’s job performance. Likewise, 90% of top-performing leaders have high EQs. Most people do very little to develop their EQ growing up. Just 36% of the people we tested are able to accurately identify their emotions as they happen. Children who develop a high level of EQ carry these skills into adulthood, and this gives them a leg up in leadership and in life. Don’t Obsess About Achievement Parents get sucked into obsessing about achievement because they believe that this will make their children into high-achievers. Instead, fixating on achievement creates all sorts of problems for kids. This is especially true when it comes to leadership, where focusing on individual achievement gives kids the wrong idea about how work gets done. Simply put, the best leaders surround themselves with great people because they know they can’t do it alone. Achievement-obsessed children are so focused on awards and outcomes that they never fully understand this. All they can see is the player who’s handed the MVP trophy and the celebrity CEO who makes the news—they assume it’s all about the individual. It’s a rude awakening once they discover how real life works. Don’t Praise Too Much Children need praise to build a healthy sense of self-esteem. Unfortunately, piling on the praise doesn’t give them extra self-esteem. Children need to believe in themselves and to develop the self-confidence required to become successful leaders, but if you gush every time they put pen to paper or kick a ball (the “everyone gets a trophy” mentality), this creates confusion and false confidence. Always show your children how proud you are of their passion and effort; just don’t paint them as superstars when you know it isn’t true. Allow Them To Experience Risk And Failure Success in business and in life is driven by risk. When parents go overboard protecting their children, they don’t allow them to take risks and reap the consequences. When you aren’t allowed to fail, you don’t understand risk. A leader can’t take appropriate risks until he or she knows the bitter taste of failure that comes with risking it all and coming up short. The road to success is paved with failure. When you try to shield your children from failure in order to boost their self-esteem, they have trouble tolerating the failure required to succeed as a leader. Don’t rub their face in it either. Children need your support when they fail. They need to know you care. They need to know that you know how much failure stings. Your support allows them to embrace the intensity of the experience and to know that they’ll make it through it all right. That, right there, is solid character building for future leaders. Say No Overindulging children is a surefire way to limit their development as leaders. To succeed as a leader, one must be able to delay gratification and work hard for things that are really important. Children need to develop this patience. They need to set goals and experience the joy that comes with working diligently towards them. Saying no to your children will disappoint them momentarily, but they’ll get over that. They’ll never get over being spoiled. Let Children Solve Their Own Problems There’s a certain self-sufficiency that comes with being a leader. When you’re the one making the calls, you should also be the one who needs to stay behind and clean up the mess these create. When parents constantly solve their children’s problems for them, children never develop the critical ability to stand on their own two feet. Children who always have someone swooping in to rescue them and clean up their mess spend their whole lives waiting for this to happen. Leaders take action. They take charge. They’re responsible and accountable. Make certain your children are as well. Walk Your Talk Authentic leaders are transparent and forthcoming. They aren’t perfect, but they earn people’s respect by walking their talk. Your children can develop this quality naturally, but only if it’s something they see you demonstrate. To be authentic, you must be honest in all things, not just in what you say and do but also in who you are. When you walk your talk, your words and actions will align with who you claim to be. Your children will see this and aspire to do the same. Show You’re Human No matter how indignant and defiant your children are at any moment, you’re still their hero and their model for the future. This can make you want to hide your past mistakes for fear that they’ll be enticed to repeat them. The opposite is true. When you don’t show any vulnerability, your children develop intense guilt about every failure because they believe that they’re the only ones to make such terrible mistakes. To develop as leaders, children need to know that the people they look up to aren’t infallible. Leaders must be able to process their mistakes, learn from them, and move forward to be better people. Children can’t do this when they’re overcome by guilt. They need someone—a real, vulnerable person—to teach them how to process mistakes and to learn from them. When you show them how you’ve done this in the past, you’re doing just that. Bringing It All Together We can mold our children into leaders, but only if we work at it. Few things in life are as worth your time and effort as this. How are you molding your children into leaders? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below as I learn just as much from you as you do from me. Also on Forbes: Gallery: How To Teach Kids About Money: 10 Dos And Don’ts 11 images View gallery
a4c5edc8090096b2fa78d06664587866	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/11/10/10-toxic-people-you-should-avoid-at-all-costs/	10 Toxic People You Should Avoid At All Costs	10 Toxic People You Should Avoid At All Costs Toxic people defy logic. Some are blissfully unaware of the negative impact that they have on those around them, and others seem to derive satisfaction from creating chaos and pushing other people’s buttons. As important as it is to learn how to deal with different kinds of people, truly toxic people will never be worth your time and energy—and they take a lot of each. Toxic people create unnecessary complexity, strife, and, worst of all, stress. “People inspire you, or they drain you—pick them wisely.” – Hans F. Hansen Recent research from Friedrich Schiller University in Germany shows just how serious toxic people are. They found that exposure to stimuli that cause strong negative emotions—the same kind of exposure you get when dealing with toxic people—caused subjects’ brains to have a massive stress response. Whether it's negativity, cruelty, the victim syndrome, or just plain craziness, toxic people drive your brain into a stressed-out state that should be avoided at all costs. Studies have long shown that stress can have a lasting, negative impact on the brain. Exposure to even a few days of stress compromises the effectiveness of neurons in the hippocampus, an important brain area responsible for reasoning and memory. Weeks of stress cause reversible damage to brain cells, and months of stress can permanently destroy them. Toxic people don’t just make you miserable—they’re really hard on your brain. The ability to manage your emotions and remain calm under pressure has a direct link to your performance. TalentSmart has conducted research with more than a million people, and we’ve found that 90% of top performers are skilled at managing their emotions in times of stress in order to remain calm and in control. One of their greatest gifts is the ability to identify toxic people and keep them at bay. It’s often said that you’re the product of the five people you spend the most time with. If you allow even one of those five people to be toxic, you’ll soon find out how capable he or she is of holding you back. You can’t hope to distance yourself from toxic people until you first know who they are. The trick is to separate those who are annoying or simply difficult from those who are truly toxic. What follows are ten types of toxic drainers that you should stay away from at all costs so that you don’t become one yourself. 1. The Gossip "Great minds discuss ideas, average ones discuss events, and small minds discuss people." – Eleanor Roosevelt Gossipers derive pleasure from other people’s misfortunes. It might be fun to peer into somebody else’s personal or professional faux pas at first, but over time, it gets tiring, makes you feel gross, and hurts other people. There are too many positives out there and too much to learn from interesting people to waste your time talking about the misfortune of others. 2. The Temperamental Some people have absolutely no control over their emotions. They will lash out at you and project their feelings onto you, all the while thinking that you’re the one causing their malaise. Temperamental people are tough to dump from your life because their lack of control over their emotions makes you feel bad for them. When push comes to shove though, temperamental people will use you as their emotional toilet and should be avoided at all costs. 3. The Victim Victims are tough to identify because you initially empathize with their problems. But as time passes, you begin to realize that their “time of need” is all the time. Victims actively push away any personal responsibility by making every speed bump they encounter into an uncrossable mountain. They don’t see tough times as opportunities to learn and grow from; instead, they see them as an out. There’s an old saying: “Pain is inevitable but suffering is optional.” It perfectly captures the toxicity of the victim, who chooses to suffer every time. 4. The Self-Absorbed Self-absorbed people bring you down through the impassionate distance they maintain from other people. You can usually tell when you’re hanging around self-absorbed people because you start to feel completely alone. This happens because as far as they’re concerned, there’s no point in having a real connection between them and anyone else. You’re merely a tool used to build their self-esteem. 5. The Envious To envious people, the grass is always greener somewhere else. Even when something great happens to envious people, they don’t derive any satisfaction from it. This is because they measure their fortune against the world’s when they should be deriving their satisfaction from within. And let’s face it, there’s always someone out there who’s doing better if you look hard enough. Spending too much time around envious people is dangerous because they teach you to trivialize your own accomplishments. 6. The Manipulator Manipulators suck time and energy out of your life under the façade of friendship. They can be tricky to deal with because they treat you like a friend. They know what you like, what makes you happy, and what you think is funny, but the difference is that they use this information as part of a hidden agenda. Manipulators always want something from you, and if you look back on your relationships with them, it’s all take, take, take, with little or no giving. They’ll do anything to win you over just so they can work you over. 7. The Dementor In J. K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series, Dementors are evil creatures that suck people’s souls out of their bodies, leaving them merely as shells of humans. Whenever a Dementor enters the room, it goes dark, people get cold, and they begin to recall their worst memories. Rowling said that she developed the concept for Dementors based on highly negative people—the kind of people who have the ability to walk into a room and instantly suck the life out of it. Dementors suck the life out of the room by imposing their negativity and pessimism upon everyone they encounter. Their viewpoints are always glass half empty, and they can inject fear and concern into even the most benign situations. A Notre Dame University study found that students assigned to roommates who thought negatively were far more likely to develop negative thinking and even depression themselves. 8. The Twisted There are certain toxic people who have bad intentions, deriving deep satisfaction from the pain and misery of others. They are either out to hurt you, to make you feel bad, or to get something from you; otherwise, they have no interest in you. The only good thing about this type is that you can spot their intentions quickly, which makes it that much faster to get them out of your life. 9. The Judgmental Judgmental people are quick to tell you exactly what is and isn’t cool. They have a way of taking the thing you’re most passionate about and making you feel terrible about it. Instead of appreciating and learning from people who are different from them, judgmental people look down on others. Judgmental people stifle your desire to be a passionate, expressive person, so you’re best off cutting them out and being yourself. 10. The Arrogant Arrogant people are a waste of your time because they see everything you do as a personal challenge. Arrogance is false confidence, and it always masks major insecurities. A University of Akron study found that arrogance is correlated with a slew of problems in the workplace. Arrogant people tend to be lower performers, more disagreeable, and have more cognitive problems than the average person. How to Protect Yourself Once You Spot ’Em Toxic people drive you crazy because their behavior is so irrational. Make no mistake about it—their behavior truly goes against reason, so why do you allow yourself to respond to them emotionally and get sucked into the mix? The more irrational and off-base someone is, the easier it should be for you to remove yourself from their traps. Quit trying to beat them at their own game. Distance yourself from them emotionally, and approach your interactions with them like they’re a science project (or you’re their shrink if you prefer that analogy). You don’t need to respond to the emotional chaos—only the facts. Maintaining an emotional distance requires awareness. You can’t stop someone from pushing your buttons if you don’t recognize when it’s happening. Sometimes you’ll find yourself in situations where you’ll need to regroup and choose the best way forward. This is fine, and you shouldn’t be afraid to buy yourself some time to do so. Most people feel as though because they work or live with someone, they have no way to control the chaos. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Once you’ve identified a toxic person, you’ll begin to find their behavior more predictable and easier to understand. This will equip you to think rationally about when and where you have to put up with them and when and where you don’t. You can establish boundaries, but you’ll have to do so consciously and proactively. If you let things happen naturally, you’re bound to find yourself constantly embroiled in difficult conversations. If you set boundaries and decide when and where you’ll engage a difficult person, you can control much of the chaos. The only trick is to stick to your guns and keep boundaries in place when the person tries to cross them, which they will. Have you run into any of these toxic types of people? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below as I learn just as much from you as you do from me. Also on Forbes: Gallery: Toxic Workplace Friends 9 images View gallery
02dc54c0eaba6faf972914e7901cd2cd	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2016/03/15/6-easy-tricks-that-will-make-you-way-more-productive/	6 Easy Tricks That Will Make You Way More Productive	6 Easy Tricks That Will Make You Way More Productive When it comes to productivity, we all face the same challenge—there are only 24 hours in a day. Since even the best ideas are worthless until they’re executed, how efficiently you use your time is as important as anything else in business. I’ve become fascinated by productivity secrets because some people seem to have twice the time, and there’s no better way to reach your goals than by finding ways to do more with the precious time you’ve been given. Gallery: 15 Surprising Things Productive People Do Differently 15 images View gallery It feels incredible when you leave the office after an ultra-productive day. It’s a workplace high that’s hard to beat. In my experience you don’t need to work longer or push yourself harder—you just need to work smarter. “Time is what we want most, but what we use worst.” –William Penn I’ve learned to rely on productivity hacks that make me far more efficient. I try to squeeze every drop out of every hour without expending any extra effort. And my favorite hack also happens to be the easiest one to implement. It’s so easy and useful you can begin using it now. 1. Never Touch Things Twice That’s it. Never put anything in a holding pattern, because touching things twice is a huge time-waster. Don’t save an email or a phone call to deal with later. As soon as something gets your attention you should act on it, delegate it or delete it. 2. Eat Frogs To pull this off you’re going to have to eat some frogs. “Eating a frog” is doing the least appetizing, most dreaded item on your to-do list. If you let your frogs sit, you waste your day dreading them. If you eat them right away, then you’re freed up to tackle the stuff that excites and inspires you. 3. Fight The Tyranny Of The Urgent You’ll also need to master the tyranny of the urgent. The tyranny of the urgent refers to the tendency of little things that have to be done right now to get in the way of what really matters. This creates a huge problem as urgent actions often have little impact. The key here is to delete or delegate. Otherwise, you can find yourself going days, or even weeks, without touching the important stuff. You’ll need to get good at spotting when putting out fires is getting in the way of your performance, and you’ll need to delete or delegate the things that hinder real forward momentum. Watch on Forbes: 4. Say No No is a powerful word that you’re going to have to wield. When it’s time to say no, avoid phrases such as "I don’t think I can" or "I’m not certain." Saying no to a new commitment honors your existing commitments and gives you the opportunity to successfully and efficiently fulfill them. Research conducted at the University of California in San Francisco shows that the more difficulty that you have saying no, the more likely you are to experience stress, burnout and even depression. Learn to use no, and it will lift your mood, as well as your productivity. 5. Check Email On A Schedule If you aren’t going to touch things twice, you can’t allow email to be a constant interruption. You should check email on a schedule, taking advantage of features that prioritize messages by sender. Set alerts for your most important vendors and best customers, and save the rest until the scheduled time. You could even set up an autoresponder that lets senders know when you’ll be checking your email again. 6. Avoid Multitasking To make my system work, you’re also going to have to avoid multitasking. It’s a real productivity killer. Research conducted at Stanford University confirms that multitasking is less productive than doing a single thing at a time. The researchers found that people who are regularly bombarded with several streams of electronic information cannot pay attention, recall information or switch from one job to another as well as those who complete one task at a time. Multitasking reduces your efficiency and performance because your brain can only focus on one thing at a time. When you try to do two things at once, your brain lacks the capacity to perform both tasks successfully. Never touching things twice means only touching one thing at a time. Bringing It All Together We’re all searching for ways to be more efficient and productive. I hope my productivity hack helps you to find that extra edge. What productivity hacks do you rely on? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.
7c437cccfdd34d476629eb80333ba5f0	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2016/07/19/8-secrets-of-great-communicators/	8 Secrets Of Great Communicators	8 Secrets Of Great Communicators Shutterstock When it comes to communication, we all tend to think we’re pretty good at it. Truth is, even those of us who are good communicators aren’t nearly as good as we think we are. This overestimation of our ability to communicate is magnified when interacting with people we know well. Researchers at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business put this theory to the test and what they discovered is startling. In the study, the researchers paired subjects with people they knew well and then again with people they’d never met. The researchers discovered that people who knew each other well understood each other no better than people who’d just met! Even worse, participants frequently overestimated their ability to communicate, and this was more pronounced with people they knew well. “Our problem in communicating with friends is that we have an illusion of insight,” said study co-author Nicholas Epley. “Getting close to someone appears to create the illusion of understanding more than actual understanding.” Gallery: 10 Storytellers Who Win Hearts And Minds 11 images View gallery When communicating with people we know well, we make presumptions about what they understand—presumptions that we don’t dare make with strangers. This tendency to overestimate how well we communicate (and how well we’re understood) is so prevalent that psychologists even have a name for it: closeness-communication bias. “The understanding, ‘What I know is different from what you know’ is essential for effective communication,” said study lead Kenneth Savitsky, “but that insight can be elusive. Some [people] may indeed be on the same wavelength, but maybe not as much as they think. You get rushed and preoccupied, and you stop taking the perspective of the other person.” Taking Action Communication is the real work of leadership; you simply can’t become a great leader until you are a great communicator. Great communicators inspire people. They create a connection that is real, emotional, and personal. And great communicators forge this connection through an understanding of people and an ability to speak directly to their needs in a manner that they are ready to hear. "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -George Bernard Shaw The eight strategies that follow will help you to overcome the communication bias that tends to hold us back with everyone we encounter, especially those we know well. Apply these strategies and watch your communication skills reach new heights. 1. Speak to groups as individuals. As a leader, you often have to speak to groups of people. Whether a small team meeting or a company-wide gathering, you need to develop a level of intimacy in your approach that makes each individual in the room feel as if you’re speaking directly to him or her. The trick is to eliminate the distraction of the crowd so that you can deliver your message just as you would if you were talking to a single person. You want to be emotionally genuine and exude the same feelings, energy, and attention you would one-on-one (as opposed to the anxiety that comes with being in front of people). The ability to pull this off is the hallmark of great leadership communication. 2. Talk so people will listen. Great communicators read their audience (groups and individuals) carefully to ensure they aren’t wasting their breath on a message that people aren’t ready to hear. Talking so people will listen means you adjust your message on the fly to stay with your audience (what they’re ready to hear and how they’re ready to hear it). Droning on to ensure you’ve said what you wanted to say does not have the same effect on people as engaging them in a meaningful dialogue in which there is an exchange of ideas. Resist the urge to drive your point home at all costs. When your talking leads to people asking good questions, you know you’re on the right track. Subscribe To The Forbes Careers Newsletter Sign up here to get top career advice delivered straight to your inbox every week. 3. Listen so people will talk. One of the most disastrous temptations for a leader is to treat communication as a one-way street. When you communicate, you must give people ample opportunity to speak their minds. If you find that you’re often having the last word in conversations, then this is likely something you need to work on. Listening isn’t just about hearing words; it’s also about listening to the tone, speed, and volume of the voice. What is being said? Anything not being said? What hidden messages below the surface exist? When someone is talking to you, stop everything else and listen fully until the other person has finished speaking. When you are on a phone call, don’t type an email. When you’re meeting with someone, close the door and sit near the person so you can focus and listen. Simple behaviors like these will help you stay in the present moment, pick up on the cues the other person sends, and make it clear that you will really hear what he or she is saying. Beyond PR: An eBook From Forbes Old-fashioned PR is dead. Discover how to communicate with purpose and passion today. 4. Connect emotionally. Maya Angelou said it best: “People will forget what you said and did, but they will never forget how you made them feel.” As a leader, your communication is impotent if people don’t connect with it on an emotional level. This is hard for many leaders to pull off because they feel they need to project a certain persona. Let that go. To connect with your people emotionally, you need to be transparent. Be human. Show them what drives you, what you care about, what makes you get out of bed in the morning. Express these feelings openly, and you’ll forge an emotional connection with your people. 5. Read body language. Your authority makes it hard for people to say what’s really on their minds. No matter how good a relationship you have with your subordinates, you are kidding yourself if you think they are as open with you as they are with their peers. So, you must become adept at understanding unspoken messages. The greatest wealth of information lies in people’s body language. The body communicates nonstop and is an abundant source of information, so purposefully watch body language during meetings and casual conversation. Once you tune into body language, the messages will become loud and clear. Pay as much attention to what isn’t said as what is said, and you’ll uncover facts and opinions that people are unwilling to express directly. 6. Prepare your intent. A little preparation goes a long way toward saying what you wanted to say and having a conversation achieve its intended impact. Don’t prepare a speech; develop an understanding of what the focus of a conversation needs to be (in order for people to hear the message) and how you will accomplish this. Your communication will be more persuasive and on point when you prepare your intent ahead of time. 7. Skip the jargon. The business world is filled with jargon and metaphors that are harmless when people can relate to them. Problem is, most leaders overuse jargon and alienate their subordinates and customers with their “business speak.” Use it sparingly if you want to connect with your people. Otherwise, you’ll come across as insincere. 8. Practice active listening. Active listening is a simple technique that ensures people feel heard, an essential component of good communication. To practice active listening: • Spend more time listening than you do talking. • Do not answer questions with questions. • Avoid finishing other people’s sentences. • Focus more on the other person than you do on yourself. • Focus on what people are saying right now, not on what their interests are. • Reframe what the other person has said to make sure you understand him or her correctly (“So you’re telling me that this budget needs further consideration, right?”) • Think about what you’re going to say after someone has finished speaking, not while he or she is speaking. • Ask plenty of questions. • Never interrupt. • Don’t take notes. Bringing It All Together As you work to employ these strategies, try to avoid biting off more than you can chew. Working on one to three strategies at a time is sufficient. If you try to take on more than you can handle, you’re not going to see as much progress as you would if you narrowed your focus. Once you become effective in one particular strategy, you can take on another one in its place. Communication is a dynamic element of leadership that is intertwined in most of what you do each day. You’ll have ample opportunity to improve your abilities in this critical skill. What do you think is the secret to great communication? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below as I learn just as much from you as you do from me. Watch on Forbes:
2b6527ad7a98873e7527798bbe2879e1	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2016/08/23/3-powerful-ways-to-stay-positive/	3 Powerful Ways To Stay Positive	3 Powerful Ways To Stay Positive Shutterstock We’ve all received the well-meaning advice to "stay positive." The greater the challenge, the more this glass-half-full wisdom can come across as Pollyannaish and unrealistic. It’s hard to find the motivation to focus on the positive when positivity seems like nothing more than wishful thinking. The real obstacle to positivity is that our brains are hard-wired to look for and focus on threats. This survival mechanism served humankind well back when we were hunters and gatherers, living each day with the very real threat of being killed by someone or something in our immediate surroundings. Gallery: 10 Steps to Happiness at Work 11 images View gallery That was eons ago. Today, this mechanism breeds pessimism and negativity through the mind’s tendency to wander until it finds a threat. These “threats” magnify the perceived likelihood that things are going—and/or are going to go—poorly. When the threat is real and lurking in the bushes down the path, this mechanism serves you well. When the threat is imagined and you spend two months convinced the project you’re working on is going to flop, this mechanism leaves you with a soured view of reality that wreaks havoc in your life. Maintaining positivity is a daily challenge that requires focus and attention. You must be intentional about staying positive if you’re going to overcome the brain’s tendency to focus on threats. An emotional intelligence test can provide some powerful feedback to help you with this, as it won’t happen by accident. Positivity And Your Health Pessimism is trouble because it’s bad for your health. Numerous studies have shown that optimists are physically and psychologically healthier than pessimists. Martin Seligman at the University of Pennsylvania has conducted extensive research on the topic. Seligman worked with researchers from Dartmouth and the University of Michigan on a study that followed people from age 25 to 65 to see how their levels of pessimism or optimism influenced their overall health. The researchers found that pessimists’ health deteriorated far more rapidly as they aged. Seligman’s findings are similar to research conducted by the Mayo Clinic that found optimists have lower levels of cardiovascular disease and longer life-spans. Although the exact mechanism through which pessimism affects health hasn’t been identified, researchers at Yale and the University of Colorado found that pessimism is associated with a weakened immune response to tumors and infection. Researchers from the University of Kentucky went so far as to inject optimists and pessimists with a virus to measure their immune response. The researchers found optimists had a much stronger immune response than pessimists. Subscribe To The Forbes Careers Newsletter Sign up here to get top career advice delivered straight to your inbox every week. Positivity And Performance Keeping a positive attitude isn’t just good for your health. Martin Seligman has also studied the connection between positivity and performance. In one study in particular, he measured the degree to which insurance salespeople were optimistic or pessimistic in their work. Optimistic salespeople sold 37% more policies than pessimists, who were twice as likely to leave the company during their first year of employment. Seligman has studied positivity more than anyone, and he believes in the ability to turn pessimistic thoughts and tendencies around with simple effort and know-how. But Seligman doesn’t just believe this. His research shows that people can transform a tendency toward pessimistic thinking into positive thinking through simple techniques that create lasting changes in behavior long after they are discovered. Here are three things that I’ll be doing this year to stay positive. 1. Separate Fact From Fiction The first step in learning to focus on the positive requires knowing how to stop negative self-talk in its tracks. The more you ruminate on negative thoughts, the more power you give them. Most of our negative thoughts are just that — thoughts, not facts. When you find yourself believing the negative and pessimistic things your inner voice says, it’s time to stop and write them down. Literally stop what you’re doing and write down what you’re thinking. Once you’ve taken a moment to slow down the negative momentum of your thoughts, you will be more rational and clear-headed in evaluating their veracity. Evaluate these statements to see if they’re factual. You can bet the statements aren’t true any time you see words like never, always, worst, ever, etc. Do you really always lose your keys? Of course not. Perhaps you forget them frequently, but most days you do remember them. Are you never going to find a solution to your problem? If you really are that stuck, maybe you’ve been resisting asking for help. Or if it really is an intractable problem, then why are you wasting your time beating your head against the wall? If your statements still look like facts once they’re on paper, take them to a friend or colleague you can trust, and see if he or she agrees with you. Then the truth will surely come out. When it feels like something always or never happens, this is just your brain’s natural threat tendency inflating the perceived frequency or severity of an event. Identifying and labeling your thoughts as thoughts by separating them from the facts will help you escape the cycle of negativity and move toward a positive new outlook. 2. Identify A Positive Once you snap yourself out of self-defeating, negative thoughts, it’s time to help your brain learn what you want it to focus on — the positive. This will come naturally after some practice, but first you have to give your wandering brain a little help by consciously selecting something positive to think about. Any positive thought will do to refocus your brain’s attention. When things are going well, and your mood is good, this is relatively easy. When things are going poorly, and your mind is flooded with negative thoughts, this can be a challenge. In these moments, think about your day and identify one positive thing that happened, no matter how small. If you can’t think of something from the current day, reflect on the previous day or even the previous week. Or perhaps there is an exciting event you are looking forward to that you can focus your attention on. The point here is you must have something positive that you’re ready to shift your attention to when your thoughts turn negative. Step one stripped the power from negative thoughts by separating fact from fiction. Step two is to replace the negative with a positive. Once you have identified a positive thought, draw your attention to that thought each time you find yourself dwelling on the negative. If that proves difficult, you can repeat the process of writing down the negative thoughts to discredit their validity, and then allow yourself to freely enjoy positive thoughts. 3. Cultivate An Attitude Of Gratitude Taking time to contemplate what you’re grateful for isn’t merely the “right” thing to do; it reduces the stress hormone cortisol by 23%. Research conducted at the University of California, Davis, found that people who worked daily to cultivate an attitude of gratitude experienced improved mood, energy and substantially less anxiety due to lower cortisol levels. You cultivate an attitude of gratitude by taking time out every day to focus on the positive. Any time you experience negative or pessimistic thoughts, use this as a cue to shift gears and think about something positive. In time, a positive attitude will become a way of life. Bringing It All Together I realize these three tips sound incredibly basic, but they have tremendous power because they train your brain to have a positive focus. They break old habits, if you force yourself to use them. Given the mind’s natural tendency to wander toward negative thoughts, we can all use a little help with staying positive. Join me in putting these steps to use this year, and you’ll reap the physical, mental, and performance benefits that come with a positive frame of mind. How do you stay positive? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below, as I learn just as much from you as you do from me. Watch on Forbes:
da8abfcc878ce6edd8fdb3d74a030092	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2017/01/03/ten-guaranteed-ways-to-appear-smarter-than-you-are/	Ten Guaranteed Ways To Appear Smarter Than You Are	Ten Guaranteed Ways To Appear Smarter Than You Are It’s great to be smart, but intelligence is a hard thing to pin down. In many cases, how smart people think you are is just as important as how smart you actually are. “I not only use all the brains that I have, but all that I can borrow.” -Woodrow Wilson As it turns out, intelligence only explains about 20% of how you do in life; much of the other 80% comes down to emotional intelligence (EQ). EQ is a skill that’s so important that 90% of top performers in the workplace have high EQs, as measured by an emotional intelligence test, and people with high EQs make $28,000 more annually than those with low EQs (per TalentSmart). The hallmark of emotional intelligence is self-awareness, which involves not just knowing how you are but also how other people perceive you. People with high emotional intelligence are masters of influence—they’re skilled at altering their behavior to make the most of a given situation. Shutterstock You might not be able to alter your genetics, but there are some proven strategies that can help you appear to be smarter. Some of these strategies seem arbitrary, but research shows they make a massive difference. That makes this good information to have, especially when you need to sway someone to your way of thinking. 1. Skip that drink. And that’s not just because people tend to do stupid things when they’ve been drinking. A joint study conducted by the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania revealed that merely seeing someone hold a drink is enough to make them seem less intelligent. It’s not that we assume less intelligent people are more likely to drink; it’s that the perceived correlation between drinking and cognitive impairment is so strong that we assume impairment even if there isn’t any. For example, although job candidates frequently think that ordering a glass of wine over a dinner interview will make them appear intelligent and worldly, it actually makes them come across as less intelligent and less hirable. There’s even a name for it: the “imbibing idiot bias.” 2. Use a middle initial. John F. Kennedy. Franklin D. Roosevelt. It turns out there might be a reason that so many people who hold a prominent place in history used a middle initial. Not only does using a middle initial enhance your perceived social status, it also boosts expectations of intelligence capacity and performance. In one study, participants were asked to read and rate Einstein’s essay on the theory of relativity, with authorship being attributed to either David Clark, David F. Clark, David F. P. Clark, or David F. P. R. Clark. Not only did David F. Clark get higher ratings than David Clark, David F. P. R. Clark outdid them all. In another study, participants were asked to choose team members. For academic competitions, people who used middle initials were selected more frequently than those who didn’t. (It was quite a different story for athletic competitions.) So, if you want a quick perceived IQ boost, start using that middle initial. 3. Make graphs. Research conducted at Cornell suggests that people are more likely to trust a source if it contains graphs. In one of the Cornell studies, participants read a document on the effectiveness of a new cold medication. One report contained a graph; the other didn’t. Other than that, they were exactly the same. Still, 96% of the participants who read the report with a graph believed the claims, while only 67% percent of those who read the document without a graph thought the same. So, next time you create a document, stick in a graph. It doesn’t have to be complex; it just has to be accurate. Subscribe To The Forbes Careers Newsletter Sign up here to get top career advice delivered straight to your inbox every week. 4. Believe in yourself. Nothing projects intelligence quite like confidence. When you believe in yourself, it shows, and research shows that believing in yourself improves your performance on cognitive tasks. Self-doubt, on the other hand, impairs your performance. What’s worse is that other people pick up on this doubt, which makes you appear less intelligent to them. If you want people to believe in you, you have to believe in yourself. 5. Write simply. If you’re really smart, you shouldn’t have to use big words to broadcast it. True intelligence speaks for itself, so you don’t have to show off your impressive vocabulary. In addition, you always run the chance of being wrong. Using a big word incorrectly makes you look, well, not so smart. So, if you want to appear more intelligent, stop studying the dictionary and just focus on communicating effectively. 6. Speak expressively. Communication expert Leonard Mlodinow makes the case that even if two people say exactly the same thing, the one who says it most expressively will be perceived as being smarter. "If two speakers utter exactly the same words, but one speaks a little faster and louder and with fewer pauses and greater variation in volume, that speaker will be judged to be more energetic, knowledgeable, and intelligent,” Mlodinow said. If you want to come across as more intelligent, modulate your speech by varying your pitch, volume, speed, and energy level. 7. Look 'em in the eye. We know we’re supposed to do this anyway—it’s good manners, right? That’s true, but it also makes you look smarter. In a study conducted at Loyola University, participants who intentionally managed their eye contact scored significantly higher on perceived intelligence. 8. Wear nerd glasses. Did your mom ever tell you to be nice to the nerds, because you’ll probably be working for them someday? As usual, mom was onto something. Research shows that people wearing glasses—especially thick, full-framed ones—are perceived as being more intelligent. So, if you want to seem smarter (when you’re giving a presentation, perhaps?), leave the contacts at home and wear your glasses. 9. Keep pace with the crowd. I mean this one literally. I know it may sound silly, but research conducted at Boston University shows that it’s true. It’s called the “timescale bias,” and it refers to our tendency to attribute greater intelligence—based on mental attributes like consciousness, awareness, and intention—to people who do things at about the same speed as everyone else. If you want to look smarter, you need to stop dawdling, but you also need to stop scurrying around like some crazed robot. 10. Dress for success. This one should be no surprise. Extensive research shows that how you dress affects how people see you. Dressing well makes you seem more intelligent, and showing skin makes you seem less intelligent, as it directs people’s attention to your body rather than to your mind. But did you know that how you dress also affects your performance? A recent study by Northwestern University found that making people wear lab coats improved their performance in tasks that required intelligence and concentration. Bringing It All Together Intelligence (IQ) is fixed at an early age. You might not be able to change your IQ, but you can definitely alter the way people perceive you. When it comes to succeeding in the real world, perception is half the battle. What are some other things that make people seem intelligent? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below, as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.
d5a84c61c214731c489a814afa1958a9	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2017/01/10/seven-small-things-people-use-to-decide-if-they-like-you/	Seven Small Things People Use To Decide If They Like You	Seven Small Things People Use To Decide If They Like You The human brain is hardwired to judge. This survival mechanism makes it very hard to meet someone without evaluating and interpreting their behavior. While we tend to think that our judgments are based on the content of conversations and other obvious behaviors, the research says otherwise. In fact, the majority of our judgments are focused on smaller, subtler things, such as handshakes and body language. We often form complete opinions about people based solely on these behaviors. Shutterstock We are so good at judging other people’s personalities based on small things that, in a University of Kansas study, subjects accurately predicted people’s personality traits, such as extroversion/introversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness, simply by looking at pictures of the shoes they wore. Our unconscious behaviors have a language of their own, and their words aren’t always kind. These behaviors have likely become an integral part of who you are, and if you don’t spend much time thinking about them, now is a good time to start, because they could be sabotaging your career. How you treat waiters and receptionists. How you treat support staff is so indicative of your makeup that it has become a common interview tactic. By gauging how you interact with support staff on your way in and out of the building, interviewers get a sense for how you treat people in general. Most people act the part when they’re speaking to the hiring manager or other “important” people, but some will pull a Jekyll and Hyde act the moment they walk out the door, treating others with disdain or indifference. Business lunches are another place this comes to light. No matter how nice you are to the people you have lunch with, it’s all for naught if those people witness you behaving badly toward others. If you have trouble with this, you should consider emotional intelligence training as it's a great way to improve. How often you check your phone. There’s nothing more frustrating than someone pulling out their phone mid-conversation. Doing so conveys a lack of respect, attention, listening skills, and willpower. Unless it’s an emergency, it’s wise to keep your phone holstered. A study from Elon University confirms that pulling out your phone during a conversation lowers both the quality and quantity of face-to-face interactions. Repetitive, nervous habits. Touching your nails or face or picking at your skin typically indicates that you’re nervous, overwhelmed, and not in control. Research from the University of Michigan suggests that these nervous habits are indicative of a perfectionistic personality, and that perfectionists are more likely to engage in these habits when they’re frustrated or bored. How long you take to ask questions. Have you ever had a conversation with someone where they talked about themselves the entire time? The amount of time someone allows to pass before they take an interest in you is a strong personality indicator. People who only talk about themselves tend to be loud, self-absorbed “takers.” People who only ask questions and share little about themselves are usually quiet, humble “givers.” Those who strike a nice balance of give-and-take are reciprocators and good conversationalists. Subscribe To The Forbes Careers Newsletter Sign up here to get top career advice delivered straight to your inbox every week. Your handshake. It’s common for people to associate a weak handshake with a lack of confidence and an overall lackadaisical attitude. A study at the University of Alabama showed that, although it isn’t safe to draw assumptions about someone’s competence based on their handshake, you can accurately identify personality traits. Specifically, the study found that a firm handshake equates with being less shy, less neurotic, and more extroverted. Tardiness. Showing up late leads people to think that you lack respect and tend to procrastinate, as well as being lazy or disinterested. Contrary to these perceptions, a San Diego State University study by Jeff Conte revealed that tardiness is typically seen in people who multitask, or are high in relaxed, Type B personality traits. Conte’s study found that Type B individuals are often late because they experience time more slowly than the rest of us. Bottom line here is not to read too much into people showing up late. It’s better to ask what’s behind it than to make assumptions. Eye contact. The key to eye contact is balance. While it’s important to maintain eye contact, doing so 100% of the time is perceived as aggressive and creepy. At the same time, if you only maintain eye contact for a small portion of the conversation, you’ll come across as disinterested, shy, or embarrassed. Studies show that maintaining eye contact for roughly 60% of a conversation strikes the right balance and makes you come across as interested, friendly, and trustworthy. Bringing It All Together Sometimes the little things in life make a big difference. It’s good to be ready for them, so that you can make a strong impression. What other behaviors yield insight into people’s personalities? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below, as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.
499db2c6fd47b643f70e70cd868ab156	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbrown/2013/07/09/nevada-a-zero-income-tax-innovative-oasis-in-the-desert/	Nevada: A Zero Income Tax, Innovative Oasis In The Desert	Nevada: A Zero Income Tax, Innovative Oasis In The Desert Nevada's State Flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia) While some states remain beaten down by the recession of 2008, others are staging admirable comebacks. Of course, it comes as little surprise that the most resilient states are those with the best, most pro-growth tax policies. Nevada shines as the perfect example of how a friendly business climate and an emphasis on innovation can boost a state’s economy. Many associate Nevada with the glitz and glamour of the Las Vegas Strip, but there’s far more to The Silver State than high-rollers and cocktail lounges. In a guest editorial this week for CNBC, Governor Brian Sandoval declared Nevada a “state open for all businesses.” From the largest firms to the smallest start-ups, businesses are flocking to Nevada to take advantage of its excellent environment. It’s not hard to do the relocation math when a state levies no personal income tax, no corporate tax, no franchise tax, and no inventory tax. Nevada offers far more than just tax incentives, though. In fact, the innovative programs created within the state might merit a look from other reform-minded legislators in other parts of the country. Sandoval understands the certain value of government not acting as a barrier to economic activity, but as a facilitator. This has revealed itself most prominently with the recently established Knowledge Fund. Created with bipartisan support and the backing of educators, students, and labor groups, this dedicated $20 million fund provides funds for those who wish to create cutting-edge tech jobs in Nevada. The Silver State also blazes a trail of innovation with the Catalyst Fund. Catalyst facilitates the expansion of existing high-quality businesses, along with the relocation of others from around the country. Catalyst is already paying dividends, with international tech giant Apple building a massive data center in Nevada. Other leading-edge companies doing big business in Nevada include Internet-based travel company Expedia, aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, and networking conglomerate Cisco. Tony Hsieh, CEO of the astronomically successful online shoe shop Zappos, chose Henderson, Nevada, as the headquarters for his billion-dollar company. Certainly, Nevada’s no-tax status attracts people and incomes. Between 1992 and 2010, the state gained $18.17 billion in net AGI, siphoning off millions of dollars from high-tax states like California and Illinois. However, Nevada’s leadership understands that a state’s success is not solely reliant upon its tax code. Meaningful reform also includes innovation, government acting as a partner over serving as a barrier, and the type of optimistic ambition that makes Nevada a shining jewel in the desert.
1e567c8b19db425f5570689b3406c8f7	https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbrown/2014/05/09/missouri-legislature-overrides-veto-joins-midwest-tax-cut-movement/	It Took Missouri's Lawmakers 93 Years To Take A Very Positive Leap	It Took Missouri's Lawmakers 93 Years To Take A Very Positive Leap It may have taken 93 years to accomplish, but for the first time since 1921, lawmakers in Jefferson City have decreased Missouri’s income tax rate. On May 6, 2014, the state legislature - by votes of 109 to 46 in the House and 23 to 8 in the Senate - overrode Democratic Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of SB 509: legislation that reduces Missouri’s top marginal income tax rate of 6 percent to 5.5 percent (or 10 percent), provides small businesses with a 25 percent income tax exemption, and administers $620 million in tax relief for hard working Missourians. While veto overrides are a key component of the legislative process at the state and federal levels, what makes this particular override significant is that it was Governor Nixon’s second attempt at vetoing income tax cutting legislation in as many years. As you may recall from the Show Me State’s 2013 legislative session, a similar bill designed to cut Missouri’s income tax (HB 253) was vetoed by the governor and fell short of being overridden by 15 votes due to division within the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Fortunately for all Missouri residents, Governor Nixon’s divisive tactics, specifically his fear-mongering related to alleged education spending cuts, failed to disrupt the House and Senate’s effort to lower the total tax burden for their constituents this time around. So what does this tax cut mean for Missouri? For starters, it means Missouri legislators have taken note of the tax reform movement that has swept not only through states such as Wisconsin, Florida, and North Carolina over the past three years, but also through its neighboring states of Kansas and Oklahoma. This is what the Wall Street Journal dubbed “the Heartland tax revolution,” and Missouri is finally taking part. Last week, Oklahoma reduced its top marginal income tax from 5.25 percent to 5 percent. Last year, Kansas eliminated one of its three tax brackets and reduced its top marginal rate of 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent. Additionally, Kansas passed income tax exemptions for partnerships, LLCs, S-corporations, and sole proprietorships, which has resulted in over 3,000 jobs moving to Kansas. For a state that has lost $1.76 billion in adjusted gross income from 1992 to 2011, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service, the override sends a clear signal that the door to more tax reform in Missouri is officially open. MO; Jay Nixon at the Missouri AFL-CIO State Convention (Photo credit: aflcio) In terms of real gross domestic product (GDP), this tax cut strengthens the Missouri economy. Ten years after full implementation of SB509, our analysis and economic forecast show that the Show Me State can expect to have $1 billion more dollars in its coffers than if it had continued to stay the course with the former top rate of 6 percent on earned income over $9,000. Similarly, if Missouri were to bring the top marginal rates down by another 0.5 percent or eliminate the income tax altogether, by 2022 real GDP could grow to values between $239.7 billion and $265.5 billion. This increase would in turn lower unemployment rates, currently higher than the national average of 6.4 percent, and strengthen a struggling state economy. Rather than pandering to his counterparts in Washington, D.C., in order to secure a federal position, Governor Jay Nixon should work to improve the economic welfare and lower the total tax burden on his constituents. Despite the fact that Missouri’s Constitution requires that 26 percent of state revenues go to education (and currently, 33 percent of revenues go to schools, as Republicans have increased education budgets since 2003), Governor Nixon continues to threaten education spending despite having neither the power to do so nor credible research. Income tax cuts have proven to increase revenues, because they not only put more money back into the hands of workers, but also provide them with greater financial security and the ability to purchase more goods and services. If Governor Nixon focused more of his attention on Missourians, perhaps he would have a better understanding of their needs and wants.
e60157cecabe5b303b50a143524df5c6	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2017/11/24/one-championship-results-ben-askren-retires-undefeated-after-tko-win/	ONE Championship Results: Ben Askren Retires Undefeated After TKO Win	ONE Championship Results: Ben Askren Retires Undefeated After TKO Win Ben Askren closed the door on his mixed martial arts career on Friday with a quick submission win over Shinya Aoki in the main event of ONE Championship: Immortal Pursuit. The former Olympic wrestler leaves the sport with a perfect record of 18-0. Ben Askren retired from MMA with a perfect 18-0 record after a win over Shinya Aoki at ONE... [+] Championship: Immortal Pursuit. (Photo by Suhaimi Abdullah/Getty Images) The fight opened with a striking exchange, but things changed quickly when Aoki decided to jump into guard. From there, Askren slammed his opponent to the mat and began to land ground strikes from inside Aoki’s guard. As Askren picked up the pace of his attack, Aoki covered his head and turned away from the assault, which brought the referee in for the stoppage at 57 seconds of the first stanza. Askren announced his intent to retire after this fight earlier this year. "I want to retire while I am still in peak form and not once I have gone significantly downhill," Askren told Forbes contributor Brian Mazique. "Too many fighters hang on because they simply have nothing better to do with their lives. I have lots of challenges that I want to pursue outside of MMA and I am looking forward to doing so. I always knew that my competing days would come to an end. I am ready for that to be the case." With that being said, after his win over Aoki, Askren did leave the door open for one more fight. “I think it’s it,” Askren said (via MMAjunkie). “I did leave that caveat, if I get the opportunity to prove I’m No.1 – I think I’m No. 1. I know I’m No. 1. I haven’t gotten to prove to the world I’m No. 1. So if I get that opportunity, (I’d) take that opportunity. “I don’t need to make any more money. I need to show people that I’m the best welterweight in the world. Other than that, I’m out.” Askren never had the opportunity to fight for the UFC. An outspoken fighter, Askren was never afraid to voice his displeasure with that organization’s president, Dana White. Not one to take criticism lightly, White often referred to Askren’s wrestling-heavy style as boring.
edbe912b44e4f10c3d23a875d4fd27e6	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2018/03/01/2018-ufc-event-schedule/	2018 UFC Event Schedule	2018 UFC Event Schedule An up to date event schedule for the UFC in 2018. Jimmie Rivera and Marlon Moraes face off in the bantamweight main event UFC Fight Night 131. The... [+] event takes place at Adirondack Bank Center in Utica, New York. (Photo by Josh Hedges/Zuffa LLC/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images) UFC Fight Night 131: Adirondack Bank Center Utica, New York June 1, 20189 Main Card (FS1) Bantamweight Jimmie Rivera vs. Marlon Moraes Lightweight Gregor Gillespie vs. Vinc Pichel Heavyweight Walt Harris vs. Daniel Spitz Welterweight Jake Ellenberger vs. Ben Saunders Featherweight Julio Arce vs. Daniel Teymur Light Heavyweight Gian Villante vs. Sam Alvey Preliminary card (FS 1) Women's Flyweight Sijara Eubanks vs. Lauren Murphy Lightweight Nik Lentz vs. David Teymur Welterweight Belal Muhammad vs. Chance Rencountre Lightweight Desmond Green vs. Gleison Tibau Preliminary card (UFC Fight Pass) Women's Strawweight Jessica Aguilar vs. Jodie Esquibel Bantamweight Johnny Eduardo vs. Nathaniel Wood Flyweight Jarred Brooks vs. Jose Torres UFC middleweight champion Robert Whittaker defends his title against Yoel Romero in the main event... [+] of UFC 225 on June 9. The event takes place at United Center in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images) UFC 225 United Center Chicago, Illinois June 9, 2018 Main Card (PPV) Middleweight Robert Whittaker vs. Yoel Romero Welterweight Rafael dos Anjos vs. Colby Covington Women’s Featherweight Holly Holm vs. Megan Anderson Heavyweight Andrei Arlovski vs. Tai Tuivasa Welterweight CM Punk vs. Mike Jackson Preliminary card (Fox Sports 1) Heavyweight Alistair Overeem vs. Curtis Blaydes Women's Strawweight Claudia Gadelha vs. Carla Esparza Featherweight Ricardo Lamas vs. Mirsad Bektić Heavyweight Rashad Coulter vs. Chris de la Rocha Preliminary card (UFC Fight Pass) Light Heavyweight Rashad Evans vs. Anthony Smith Flyweight Joseph Benavidez vs. Sergio Pettis Lightweight Clay Guida vs. Charles Oliveira Featherweight Mike Santiago vs. Dan Ige Welterweights Donald Cerrone and Leon Edwards meet in the main event of UFC Fight Night 132. The... [+] event takes place on June 23 from Singapore Indoor Stadium in Kallang, Singapore. (Photo by Yong Teck Lim/Zuffa LLC) UFC Fight Night 132 Singapore Indoor Stadium Kallang, Singapore June 23, 2018 Welterweight Donald Cerrone vs. Leon Edwards Light Heavyweight Ovince Saint Preux vs. Tyson Pedro Women's Flyweight Jessica-Rose Clark vs. Jessica Eye Welterweight Li Jingliang vs. Daichi Abe Bantamweight Felipe Arantes vs. Song Yadong Bantamweight Teruto Ishihara vs. Petr Yan Welterweight Song Kenan vs. Hector Aldana Welterweight Shinsho Anzai vs. Jake Matthews Flyweight Matt Schnell vs. Naoki Inoue TUF 27 Finale: T-Mobile Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada July 6, 2018 UFC 226: Miocic vs. Cormier Stipe Miocic and Daniel Cormier face off iin the main event of UFC 226, which takes place at... [+] T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas. (Photo by Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images) T-Mobile Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada July 7, 2018 Heavyweight Stipe Miocic vs. Daniel Cormier Featherweight Max Holloway vs. Brian Ortega Heavyweight Francis Ngannou vs. Derrick Lewis Bantamweight Raphael Assunção vs. Rob Font Light Heavyweight Gökhan Saki vs. Khalil Rountree Jr. Welterweight Yancy Medeiros vs. Mike Perry Middleweight Uriah Hall vs. Paulo Costa UFC Fight Night 133 CenturyLink Arena, Boise, Idaho July 14, 2018 Women's Bantamweight Cat Zingano vs. Marion Reneau Women's Flyweight Liz Carmouche vs. Jennifer Maia Flyweight Justin Scoggins vs. Said Nurmagomedov UFC Fight Night 134 Barclaycard Arena, Hamburg, Germany July 22, 2018 Light Heavyweight Volkan Oezdemir vs. Maurício Rua Lightweight Nasrat Haqparast vs. Marc Diakiese UFC on FOX 30 Scotiabank Saddledome, Calgary, Alberta, Canada July 28, 2018 Women's Flyweight Nicco Montaño vs. Valentina Shevchenko Featherweight José Aldo vs. Jeremy Stephens Flyweight Matheus Nicolau vs. Dustin Ortiz Light Heavyweight Gadzhimurad Antigulov vs. Ion Cuțelaba Featherweight Hakeem Dawodu vs. Austin Arnett Welterweight Jordan Mein vs. Alex Morono Lightweight John Makdessi vs. Ross Pearson Lightweight Kajan Johnson vs. Islam Makhachev Women's Flyweight Alexis Davis vs. Katlyn Chookagian Women's Strawweight Randa Markos vs. Nina Ansaroff UFC 227 Staples Center, Los Angeles, CA August 4, 2018 Bantamweight TJ Dillashaw vs. Cody Garbrandt UFC Fight Night 135 Pinnacle Bank Arena, Lincoln, Nebraska August 25, 2018 UFC 229 T-Mobile Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada October 6, 2018 UFC 232 T-Mobile Arena, Las Vegas, Nevada December 29, 2018
acfc689355198cfb63865bb89c498c57	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2019/04/01/dana-white-has-no-plans-to-give-conor-mcgregor-ufc-shares-other-ways-we-can-make-him-happy/	Dana White Has No Plans To Give Conor McGregor UFC Shares: 'Other Ways We Can Make Him Happy'	Dana White Has No Plans To Give Conor McGregor UFC Shares: 'Other Ways We Can Make Him Happy' UFC President Dana White feels that it won't take shares in the UFC to get Conor McGregor to return... [+] to the octagon. (Photo by Ed Mulholland/Zuffa LLC/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images) Getty When Conor McGregor announced his “retirement” on social media, UFC President Dana White seemed to take the news in stride. “He has the money to retire, and his whiskey is KILLIN’ it,” White said in a statement to MMA Junkie at the time. “It totally makes sense. If I was him, I would retire too. He’s retiring from fighting, not from working. The whiskey will keep him busy, and I’m sure he has other things he’s working on. He has been so fun to watch. He has accomplished incredible things in this sport. I am so happy for him, and I look forward to seeing him be as successful outside of the octagon as he was in it.” On Sunday, White seemed to take a different view of McGregor’s alleged retirement. Hey guys quick announcement, I’ve decided to retire from the sport formally known as “Mixed Martial Art” today. I wish all my old colleagues well going forward in competition. I now join my former partners on this venture, already in retirement. Proper Pina Coladas on me fellas! — Conor McGregor (@TheNotoriousMMA) March 26, 2019 “I think there’s some things that Conor wants,” White told 8 News in Las Vegas. “I think that Conor wants to get together, face-to-face, he and I, and we probably will in the next couple of weeks and we’ll get this thing figured out.” “He’s stuck on this thing where he wants a piece of the ownership and that’s just (not going to happen),” White continued. “I think there’s other ways we can make him happy.” Another thing that UFC has to think about, that went unmentioned by White, is that McGregor is allegedly under investigation for a December sexual assault in his home country of Ireland. McGregor was rumored to be in talks to face Donald Cerrone in July, but those talks reportedly broke down when the UFC did not want to have a McGregor fight headline a fight card since the Irish fighter does not currently hold a UFC title. McGregor later said he would accept a co-main event slot on a UFC card if the promotion were to give him shares in the company. McGregor is currently suspended for his role in the brawl that broke out after he tapped to UFC lightweight champion Khabib Nurmagomedov in October. McGregor is eligible to return to action on April 6.
d5d27cd0e6acb5211852cf6f4816aeae	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2019/10/08/ufc-243-ratings-event-is-2nd-lowest-rated-ppv-prelim-card-of-2019/	UFC 243 Ratings: Event Is 2nd-Lowest-Rated PPV Prelim Card Of 2019	UFC 243 Ratings: Event Is 2nd-Lowest-Rated PPV Prelim Card Of 2019 MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA - OCTOBER 06: Megan Anderson of Australia punches Zarah Fairn of France in the ... [+] Women's featherweight bout during UFC 243 at Marvel Stadium on October 06, 2019 in Melbourne, Australia. (Photo by Darrian Traynor/Getty Images) Getty Images The UFC was in Melbourne, Australia for Saturday’s UFC 243 fight card. The event set a UFC record for attendance with 57,127 fans packing into Marvel Stadium. This fans saw Australia’s Robert Whittaker lose his middleweight title to New Zealand’s Israel Adesanya in the main event of the pay-per-view portion of the card. The five-fight main card streamed on ESPN+. Before that portion of the event began, ESPN2 carried four fights from the preliminary card. The prelims began at 8 p.m. ET with a women’s featherweight bout between Megan Anderson and Zarah Fairn dos Santos. Anderson, who hails from Australia, earned a badly needed victory in that bout when she submitted dos Santos in the first round. In the top contest on the prelim card, New Zealand’s Jake Matthews scored a shutout decision over Rostem Akman in a welterweight bout. Matthews won via 30-27 on all three cards. The ratings for the prelims were not particularly strong. The two-hour event averaged 559,000 viewers, which made it the 20th ranked cable programming for Saturday, October 5. As for other sports events in that timeframe, the UFC event fell behind the Georgia vs. Tennessee college football game on ESPN, the MLB playoff game between the Minnesota Twins and the New York Yankees on FS1, the NBA preseason game between the Los Angeles Lakers and Golden State Warriors on TNT and the Liga MX game between Cruz Azul and Club America on TUDN. The numbers for the event make it the second lowest-rated preliminary card in 2019. The only lower-rated event was UFC 242, which averaged 222,000 viewers. FX broadcast the prelims for UFC 242. The third lowest-rated event, UFC 240, averaged 722,000 viewers. That card was broadcast by ESPN. All other UFC pay-per-view preliminary cards were broadcast on ESPN. According to Sports TV Ratings, both ESPN and ESPN2 are available in approximately 84 million homes as of April 2019. MORE FOR YOURoger Federer ‘Not Coming Back To Make Up The Numbers’UFC 259 Full Fight Video: Watch Amanda Nunes Knock Out Ronda RouseyUFC 259: Blachowicz Vs. Adesanya Prediction And Pick Card AVG. Network UFC 235: 1,480,000 (ESPN) UFC 236: 893,000 (ESPN) UFC 237: 813,000 (ESPN) UFC 238: 964,000 (ESPN) UFC 239: 1,145,000 (ESPN) UFC 240: 722,000 (ESPN) UFC 241: 817,000 (ESPN) UFC 242: 222,000 (FX) UFC 243: 559,000 (ESPN2) More From UFC 243: UFC 243: Stats And Video Highlights From Israel Adesanya’s Knockout Win Over Robert Whittaker UFC 243: Stats And Video Highlights From Dan Hooker’s Win Over Al Iaquinta Paulo Costa: UFC Champ Israel Adesanya Can’t Handle Me; I Will Kill Him UFC 243: Dan Hooker Tells Dustin Poirier To Stop Chasing ‘Leprechaun’ Conor McGregor And Fight Him Robert Whittaker Says He Isn’t Going Anywhere After UFC 243 Loss To Israel Adesanya UFC 243 Sets Attendance Record; Falls Far Short Of Live Gate Record UFC 243 Shows MMA Judges Need To Be Held Accountable UFC 243 Medical Suspensions: Al Iaquinta Out Up To 6 Months
f40e33f1c8166fdaa67f415baebe9496	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2020/02/08/how-to-watch-or-live-stream-ufc-247-jon-jones-vs-dominick-reyes/	How To Watch Or Live Stream UFC 247: Jon Jones Vs. Dominick Reyes	How To Watch Or Live Stream UFC 247: Jon Jones Vs. Dominick Reyes HOUSTON, TEXAS - FEBRUARY 06: (L-R) Opponents Jon Jones and Dominick Reyes face off during the UFC ... [+] 247 Ultimate Media Day at the Crowne Plaza Houston River Oaks on February 06, 2020 in Houston, Texas. (Photo by Josh Hedges/Zuffa LLC) Zuffa LLC The UFC is in Houston for tonight’s UFC 247 pay-per-view card. In the headlining bout, UFC light heavyweight champion Jon Jones puts his title on the line against Dominick Reyes. Jones has competed in nothing but UFC title fights since he knocked out Mauricio “Shogun” Rua in March 2011. With that win, Jones became the youngest fighter to capture a UFC title. If Jones, who is in his second stint as the UFC 205-pound champion, defeats Reyes, he will have 14 victories in UFC title fights, which will put him in front of Georges St-Pierre who has 13 career UFC title fight triumphs. The odds favor that scenario, as Jones is a -500 favorite over Reyes, who comes in as a +350 underdog. Jones is coming off a split decision win over Thiago Santos in July. That victory was the first time in his career that Jones did not win by unanimous decision or stoppage. Jones has successfully defended the light heavyweight crown twice during his second reign at the top of the 205-pound division. Reyes signed with the UFC in 2017 on the strength of three first-round knockout wins. He continued to wrap things up early in his first three fights under the UFC banner. Reyes did not enter the second round in those three scraps. In his final bout of 2018 and his first matchup of 2019, Reyes went the distance. He got back on track in his most recent outing. In that bout, Reyes scored a first-round knockout win over former middleweight champion Chris Weidman. The victory punched Reyes’ ticket to a title fight. He is 12-0 as a pro and currently ranked No. 4 in the official UFC light heavyweight rankings. HOW TO WATCH OR LIVE STREAM UFC 247 UFC 247 takes place on Saturday, February 8, at Toyota Center in Houston, Texas. The main card streams on ESPN+ pay-per-view, following prelims on ESPN and early prelims on ESPN+ and UFC Fight Pass. MORE FOR YOUHow To Watch Or Live Stream UFC 259 Early PrelimsMighty India Destroy England And Book Spot In Cricket’s Inaugural World Test Championship FinalVince McMahon Reportedly Making Major Changes To WWE WrestleMania 37 Card UFC 247 Pay-Per-View Card (ESPN+, 10 P.M. ET) Jon Jones vs. Dominick Reyes Valentina Shevchenko vs. Katlyn Chookagian Juan Adams vs. Justin Tafa Mirsad Bektić vs. Dan Ige Derrick Lewis vs. Ilir Latifi UFC 247 Preliminary card (ESPN, 8 PM ET) Trevin Giles vs. Antonio Arroyo Alex Morono vs. Kalinn Williams Lauren Murphy vs. Andrea Lee UFC 247 Early Prelim card (ESPN+, Fight Pass, 6:15 P.M. ET) Miles Johns vs. Mario Bautista Journey Newson vs. Domingo Pilarte Andre Ewell vs. Jonathan Martinez
0f484b9269c49b9ab4cc05c75f97093f	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2021/01/20/ufc-254-pre-fight-press-conference-video-live-stream-conor-mcgregor-vs-dustin-poirier-2/	UFC 257 Pre-Fight Press Conference Video Live Stream: Conor McGregor Vs. Dustin Poirier 2	UFC 257 Pre-Fight Press Conference Video Live Stream: Conor McGregor Vs. Dustin Poirier 2 LAS VEGAS, NV - AUGUST 4: (L-R) Dustin Poirier and Conor McGregor face off during the UFC 178 ... [+] Ultimate Media Day at the MGM Grand Hotel/Casino on August 4, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images) Zuffa LLC via Getty Images Conor McGregor fought once in 2020. According to the former UFC two-division champion, that fight was a success. McGregor met Donald Cerrone in a welterweight matchup in January 2020. McGregor won that contest by knockout 40 seconds into the first round. Despite the short duration of the bout, McGregor recently claimed the event, UFC 246, was the biggest selling UFC pay-per-view card of the year. McGregor returns to the octagon on January 23, 2021 when he meets Dustin Poirier in the main event of UFC 257. The card takes place on Fight Island in Abu Dhabi and streams on ESPN+ pay-per-view. UFC 257 is the first scheduled PPV card for the UFC in 2021. McGregor and Poirier first met in 2014. McGregor scored a first-round knockout win over Poirier in that contest. Two fights later, McGregor won the interim featherweight title with a TKO victory over Chad Mendes. McGregor unified the lightweight titles in his next outing when he knocked out Jose Aldo in 13 seconds at UFC 194. Poirier moved to lightweight after his loss to McGregor. He went on a four-fight winning streak before losing to Michael Johnson in 2016. Poirier’s record in his next five bouts was 4-0-0-1. That stretch earned him a shot at the interim lightweight title. Poirier won that belt with a unanimous decision win over Max Holloway. He lost to lightweight champion Khabib Nurmagomedov in a title unification bout in 2019. Poirier is coming off a June 2020 unanimous decision win over Dan Hooker. MORE FOR YOURoger Federer ‘Not Coming Back To Make Up The Numbers’UFC 259: Blachowicz Vs. Adesanya Prediction And PickUFC 259 Full Fight Video: Watch Amanda Nunes Knock Out Ronda Rousey After his win over Aldo, McGregor went 1-1 against Nate Diaz at welterweight. He followed those two bouts with a knockout win over Eddie Alvarez to earn the lightweight title. The UFC stripped McGregor of his two titles for inactivity. When he returned to action in October 2018, Nurmagomedov stopped McGregor via submission in the fourth round of their lightweight title contest. McGregor followed that loss with the Cerrone win. McGregor and Poirier meet on Saturday in the main event of the UFC 257 pay-per-view card, which airs on ESPN+. Before that fight takes place, the UFC holds a press conference for the event on Thursday at 8:00 a.m. ET. You can watch that press conference live right here.
e76e54f71c8c287283e8b4ced4b5fa45	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2021/01/21/ufc-257-weigh-in-video-live-stream-for-conor-mcgregor-vs-dustin-poirier-2/	UFC 257 Weigh-In Video Live Stream For Conor McGregor Vs. Dustin Poirier 2	UFC 257 Weigh-In Video Live Stream For Conor McGregor Vs. Dustin Poirier 2 LAS VEGAS, NV - SEPTEMBER 26: (L-R) Opponents Dustin Poirier and Conor McGregor of Ireland face off ... [+] during the UFC 178 weigh-in at the MGM Grand Conference Center on September 26, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Josh Hedges/Zuffa LLC/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images) Zuffa LLC via Getty Images The UFC is on Fight Island in Abu Dhabi this week for three events. The last of those fight cards is the UFC 257 pay-per-view, which takes place Saturday at Etihad Arena in Abu Dhabi. The main event of that card is a rematch between Conor McGregor and Dustin Poirier. McGregor and Poirier first met in 2014. McGregor scored a first-round knockout win over Poirier in that contest. Two fights later, McGregor won the interim featherweight title with a TKO victory over Chad Mendes. McGregor unified the lightweight titles in his next outing when he knocked out Jose Aldo in 13 seconds at UFC 194. Poirier moved to lightweight after his loss to McGregor. He went on a four-fight winning streak before losing to Michael Johnson in 2016. Poirier’s record in his next five bouts was 4-0-0-1. That stretch earned him a shot at the interim lightweight title. Poirier won that belt with a unanimous decision win over Max Holloway. He lost to lightweight champion Khabib Nurmagomedov in a title unification bout in 2019. Poirier is coming off a June 2020 unanimous decision win over Dan Hooker. After his win over Aldo, McGregor went 1-1 against Nate Diaz at welterweight. He followed those two bouts with a knockout win over Eddie Alvarez to earn the lightweight title. The UFC stripped McGregor of his two titles for inactivity. When he returned to action in October 2018, Nurmagomedov stopped McGregor via submission in the fourth round of their lightweight title contest. McGregor followed that loss with the Cerrone win. MORE FOR YOUBrent Seabrook’s Retirement Gives Chicago Blackhawks FlexibilityMighty India Destroy England And Book Spot In Cricket’s Inaugural World Test Championship FinalClaressa Shields Vs. Marie-Eve Dicaire: Odds, Purses, Records, Prediction Before McGregor and Poirier meet in their rematch, the UFC holds the ceremonial weigh ins for that event on Friday at 10 a.m. ET. You can watch the fighters stepson the scale live right here.
2dace336e6b58e6095be196cca7f67d8	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2021/01/23/how-to-watch-or-live-stream-ufc-257-mcgregor-vs-poirier/	How To Watch Or Live Stream UFC 257: McGregor Vs. Poirier	How To Watch Or Live Stream UFC 257: McGregor Vs. Poirier ABU DHABI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - JANUARY 22: In this handout image provided by the UFC, (L-R) ... [+] Opponents Dustin Poirier and Conor McGregor of Ireland face off during the UFC 257 weigh-in at Etihad Arena on UFC Fight Island on January 22, 2021 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. (Photo by Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images) Zuffa LLC via Getty Images The UFC is on Fight Island in Abu Dhabi for tonight’s UFC 257 pay-per-view card. The main event of the first UFC PPV of 2021 features the return of Conor McGregor. The former two-division UFC champion faces ex-UFC interim lightweight titleholder in the evening’s main event. McGregor and Poirier have met before. In 2014, McGregor scored a first-round knockout win over Poirier in that contest. Since that fight, both men moved up to lightweight and have had success. Poirier is coming off a decision win over Dan Hooker. McGregor enters the octagon off the strength of a first-round knockout win over Donald Cerrone. In the co-main event, former Bellator lightweight champion Michael Chandler is set to make his UFC debut against Dan Hooker. Chandler signed with the UFC as a free agent. UFC 257 takes place tonight at Fight Island in Abu Dhabi. The main card streams on ESPN+ pay-per-view following prelims on ESPN and ESPN+. Early prelims for the UFC 257 event stream on ESPN+ and UFC Fight Pass. How To Watch Or Live Stream UFC 253: Main Card (ESPN+ PPV) MORE FOR YOURoger Federer ‘Not Coming Back To Make Up The Numbers’UFC 259: Blachowicz Vs. Adesanya Prediction And PickUFC 259 Full Fight Video: Watch Amanda Nunes Knock Out Ronda Rousey Dustin Poirier vs. Conor McGregor Dan Hooker vs. Michael Chandler Jessica Eye vs. Joanne Calderwood Marina Rodriguez vs. Amanda Ribas Andrew Sanchez vs. Makhmud Muradov Preliminary card (ESPN / ESPN+) Matt Frevola vs. Arman Tsarukyan Brad Tavares vs. Antônio Carlos Júnior Julianna Peña vs. Sara McMann Khalil Rountree Jr. vs. Marcin Prachnio Early Preliminary card (ESPN+ / UFC Fight Pass) Movsar Evloev vs. Nik Lentz Amir Albazi vs. Zhalgas Zhumagulov
fd604992c28c6ca0651c5382669d87d3	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2021/01/23/ufc-257--mcgregor-vs-poirier--prediction-pick-and-breakdown/	UFC 257: McGregor Vs. Poirier Prediction, Pick And Breakdown	UFC 257: McGregor Vs. Poirier Prediction, Pick And Breakdown ABU DHABI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - JANUARY 22: Conor McGregor of Ireland poses on the scale during ... [+] the UFC 257 weigh-in at Etihad Arena on UFC Fight Island on January 22, 2021 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. (Photo by Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC) Zuffa LLC The UFC is on Fight Island in Abu Dhabi for tonight’s UFC 257 pay-per-view card. The main event of the first UFC PPV of 2021 features the return of Conor McGregor. The former two-division UFC champion faces ex-UFC interim lightweight titleholder in the evening’s main event. McGregor and Poirier have met before. In 2014 McGregor scored a first-round knockout win over Poirier in that contest. Since that fight both men moved up to lightweight and have had success. Poirier is coming off a decision win over Dan Hooker. McGregor enters the octagon off the strength of a first-round knockout win over Donald Cerrone. I think McGregor has the advantage in the first two rounds. Poirier is going to have to do everything he can to either get the fight to the ground and get top position and just grind it out or stay at a distance. That is difficult because McGregor can close that distance with incredibly fast kicks and and then he can move in with his punches. The longer the fight goes the more Poirier has a chance to win, especially if he can slow McGregor down. The problem with that is if the fight goes to the scorecards, McGregor's power could give him an advantage in the scoring. My pick is McGregor. I don't know if he knocks out Poirier. I think Poirier has a chance to win this fight via a decision. Poirier is a good striker. He doesn't have the power McGregor has, but he can knock out people and his submission skills are definitely better than McGregor’s submission defense. MORE FOR YOUAEW Dynamite Results: Winners, News And Notes As Shaq Debuts On March 3, 2021Lindsay Brewer, Touted As ‘The Future Of IndyCar,’ On What Fuels HerOvertime Launches A Basketball League That Will Pay High School Players Six-Figure Salaries It's funny, on paper Poirier has all the advantages he needs to win, I just don't know if he can have everything come together at once and that is what he needs to beat McGregor. That is why I'm picking McGregor to win. I'm going to lean toward a knockout, but I won't be surprised if it goes the distance. I also won't be surprised to to see Poirier win tonight’s fight by decision. This matchup is not like the fights earlier in McGregor’s career when it was clear he was going to win. I think Poirier’s improvements will allow him to drag out this contest, but I’m still siding with McGregor for the win.
a5b55f3c0de73e2e57d06e21810d5a7c	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2021/01/23/ufc-257-full-fight-video-watch-dustin-poirier-knock-out-justin-gaethje/	UFC 257 Full Fight Video: Watch Dustin Poirier Knock Out Justin Gaethje	UFC 257 Full Fight Video: Watch Dustin Poirier Knock Out Justin Gaethje GLENDALE, AZ - APRIL 14: (R-L) Dustin Poirier punches Justin Gaethje in their lightweight fight ... [+] during the UFC Fight Night event at the Gila Rivera Arena on April 14, 2018 in Glendale, Arizona. (Photo by Josh Hedges/Zuffa LLC/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images) Zuffa LLC via Getty Images In April 2018, Dustin Poirier was well into his climb up the lightweight rankings. Since he moved up to 155 pounds from featherweight, Poirier had put together a 6-1-0-1 record and was coming off a TKO win over former UFC lightweight champion Anthony Pettis. His reward for that victory was a matchup against the hard-hitting and powerful kicking ex-World Series of Fighting lightweight champ Justin Gaethje. Gaethje was coming off the first loss of his career, a third-round knockout setback to former UFC lightweight champ Eddie Alvarez. The matchup between the two exciting lightweights headlined the UFC on FOX 29 event from Gila River Arena in Glendale, Arizona. At the time of the fight, Poirier was ranked No. 5 in the lightweight division, while Gaethje was No. 6. Poirier was a -135 favorite, while Gaethje entered the contest as the +105 underdog. As expected, these two started fast. Gaethje looked to slow Poirier with powerful kicks to his lead leg, while Poirier tried to work through those kicks while keeping at distance so he could utilize his strong boxing. By the halfway mark of the first round, Poirier seemed to be bothered by the leg kicks, but to his credit, those blows did not slow his pace. Over the first five minutes, Poirier attempted 132 significant strikes and landed 63 of them. The majority of those blows, 49, landed to Gaethje’s head. Gaethje landed 34 of his 64 significant strike attempts, 20 of those landed blows were to Poirier’s legs. The second round was more of the same for Poirier, but Gaethje focused more on landing to the head of Poirier in the second five minutes. The third round was much slower for Poirier, whose output went from 122 significant strike attempts in the second round to 73 in the third. As for Gaethje, his production remained relatively consistent. Gaethje also went back to throwing more leg kicks in the hopes of hobbling Poirier. The third round saw referee Herb Dean take a point from Gaethje after he poked Poirier in the eye for the second time in the fight. MORE FOR YOUHow Jordan Poole’s Return To The Golden State Warriors Can Help James WisemanMarch Madness 2021 Schedule: NCAA Tournament Bracketology And No. 1 Seed Odds For Gonzaga, Michigan, More5 Things We Learned About New Green Bay Packers Defensive Coordinator Joe Barry Fifteen seconds into the fourth stanza, Poirier tagged Gaethje with a right jab. He followed that with a hard left that put Gaethje on his heels. Poirier, knowing he had his opponent hurt, swarmed Gaethje with powerful hooks. The onslaught of strikes never gave Gaethje the opportunity to recover and the fight came to an end 33 seconds into the fourth round. Poirier went on to defeat Alvarez by knockout in July 2018. He then captured the interim lightweight title in April of this year with a unanimous decision win over Max Holloway. On Saturday, Poirier looks to keep his winning streak alive when he faces the unbeaten Khabib Nurmagomedov in the main event of UFC 242. Nurmagomedov puts his UFC lightweight crown on the line in the title unification match.
5a292d9fe1613f36c8a8e489b013b8be	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2021/01/23/ufc-257-video-mcgregor-vs-poirier-2-post-fight-press-conference-live-stream/	UFC 257 Video: McGregor Vs. Poirier 2 Post-Fight Press Conference Live Stream	UFC 257 Video: McGregor Vs. Poirier 2 Post-Fight Press Conference Live Stream ABU DHABI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - JANUARY 22: (L-R) Opponents Dustin Poirier and Conor McGregor of ... [+] Ireland pose for photos during the UFC 257 weigh-in at Etihad Arena on UFC Fight Island on January 22, 2021 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. (Photo by Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC) Zuffa LLC Conor McGregor and Dustin Poirier meet in a rematch tonight in the headlining bout of UFC 257. The fight card takes place on Fight Island in Abu Dhabi. UFC 257, which streams on ESPN+ pay-per-view, is the promotion’s first pay-per-view card of 2021. McGregor and Poirier first met in 2014. McGregor scored a first-round knockout win over Poirier in that contest. Since that fight took place, McGregor has won both the UFC lightweight title and the UFC featherweight crown. The Irish fighter defended neither belt. The UFC stripped him of both titles for inactivity. Poirer claimed the interim UFC lightweight title. He fell short in his bid to become the undisputed champion when Khabib Nurmagomedov submitted him. The winner of this fight, which takes place at lightweight, could be in line for a shot at the lightweight title in his next outing. UFC 257 takes place tonight from Fight Island in Abu Dhabi. The main card streams on ESPN+ pay-per-view following prelims on ESPN and ESPN+. Early prelims are on ESPN+ and UFC Fight Pass. After the event, McGregor and Poirier are expected to appear at the post-fight press conference along with other fighters from the main card. That UFC 257 post-fight press conference is expected to begin shortly after the conclusion of the pay-per-view card. MORE FOR YOURoger Federer ‘Not Coming Back To Make Up The Numbers’UFC 259 Full Fight Video: Watch Amanda Nunes Knock Out Ronda RouseyEverton’s $700 Million Stadium: A Wow Factor Risk Worth Taking
eb78e37c207bafba27d682e3b5df5e59	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trentreinsmith/2021/01/24/ufc-257-results-winners-bonuses-reactions-and-video-highlights/	UFC 257 Results: Winners, Bonuses, Reactions And Video Highlights	UFC 257 Results: Winners, Bonuses, Reactions And Video Highlights ABU DHABI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - JANUARY 23: (R-L) Dustin Poirier punches Conor McGregor of Ireland ... [+] in a lightweight fight during the UFC 257 event inside Etihad Arena on UFC Fight Island on January 23, 2021 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. (Photo by Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC) Zuffa LLC UFC 257 took place last night on Fight Island in Abu Dhabi. In the main event, Dustin Poirier stopped Conor McGregor in the second round. In the co-main event, Michael Chandler knocked out Dan Hooker in the first round. Here is how the event shook out. Main event: McGregor was looking to land his left from the start of the fight. He backed Poirier up with that punch, but Poirier came back with a right and then slipped under a McGregor strike to gain a takedown. McGregor was able to get back to his feet and the two then worked against the cage. The two then exchanged control position and shoulder strikes in close. The two broke with 90 seconds left in the round. McGregor face showed nothing but seriousness. Poirier was relaxed and confident, wagging his finger at McGregor when he ate a big strike from the Irish fighter. The fight went into the second round.Poirier slowed McGregor with leg kicks and when he got him against the cage teed off with strikes that dropped him to the ground. The end came quickly after that with Poirier winning by knockout. Poirier was impressive in ending this contest, the biggest fight of his career. MORE FOR YOUHow To Watch Or Live Stream UFC 259 Early PrelimsUFC 259 Results: Winners, Bonuses And HighlightsVince McMahon Reportedly Making Major Changes To WWE WrestleMania 37 Card Co-main event: Former three-time Bellator lightweight champ, Michael Chandler made a huge statement in his UFC debut. Chandler faced Dan Hooker in the lightweight co-main event of UFC 257. After a slow start where Hooker looked to stay to the outside and gauge the reaction time and speed of Chandler, his opponent caught up with him with a body shot and an overhand left. Those strikes dropped Hooker and Chandler wasted no time in teeing off with ground strikes that brought the fight to an quick ending. Chandler was incredibly impressive in his UFC debut. Stats for main event: Results and bonuses: Bonuses: Performances of the Night: Dustin Poirier Makhmud Muradov Marina Rodriguez Michael Chandler Impressive: Highlights: A big UFC debut: Joanne Calderwood with the win: Muradov scores a TKO: Rodriguez ends things: Arman Tsarukyan wins: Brad Tavares wins: Julianna Pena scores a submission: Marcin Prachnio gets his first UFC win: Movsar Evloev celebrates his victory: Amir Albazi with the win:
d89b66db81e85d9cb439445c5f11450b	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorburrus/2017/06/16/jeff-sessionss-reefer-madness/	Jeff Sessions's Reefer Madness	Jeff Sessions's Reefer Madness Attorney General Jeff Sessions has reefer madness. It was revealed this week that Sessions personally asked Congress for the authority to prosecute medical marijuana providers in the 25 states and three additional jurisdictions (D.C., Guam, and Puerto Rico) where some form of medical marijuana is legal. Sessions wanted Congress to repeal the broadly supported Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prohibits the Justice Department from using federal funds to go after medical marijuana providers and users in those states where it has been made legal. Oddly enough, this week is also the 80th anniversary of the House floor vote on the first major piece of federal marijuana legislation, the Marihuana [sic] Tax Act of 1937. That was when the whole country officially caught reefer madness. In the following decades, a series of misguided government policies made the problem worse, and prejudice toward marijuana and myths about the drug still abound. Only in the last 20 years has the country begun to get over our self-inflicted disease. Unfortunately, there are those in whom the condition is lingering. In a letter, Sessions asked Congress to remove the restriction due to the “historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime,” showing that the attorney general has clearly imbibed our coarsest and most antiquated form of anti-marijuana propaganda: its supposed connection to crime and its status as a “gateway drug.” Such rhetoric goes back to the years before the Marihuana Tax Act, a piece of legislation that emerged out of a haze of smoky propaganda from the Hearst newspaper company and the unrelenting zealotry of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 13, 2017, as he... [+] testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about his role in the firing of James Comey. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) The bill came to the House floor late in the afternoon on Thursday, June 10, 1937. The vote was rushed, and at least one congressman wondered if it was “a matter we should bring up at this late hour of the afternoon. I do not know anything about the bill.” Another congressman reassured him that “it has something to do with something that is called marihuana. I believe it is a narcotic of some kind.” At one point a group of congressmen asked that the bill’s proponents explain the provisions in further detail. In response, a member of Ways and Means recounted the hyperbolic testimony of Harry Anslinger, the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and a man who zealously hated drug users. In committee, Anslinger had presented photographs of bloody murder scenes in order to show “the fury of the murderer” who is high on marijuana. He recounted the “case of a 20-year-old boy who killed his brothers, a sister, and his parents while under the influence of marijuana,” and he testified that in “some cases” a single marijuana cigarette “might develop a homicidal mania.” In all, the congressional record of floor debates over the law takes up fewer than two pages. That’s how federal marijuana prohibition came to America. At the time of prohibition, scientists knew very little about how cannabis operated on the human body and whether there were any legitimate medical uses. Six months after the Act was passed, Dr. Herbert Wollner, a chemist at the Treasury Department (the act, as a tax, was enforced by treasury) wrote in a memo to Anslinger: “virtually nothing is known concerning the nature of the narcotic principle, its physiological behavior, and the ultimate effect upon the social group.” Wollner later complained that “ninety percent of the stuff that has been written on the chemical end of Cannabis is absolutely wrong, and, of the other ten percent, at least two-thirds of it is of no consequence.” But the Marihuana Tax Act put the mark of Cain on the drug, and scientific interest in studying cannabis, as well as the funding, became rare. Anslinger was highly antagonistic to any attempt to study the drug scientifically; he preferred the debate to be controlled by fear and ignorance. The Public Health Service sponsored no research in the ensuing decade. Ultimately, in the words of one historian, “the law enforcement agency [the Federal Bureau of Narcotics] became the public’s arbiter of scientific arguments and debates, functioning as a filter through which scientific research had to pass on its way to the public.” Over the next two decades, Anslinger’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics would help foster our reefer madness world—and Jeff Sessions’s reefer madness mentality—by essentially controlling the national narrative on marijuana. Anslinger asked his local supervisors to collect any newspaper stories or reports that could link marijuana to crime, and he directed all agents to look for any connection between insanity and marijuana use. Despite some researchers poking holes in Anslinger’s favorite theories—particularly that marijuana causes crime, insanity, and addiction—Anslinger was steadfast in his beliefs. Anslinger left the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1962, but the situation hardly improved. In the 60s, one researcher in charge of the National Institute of Mental Health’s (NIMH) marijuana research complained that no “employees wanted to offend any of the Bureau of Narcotics police,” and that they “had to worry about antediluvian congressional types that had it in their power to smite us mightily where it hurt—right in our appropriation.” In the 70s, after the modern Controlled Substances Act was passed and a commission was created to study marijuana in-depth, President Nixon was as steadfast as Anslinger: “Even if the Commission does recommend that it be legalized, I will not follow that recommendation.” That commission, known as the Shafer Commission, recommended decriminalization and dispelled many myths about marijuana, concluding that “from what is known now about the effects of marijuana, its use at the present level does not constitute a major threat to public health.” President Nixon, of course, ignored the recommendations. This is our reefer madness world, fostered by fear, ignorance, rushed lawmaking, anti-drug zealots, and a consistent discouragement of hard facts and good science. And it is the world still inhabited by Jeff Sessions, who cannot even bring himself to accept the growing consensus that marijuana has many legitimate medical applications. Sessions’s reefer madness was once our own. Thankfully, with 61 percent of Americans supporting legalized recreational marijuana and 80 percent supporting medical marijuana, it is increasingly just his.
14f9ff4d17395f7065af5816d1e93626	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/02/21/will-drinking-diet-soda-increase-your-risk-for-a-heart-attack/	Will Drinking Diet Soda Increase Your Risk For A Heart Attack?	Will Drinking Diet Soda Increase Your Risk For A Heart Attack? Image via Wikipedia According to the Daily Mail, the New York Times’ “rival” as the most-read English language newspaper in the world, “research” has revealed that“drinking just a single can of diet fizzy drink every day can increase the risk of a heart attack or stroke.” It should be noted that “research” has also revealed the risk of the Daily Mail misreporting a study’s findings, especially when there’s an opportunity to write an alarming headline. As Dorothy Bishop, a Professor of Neurodevelopmental Psychology at Oxford University, noted in giving the paper her “Orwellian Award for Journalistic Misrepresentation” the Mail sets the standards for inaccurate reporting of academic research. But, in this case, appearances would seem to confirm journalistic accuracy: researchers did, indeed, find an "increased risk" for vascular events (heart attack and stroke) among high consumers of diet soft drinks. The question is, however, what did this mean? Was the risk real or the product of something other than diet drink consumption? This proved tortuous for publications covering the study: on one hand they had an amazing, counter-intuitive finding that made for a great, attention-grabbing headline - who knew that diet soda could give you a heart attack? On the other, there was a critical absence of the kind of health and behavior information in the study that might actually buttress this suggestion of cause and effect – and the most its authors were willing to commit to was that their research “suggests a potential association,” which is about as adamantine as wet tissue. The answer was simple, embrace contradiction. Bait and switch. Men’s Health, for instance, declared “Another Strike Against Diet Soda,” saying “if you’ve been looking for a reason to nix your soda-drinking habits, the latest research may offer you the perfect inspiration.” But midway through the news story, the magazine suddenly and weirdly switched track. "So what does this mean for you?" it asked. "Frankly, very little," it answered. For good measure, it went on to highlight in yellow why the study is so weak just to drive home how schizophrenic its own article was. Similarly, the The Daily Mail, having started on top of the Mountain of Imminent Doom, slid inexorably downwards to the fog of suggestive association by the end of their story. The problem with the study, Diet Soft Drink Consumption is Associated with an Increased Risk of Vascular Events in the Northern Manhattan Study (Gardner et al., Journal of General Internal Medicine) is that the numbers are low enough to leave us uncertain as to whether diet drinks were the cause or simply correlated with other factors that led to these events. There were 163 people who consumed one or more diet drinks per day at the start of the study, and there were 51 vascular events in the following 9.8 years. The mean age at baseline was 68.6 years of age. Light drinkers of diet soda, defined as between one and six drinks a week, were not at an increased risk. One of the key limitations in the study is that the researchers only accounted for baseline dietary and health data. Over the follow-up period of 9.8 years they did not account for how a person’s diet might have changed, how their weight changed, or how their consumption of diet soda might have changed. All of these absences are highly problematic. As it is reasonable to assume that people are more likely to consume diet drinks due to concerns about weight and health, the question is whether this correlated with lifestyles that by themselves were risk factors. For instance, if the daily diet soda drinkers saw their weight yo-yo (perhaps because they were drinking diet soda to lose weight), then the correlation with vascular events might lie with these changes in weight. The second issue with having just baseline measurements for this group is whether, as diet drink consumers, they are more likely to make significant changes to their diet and behavior over the course of a decade. These sorts of factors become very important in teasing causality from correlation in small numbers over time. At the same time, there may also be cultural factors that contribute to drinking diet soda which are also related to vascular health but which are not caught by controlling for “demographics.” This is important given the significant demographic differences among diet and regular soft drink consumers in the study. As the researchers note, “frequent diet soft drink consumption was uniquely associated with white race, former smoking, hypertension, elevated blood sugar, lower HDL, elevated triglycerides, increased waist circumference, BMI, peripheral vascular disease, previous cardiac disease, and the metabolic syndrome.” Another weakness, in terms of the study being able to determine whether diet soft drinks have a causal role in vascular events, is that the researchers didn’t have data on the range of ingredients. Diet soft drinks are not just one undifferentiated product with different labels. Given that the association between diet drinks and with vascular events is unexpected and unsupported by other research, a study that controlled for specific ingredients, such as the type of sweetener and caffeine content, is needed to assess whether there are grounds for a plausible mode of action. In sum, the small numbers in this study combined with the kind of data collected (limited baseline data, no details of drink ingredient differences) and the narrow demographics do not support the contention that drinking diet soft drinks is going to put you at a risk for a heart attack. But why let that get in the way of a good headline?
9b9735fd7d39e11d8f4bbfe3c26953e2	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/04/23/european-commission-admits-forbes-was-right-european-countries-really-do-object-to-france/	European Commission Admits Forbes Was Right: European Countries Really Do Object To France	European Commission Admits Forbes Was Right: European Countries Really Do Object To France A couple of weeks ago, I wrote here on Forbes that six European Union states had lodged formal objections to draft legislation that would ban the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging in France on the grounds that the ban was not based on “sound science” and, if implemented, could constitute an internal trade barrier. Picking up on this, Food Production Daily’s Mark Astley quizzed the European Commission (EC) about the objections only to be told by spokesperson Frederic Vincent that the Commission had “no idea where this information comes from.” In short, if the EC didn’t know about this, it mustn’t be true. Now, normally, I try to source and cite every claim I make s per good journalistic practice; but in this case, I couldn’t. Let’s just say that I had three sources - each of whom was well placed to be able to confirm the existence of the objections. Perhaps the EC didn’t think an American-based journalist could be so well-informed about its internal workings and thought a casual denial would be sufficient to quell any legal and political anxieties. So it was with no small degree of gratification that I read a follow up article by the dogged Mr. Astley: “EC digs deep and confirms EU objections to France BPA ban.” Astley also provided details of the content of the objections, which were as I originally reported. However, he provided an interesting revelation in that the United Kingdom’s objection was also based on a belief that a French ban would also violate World Trade Organization sanitary rules, which could mean that France’s legal jeopardy could extend to any trading partner. Meanwhile, I’ve been discussing this issue with a couple of experts in European competition law, who both said that any company trading in the EU affected by a potential French ban would almost certainly have the right to sue, citing the successful overturning of Germany’s Beer Purity Law by the European Court of Justice. Germany had tried to prevent foreign beer sales on the grounds that its strict ingredient laws protected the public from harmful additives. But as the Court of Justice noted, a) the alcohol in beer was far more harmful than any potential legal additive, and b) the harm from legal additives couldn’t be proven. Should such a challenge come to pass, expect a decade of litigation.
2917f138c9d0ecc0b589a53c6e7f5b20	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/07/17/welcome-to-the-age-of-urban-mining/	Welcome To The Age Of Urban Mining	Welcome To The Age Of Urban Mining There’s gold in them thar’ hills – except not nearly as much as in all the computers, cell phones, and sundry electronic equipment E-waste collection (Photo credit: Mosman Council) we make and then discard each year. Indeed, according to the organizers of the first e-Waste Academy, held recently in Accra, Ghana, electronic goods contain 40 to 50 times the amount of gold and precious metals than ores mined from the ground. The difference is that, right now, we’re digging one up and burying or discarding the other. Even as the cost of gold quadrupled over the past decade, most countries – developed or developing – have been slow to see the payoff in urban mining. How much might this El(ectronic)-Dorado be worth? Getting robust data on the amount of precious metal used to manufacture electronics was the first challenge, says Ruediger Kuehr – a political scientist who began to think about the issues involved in technology transfer and environmental policy over a decade ago, and who – as a result – cofounded the “Solving the E-Waste Problem” (StEP) initiative, a partnership between the United Nations and academic and business organizations. It found that the annual production of electronic goods worldwide required 320 tons of gold and over 7,500 tons of silver, with a combined value of $21 billion dollars. At present, just 15 percent of that is recovered. Kuehr and his colleagues saw a problem that needed solving, not least because worldwide demand for electronic goods is rapidly increasing. Tablet computers, for instance, are expected to sell 100 million units this year – and double that in 2014. And with growing innovation, and ever-shortening product cycles, comes an enormous amount of sophisticated waste. But rather than fret about the scale of the environmental problem, and demand government do something or industry stop doing something, the initiative believed that the free market and government needed to collaborate to make urban mining environmentally sustainable and economically profitable. “We wanted both perspectives working together in order to balance their different agendas and interests,” said Federico Magalini, a professor of engineering and project manager for the e-Waste Academy. And it turns out that there is no better way to do this than to give the government official a screwdriver and a bunch of computers, LCD screens, and cell phones to dismantle under the guidance of someone who does it for a living. The officials needed to understood things from a practical perspective, said Magalini, down to having the right tools and protective equipment. At the same time, the recyclers were challenged to think about the bigger picture, and the critical environmental and economic factors that preoccupy policy-makers. The choice of Ghana for the first academy was driven both by the potential opportunities to create smart jobs in the developing world, and the fact that the ecological footprint left by electronic goods was aggravated by backyard recycling, crude dismantling processes, and criminal enterprise that paid no heed to environmental concerns. As Magalini explained, there are four kinds of recyclers: “the fool, the criminal, the millionaire and the saint.” The fool and the criminal recycle for profit but without regard to the environmental cost; the millionaire makes money through doing the right thing; and the saint does the right thing without needing to make a profit. We want to move everyone to being in the millionaire or saint camp. “We don’t want people burning wire to get the copper,” said Magalini, and we want policy makers to come up with good funding mechanisms for unprofitable but important recycling challenges, such as refrigerators. Urban mining is not simply a concept whose time has come for gold, the use of lithium has also surged in the past decade and the lithium-ion battery market is expected to be worth $43 billion dollars in 2020. As Green Technology Solutions CEO Paul Watson noted recently, the supply of discarded lithium will continue to surge even as the cost of mining it increases. Even with recent declines in precious metal commodity prices due to manufacturing declines, the long term trends - and the potential demand for newer electronic technologies (better solar panels, higher resolution screens, metastasizing demand for mobile devices) - are unlikely to flatline. What is particularly striking about the e-Waste Academy, however, is that this initiative started with the United Nations University (UNU) – its think tank for global problem solving – and that the StEP initiative understood the importance of working with industry and business associations from the very start. This sounds obvious – if you are in business; but as an academic, Kuehr was keenly aware of the political risks in asking industry to be a partner in solving an environmental problem it was largely responsible for creating. There are many societal problems where the default academic and activist position is to see industry as an enemy to be defeated legislatively. This simply wouldn’t work as a practical policy solution to e-Waste, especially in the developing world, where mandates – not least those demanding public money – were unrealistic. To be self-sustaining and environmentally safe, recycling e-waste had to be profitable; where it couldn’t be profitable, it had to be subsidized. This was not something academics and government officials could figure out in a commercial vacuum, let alone execute. “It was vital for all the stakeholders to think and to talk openly,” said Kuehr, “and this is where we succeeded.” The next step, so to speak, for StEP is to find the money to continue hosting e-Waste Academies around the world and to create a means of sharing best practices and translating concepts across cultures – all of which depend on continued funding. One doesn’t often associate the UN with having the Midas touch, but with the e-Waste Academy, it’s literally striking gold.
44b3e9d13b1149db6aec148b0fe33ba5	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/08/26/why-nick-kristofs-scientific-illiteracy-threatens-us-all-2/	Why Nick Kristof's Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Us All	Why Nick Kristof's Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Us All Last May, Deborah Blum, a Pulitzer-winning science writer and a professor of journalism at the University of Wisconsin, published a column pleading with the New York Times’ opinion columnist Nick Kristof to stop writing about chemical risk: “…if we, as journalists, are going to demand meticulous standards for the study and oversight of chemical compounds then we should try to be meticulous ourselves in making the case. And much as I would like it to be otherwise, I don’t see enough of that in Kristof’s chemical columns. They tend instead to be sloppy in their use of language, less than thorough, and chemophobic enough to undermine his legitimate points.” Blum’s column got a lot of positive coverage, with many commenters further “fisking” Kristof’s apocalyptic claims and the politics behind them. It made, alas, not a blind bit of difference. At the bookend of summer, Kristof is at it again, beating his favorite chemical conspiracy theory – “Big Chem” is preventing the Federal Government from protecting Americans from dangerous, endocrine disrupting chemicals. Growing numbers of scientists are increasingly concerned and so on and so forth. But even though Kristof claims to be reading the “peer-reviewed” research, it appears that he only reads that produced by a very, very small group of scientists – all on the farthest reaches of the environmental left. He applies no statistical or experimental criticism to these studies: they always “really” find what they claim to have found; and he seems unaware of the many non-industry funded studies or regulatory agency assessments that contradict them. There is no mention, for instance, of the 15-page point-by-point rebuttal written by the Food and Drug Administration to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s petition to ban BPA, a rebuttal which relies, primarily, on non-industry funded research. Moreover, readers of Kristof would have no idea that the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) is presiding over a $30-million dollar evaluation of BPA, which will result in, arguably, one of the most comprehensive characterizations of the properties and the pharmacokinetics of any chemical in the history of mankind. (This is on top of the millions spent by the FDA and EPA). The NCTR is doing so in conjunction with all the federal agencies, including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which has funded much of the “BPA is dangerous” research in the past. Notably, the scientists who conducted this controversial research (controversial because other regulatory agencies in the US and around the world couldn’t replicate it) now have to repeat their experiments according to higher standards of reporting, statistical power, and experimental control. The studies are also being blinded so the researchers won’t know whether the lab animals they are analyzing are from the control or dose group, and the final results will be interpreted by the NCTR. Results will begin to trickle out soon. Asking for proof of replication is not a devious, anti-science tactic on the part of what Kristof call’s “Big Chem;” it is the only way to establish validity in science. Remember – according to the much-cited work of medical mathematician John Ionnaidis, the probability that most basic research findings are wrong is surprisingly high. I have interviewed many scientists who work with regulatory agencies around the world on BPA and other chemical issues. There is a consensus that the cluelessness of journalists like Kristof has not just wildly distorted the actual scientific evidence on BPA, it is contributing to a more general and broader assault on scientific integrity. The outcome of this will be terrible: regulation by politics - and not by a disinterested enthusiasm for best experimental methods and the best data. This, of course, would suit Kristof’s sources just fine, because the kind of science they are doing doesn’t have anywhere close to the funding priorities, say, of cancer or AIDS. But the more alarming the message that they can put out about the low dose risks of chemicals, the more funding from the dwindling federal pot of research money they are likely to pull in, thus keeping them in academic employment. Unfortunately, an academic conflict of interest doesn’t make as good a media conspiracy story as that of “Big Chem.” The point is that we need good regulation. We need quantified risk – not hypothetical risk. We need agencies that pursue the best possible scientific research without fear of unemployment or favor to industry or politics. Which is why Kristof’s ongoing, studied refusal to talk to the FDA on BPA is unconscionably bad opinion journalism. It is doing to the agency for Democrats what right-wing criticism is doing to the Environmental Protection Agency for Republicans: stripping both of scientific legitimacy. The public needs to know what the FDA is doing, because it is doing a lot and doing it well. And for evidence of that,don't just take it from me, take it from NPR.
f2fc7d98d3dee2f619d2d36acbfd7ca4	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/12/13/is-the-era-of-oxycontin-abuse-over/?sh=632c2c6e73a8	Is The Era Of OxyContin Abuse Over?	Is The Era Of OxyContin Abuse Over? Original summary: "OxyContin tablets crushed into powder for insufflation (snorting). On Friday November 2nd, something unexpected happened during an armed robbery at the Ciampa Apothecary on Cambridge Street in Boston. As the pharmacist reflexively began filling a bag with OxyContin – the poster pill for painkiller abuse over the past decade – the masked robber shouted that he didn’t want them; according to the Boston Globe, he demanded methadone, opana, and alprazolam instead. “OxyContin? That’s going out of style,” says Dr. Gregory G. Davis, professor of pathology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and associate coroner for Jefferson County, which includes the city. “Right now it’s heroin. We’ve gone from one or two heroin deaths per year to one to two per week.” Dr. Kevin Whaley, Assistant Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Virginia, has seen the same thing: “There has been a decrease in oxycodone [the active ingredient in OxyContin] overdosage as a consequence of the tamper-resistant measures taken by the manufacturer,” he says via email. “Pathology covers the front lines of medicine,” notes Davis, who is a spokesman for the American Society for Clinical Pathology. “We are in a position to see all of these changes as they occur and document them through careful laboratory analysis.” In other words, pathology provides the most objective account of what is actually happening in terms of drug abuse. And while he cautions that trends in illegal drug consumption wax and wane, and differ from region to region, as supply dictates demand, a recently published study in the Journal of Pain – along with anecdotal evidence from law enforcement – suggests that the age of OxyContin abuse – as we know it – could be drawing to a close, thanks to the introduction of an abuse-resistant version of the painkiller. Indeed, the results are positive enough that one leading pain expert in the US argues the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should only license abuse resistant painkillers. Released in August 2010, the new OxyContin turns into a gummy mush when you attempt to crush it, instead of the fine powder of its predecessor, which addicts snorted or injected to get a swift and powerful high. The original OxyContin was, initially, seen as a breakthrough in pain relief because it would slowly release its active ingredient, oxycodone, over 12 hours, allowing people with chronic pain to be able to take fewer pills, sleep through the night, and generally be less tortured by their condition. But if you defeated the time-release mechanism, you’d get the impact of the drug all at once. This is what made it so attractive to addicts, especially after lurid stories showing how to abuse the drug hit the media during 2001. The effect was immediate: overdose admissions to ERs involving OxyContin shot up and the popularity of the drug, often dubbed “hillbilly heroin,” surged. The original version was discontinued days before the release of the newer version, and is no longer available in the US. Of course, given the failure to anticipate that the first version of OxyContin would be abused in the way it was, there is a considerable caution about pronouncing version two a success. But the new observational study (Abuse Rates and Routes of Administration of Reformulated Extended-Release Oxycodone: Initial Findings From a Sentinel Surveillance Sample of Individuals Assessed for Substance Abuse Treatment), suggests a breakthrough. Researchers tracked 140,496 people who were assessed for substance abuse treatment at 357 U.S. centers between June 1, 2009, and March 31, 2012. The goal was to see how this population would react to the introduction of abuse-resistant OxyContin after establishing a baseline of abuse with the same group for the original version. Using various measures – such as whether addicts tried to snort it or inject it – the researchers saw an impact. For example, abuse of the original version over the past 30 days ran at 5.4 cases per hundred, while abuse of the new version settled quickly at about 2.4 cases per hundred. One strength of this research – the first of eight epidemiological studies to be carried out on the drug by its manufacturer Purdue Pharma as demanded by the Food and Drug Administration – is its large sample size. And while past-30 day use is a “self-reported” measure, it is one long used in the field to assess abuse rates. It also confirms an earlier, smaller study, published as a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine last July, which tracked 2,566 patients with opioid dependence before and after the introduction of the new OxyContin. While the older version had been the primary drug of abuse for 35.6 percent of this group, just 12.8 percent were choosing the abuse resistant version at the end of the study. Interviews with a sample of abusers who had used both versions “indicated a unanimous preference for the older version,” the researchers, led by Washington University St Louis’s Theodore J. Cicero, reported. As one abuser told them, “Most people that I know don't use OxyContin to get high anymore. They have moved on to heroin [because] it is easier to use, much cheaper, and easily available.” As for weaknesses, the new study can only point to abuse that hasn’t taken place; it can’t guarantee that addicts won’t figure out a novel way of breaking the drug down. As the researchers put it, their study should be seen as a “proof of concept.” But the proof of concept – and other preliminary data showing a drop in abuse of oxymorphone after a tamper resistant version was introduced is drawing praise from those who have been in the trenches of pain treatment for years. “It has exceeded what I thought possible,” says Dr. Steven Passik, Professor of Psychiatry and Professor of Anesthesiology at Vanderbilt University’s School of Medicine. “The pill mills stopped prescribing it, the drug dealers didn’t want it anymore – it’s made a real dent in the problem.” Indeed, when Canada licensed six generic versions of the old OxyContin last month, a day after Purdue’s patent ran out, Canadian pain experts reacted furiously, warning that it would undermine the use of the abuse-resistant version. “We as physicians need all the help we can get in managing the problem of prescription opioid abuse, including help from our Federal governments, who by allowing generic long-acting oxycodone to be available without conditions (risk management programs, MD education etc.) will in fact make our job harder and risk harming the very public we are trying to serve,” says   Dr. Mark A. Ware, Director of Clinical Research at McGill University’s  Alan Edwards Pain Management Unit , via email. “I can’t understand it, says Dr. Lynn Webster, the incoming president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and author of “Avoiding Opioid Abuse While Managing Pain: A Guide for Practitioners, “Canada has just taken a very dangerous step.” He believes, by contrast, that in the US, the Food and Drug Administration should “only approve drugs with abuse resistant properties.” That won’t solve all the problems of diversion and abuse, he says, given that one in five Americans has a genetic vulnerability to “rewarding substances,” be they alcoholic beverages, illegal narcotics, or opioid medicines. But it will make it easier to address the suffering of those in legitimate need of pain relief. “There are a lot of people not getting treatment,” Webster says, “and a lot of physicians not willing to take the risk of prescribing opioids.” A decade on, accidental addiction or deliberate abuse? One of the most powerful themes in the saga of OxyContin is the purported ease by which someone could begin taking the pill to deal with severe pain and then suddenly find they are addicted. The New York Times, for instance, pursued the theme of a negligent marketing and prescribing across multiple stories in the early 2000s emphasizing this problem of “iatrogenic” – i.e., accidental – addiction. There was one problem with that argument at the time, the first being a conspicuous lack of hard data to back it up. A study in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology in 2003 that examined drug overdose deaths for the presence of oxycodone, found that in 96.7 percent of cases, the deceased had multiple other drugs in their system too. As a 2003 position paper by the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, which included representatives from, the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, noted, “the overall consensus in the pain management community is that the majority of chronic pain patients on long-term opioid therapy are not abusing these drugs.” So what has changed ten years on? In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control declared in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly report that a worsening “epidemic” of overdose deaths associated with opioid medicines. These, as the report put it, “were involved in 14,800 deaths (73.8 %) of 20,044 prescription drug overdose deaths.” But what exactly did “involved” mean - and did it mean that there was no other history of narcotic use in those who died? The CDC’s data was frustratingly opaque as to the causative nature of the relationship, as it simply noted that the numbers were based on medical examiner reports, coded for accidental poisoning, intentional poisoning (i.e. suicide), homicidal poisoning, and undetermined poisoning. And while the number of overdose deaths had increased over time (from 4,000 in 1999), the CDC was unable to plot this against the increased availability of such drugs except in the broadest of terms, so it was impossible to say whether the underlying death rate was increasing, plateauing, or decreasing. “There is no persuasive evidence that individuals with no previous history of substance abuse are at risk for becoming addicted when exposed to prescription opioids,” says Dr. Martin Cheatle, Director of the Pain and Chemical Dependency Program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Studies of Addiction. He points to a 2008 evidence-based review (Fishbain et al.) of chronic pain patients exposed to chronic opioid analgesic therapy found very low reported abuse and addiction rate – 3.27 percent, which is far below the accepted prevalence of addictions in the general population (10 percent). And this fell to .19 percent when you excluded patients who had a previous history of drug use or addiction or were currently abusing illegal drugs. Additionally, a systematic review of the literature on whether chronic pain patients were likely to abuse opioids (Turk et al.) found that the strongest predictors were a personal history of illicit drug and alcohol abuse. Davis, after consulting his new database, didn’t see much evidence of an epidemic of accidental deaths from painkillers alone. Most of the victims he had examined had a history of drug abuse and overdose deaths reflected a wide range of drugs. Whaley said that from 2007 in Virginia, the pathology data showed 16.8 percent of drug overdoses were for oxycodone alone. “I think that accidental deaths from prescription narcotics is still much more a function of unintentional misuse or chronic habituation and overuse, rather than an epidemic of addicts enabled by unscrupulous prescribers,” says Henry Carson, a pathologist in Iowa City, via email. Though some of the sensational media stories are accurate (even in “homespun Iowa,” he says, there are cases of doctors trading prescriptions for sex or a share of the medication), “most fatalities that arise from polypharmacy are not due to one doctor's or clinic's loose-leaf prescription pads, but due to multiple prescriptions from multiple doctors that are filled by multiple pharmacies. The medications then end up being used in combinations that turn out to have been dangerous.” He gives the example of one victim from his 2008 study on the kinds of drugs found in multiple drug intoxication in suicides and accidents. The man had chronic lower back pain and was taking a “modest” painkiller, prescribed to him by his family doctor, as well as another painkiller from a legitimate pain clinic. Then one night, he combined both with a few beers and announced to his family that he felt fantastic; he didn’t wake up in the morning. “I was surprised when his toxicology screen came back with modest levels of therapeutic drugs, none of them in overdose range,” says Carson. “The synergy of the substances was enough to cause death.” Such deaths, which are typically the result of mixing pain meds are difficult to “see” in the CDC data, and speak to the need for better surveillance and epidemiology. The CDC admits as much, having issued a request for better guidelines for determining opioid abuse in order to measure the problem. These deaths also speak to the underlying problem in treating pain: it’s easier to blame a particular medication or class of drugs, rather than the way the healthcare system has evolved to treat pain. Promises and problems Once, fear of opioid addiction within the medical community meant that people suffering from the excruciating pain of metastatic cancer went untreated. As the president of the American Medical Association warned in 1946, “spare your terminally ill patients the indignity of morphine addiction.” That almost incomprehensible view slowly disappeared from the practice of medicine as trials with cancer patients showed enormous promise, and opioid therapy came to be seen as a successful and humane way to treat the vast reservoir of chronic pain suffered by100 million Americans, as estimated by the Institute of Medicine. But in shifting away from a position on opioids that condemned people to horribly painful deaths, the pendulum swung and “we may have gone too far in the other direction,” says James Zacny, Professor of Anesthesia and Critical Care at the University of Chicago, and lead author of the 2003 position paper by the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Righting a historical wrong was not without the unintended consequence of minimizing the risk. The problem of generalizing the risk from the cancer experience is this, says Passik: “85 percent of addictions in the world manifest by the age of 35, but cancer is predominantly a disease of later life and people in their 70s are highly unlikely to abuse drugs de novo. So if you have a 75-year old with a fentanyl patch to treat the pain prostate cancer that has migrated into his bones, and he has no history of addiction, current psychiatric problems, or lives amongst drug abusers, and he needs access to a rapid onset opioid to ease breakthrough pain, I would say to him, ‘titrate yourself,’ and I’d be pretty darn confident that he wouldn’t abuse.” Now contrast this with, say, a high school football player who breaks his leg badly – bone protruding from his shin. “You’re not going to want to stop this kid from getting an opioid to ease the acute pain if he needs it,” says Passik, “but you have to recognize the inherent risk: a young brain, a horrible event, and the possibility that being out of competition and a long recovery might leave him depressed. These are possible triggers for abuse: a vulnerable person at a vulnerable time in their life, and a highly rewarding substance. The risk in this situation is clearly higher than in a cancer scenario and needs to be monitored and contained.” There was an element of “intellectual dishonesty” in the pain community about these risks as treatment expanded, says Passik, an assumption that there was no risk when there are always risks attached to opioids. Plus, we didn’t we do a good job of teaching doctors how to recognize these risks. But, he adds, there is now intellectual dishonesty among the critics, who turned opioids into a straw man for America’s problems with addiction, and salted the media with pharma-doctor conspiracy theories. “We need to tone down the rhetoric,” he says. “Opioids have a remarkable upside, but not for all; they have remarkable risks, but not for all.” If you can’t do the risk management, he says, then ethically, you shouldn’t be prescribing them. His favorite quote on this issue comes from Doug Gourlay, a Canadian pain and addiction expert: “Anyone who prescribes these medicines needs to be a talented amateur in addiction medicine.” The question is how this “talented amateurism” can take hold in a medical system when most patients get about eight minutes with their doctor and the third party payers won’t pay for the risk assessment? “The best treatment strategy for chronic pain,” is, as Cheatle puts it, “a balanced interdisciplinary approach of rational pharmacotherapy targeting pain, mood and sleep, exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy, interventions such as injections, spinal cord stimulation, and common sense when prescribing potentially addictive medications.” Third party payers, on the other hand, want to pay for pills and procedures. It’s easier and cheaper. And it’s not just insurance companies that must bear responsibility for the nation’s state of pain treatment, cost cutting in state Medicaid payments has had deadly consequences, as the 2012 Pulitzer-winning investigation by the Seattle Times revealed. As a result of Washington State switching from safer pain medication, such as OxyContin, to the cheaper but much riskier methadone, at least 2,173 people died between 2003 and 2011 from accidental overdoses. Every pain expert interviewed for this piece agreed that expanding the paradigm for treatment is the way forward in balancing chronic pain treatment for the many against the risks to the few. Pharma has come through with one part of the solution – abuse resistant drugs – and may eventually revolutionize treatment with drugs that nullify their own effects if too much are taken. But as of now, abuse resistant mechanisms only apply to OxyContin-like slow release painkillers, and do not apply to short-acting analgesics, which are the most widely abused painkillers. “Right now,” says the American Academy of Pain Medicine’s Webster, “health care is not structured to solve this problem. The need for raising the standard of pain treatment is particularly acute for military veterans, says Passik. “They are terribly traumatized, they are young, and they are among the most difficult and risky populations to treat. We can’t say, categorically, ‘no opioids’ to people who have sacrificed for our country and suffer pain; but they also need state of the art psychotherapy, and all the elements of a multidisciplinary approach must come together,” he says. “It’s a humongous challenge.” Beyond that, as Carson points out, “the need for relief from chronic pain is growing with the aging population. The fact is, people are living longer, with more and more complications of the inevitable wear and tear on our bodies, or with painful serious diseases that used to be fatal much sooner.” The age of OxyContin may well be ending, at least in terms of abuse; but America’s state of pain is only going to get worse, and dealing with that will take more than fixing a pill.
8651363c53535b8967bf2870ed80cbba	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2013/01/06/no-free-speech-for-beyonce-says-new-york-times-writer/	No Free Speech For Beyoncé! Says New York Times Writer	No Free Speech For Beyoncé! Says New York Times Writer Beyoncé Knowles performing "Listen" during "The Beyoncé Experience" in Munich, Germany. (Photo... [+] credit: Wikipedia) One might question the value of paying Beyoncé Knowles $50 million to advertise Pepsi during the Super Bowl; but to question her – or Pepsi’s – right to do so, as the New York Times does today, on the grounds that a), she probably wouldn’t agree to advertise a semi-automatic weapon and b), because Pepsi “may one day be ranked with cigarettes as a killer” is the kind of logic one might ask for protection from. This judicial, if not judicious, opinion comes from a column by Mark Bittman in today’s Sunday New York Times, headlined “Why Do Stars Think It’s O.K. To Sell Soda?” The obvious rejoinder is why does the New York Times think it’s O.K. to publish writers who suggest that it’s not? Say hello to freedom of speech. Soda is legal; advertising soda is legal; the Super Bowl permits advertising, so do the math safe in the bosom of the constitution. To suggest curtailing these rights, and the rights of other poor (sic) superstar artists and athletes to promote liquids containing sugar – would, you might think, require a staggeringly learned legal argument, one of such depth and originality that even if it were rejected, it would sway public opinion by the majesty of its logic. Instead, imagine Bittman presenting his column, as written, to the Supreme Court of the United States? “So, Mr. Bittman, you want Beyoncé to stop advertising Pepsi because such an advertisement might induce someone to harm or kill him or herself, or others, as if she had, in fact, advertised a semi-automatic weapon? Next!” As for the related claim that Pepsi or Coke – or any liquid with sugar – “may one day be ranked with cigarettes as a killer,” what’s the quantitative probability that such a day will come to pass? C'mon! Anything may happen - just as some things we think may happen most assuredly won’t. As the psychologist Philip Tetlock demonstrated in his magisterial analysis of 20-years of expert prediction, a dart-throwing chimpanzee was a better guide to the future. To prophesy proof of harm and use it to beat up on Beyoncé (and Madonna and Elton) is not just unfair, it’s a kind of Kafkaesque prior restraint: we might have the evidence next week that what you say tomorrow will be harmful, so we’re going to try and stop you talking now. This kind of nonsense is precisely why we have a First Amendment. Of course, there are restrictions on some kinds of advertising, and this is what Bittman is aiming at beyond sniping at celebrity product endorsement. He wants to make the case that the US should do to soda what it has done to tobacco, which is to put strict limits on its advertising in the media. For this to be a reasonable argument, however, the harm from soda has to be qualitatively and quantitatively similar to the harm from cigarettes. It isn’t. And, of course, that’s why Bittman relegates proof to some day in the future. The statistical evidence for an association between smoking and lung cancer is overwhelming: 1,900 percent for those who smoke versus those who don’t (a relative risk of 20). This was established some 50 years ago. As we know from further research, there is no harm-free threshold at which you can smoke safely. Even as we utilize vastly more scientific knowledge and technical ability than early tobacco researchers could, the evidence that a soda is the equivalent of a cigarette doesn’t even come close. The strongest data, from prospective cohort studies, is a relative risk of 1.26 for consuming a soda a day and developing diabetes. By the conventional standards of epidemiology, this is weak – indeed, weak enough to possibly be a statistical artifact. On the grounds of curbing the harm from obesity, one might as well argue that we restrict advertising for cheese, which in fact is what Ireland’s broadcasting authority proposed doing last year along with pizza and fries, because cheese is high in saturated fat and salt. This, of course, struck many people as bonkers, but it highlighted the kind of crazed thinking that flows from trying to legislate speech codes on the basis of “unhealthy” foods. Nutritional value is a slippery concept. (Meanwhile, Irish nutritional studies showed no correlation between either cheese or soda consumption and that country’s increased prevalence of obesity.) One might venture, following Emerson, that a “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds” when it comes to food and to free speech; but arbitrariness is an arch through which liberty goes to die. Freedom of speech can’t be something you can junk just because you don’t like the fact that someone is getting buckets of money to advertise something you don’t like and you don't want America to consume – and you have a column on the New York Times from which to pronounce your papal-like bull. But that's the point, isn't it? What’s good for Mark Bittman is also good for Beyoncé, even if he doesn’t quite understand why.
366811d5f09fdf8517ef8a9efc1484f2	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorclawson/2014/06/20/crowdsourcing-software-whats-in-for-the-coders/	Crowdsourced Software And What's In For The Coders?	Crowdsourced Software And What's In For The Coders? June 11 was not a good day to be in central London and looking for a licensed taxi. Rising up in protest against official tolerance of the Uber hire-car booking app, the capital’s black cab drivers staged a go-slow protest in the vicinity of Trafalgar Square, causing gridlock for several hours. It’s not difficult to see why the licensed cabbies were up in arms. Famed not only for the strength of their opinions, but also their encyclopaedic knowledge of London’s streets, they see Uber as a clear and present danger to their livelihood and professionalism. Equally important, they believe the Uber car-booking service drives a coach and horses through the regulation of the licensed and private cab market in London. That’s probably not how it looks to those who have signed up as Uber drivers. For them the app represents a new way to connect with customers and, thus, make a living. And that, of course, is the thing about disruptive models. They the change way we work, creating new opportunities for some while pulling the carpet away from others. Fast forward a week and I’m talking to Narinder Singh, co-founder of US-based IT services company, Appirio as he stops over in London and we're talking disruption and new ways of working. In 2013, Appirio acquired Topcoder an online marketplace for IT talent, which the company describes as the world’s largest open innovation community. Essentially Topcoder is all about crowdsourcing. Businesses with an IT problem to solve post the brief via the site and then wait for members of the 600,000 strong global community to compete to provide the solution. As Appirio sees it, the Topcoder model drives innovation by bringing the best minds available to bear on specific problems. And truth to tell it’s something of an entrepreneurial process. Rather than pitching for work, the developers write and supply the code, which is then assessed by the customer. The winners – sometimes more than one – get paid, while the rest dust themselves down and wait for the next competition to come along. With London Tech Week in full swing I was keen to ask Singh how developers in the UK have taken to a platform that requires community members to provide work up front with no guarantee of success of payment. “The UK is one of our top ten countries,” he says. “That said, we think it should probably be higher up the ranking than it is.” Singh posits two possible reasons for that. The most obvious perhaps is that in a thriving UK digital technology sector, Britain’s coders and designers are simply too busy with a regular and paid work to spend time on Topcoder projects. “We do see more participation in markets where there is an imbalance,” says Singh. But there is an alternative and perhaps slightly worrying explanation. “It may be that there aren’t enough people in the UK with the cutting edge skills that are required for some of our projects.” You can flip the question, of course, and ask why highly skilled coders and designers choose to participate. Singh cites several reasons. “It can be very rewarding financially and rewards are based on your skills. Others to it for educational reason – it’s an opportunity to develop skills and have your work peer reviewed.” Recognition is also an important factor. For instance, one of Topcoder’s flagship customers is NASA and members of the community have provided various software components for the agency’s Tournaments’ Lab. “Projects like that give you real bragging rights.” Creating Entrepreneurs In buying and developing Topcoder, Appirio has positioned itself as a disruptive player in the software design and development space. But what of the suppliers who may or may not be paid? As Singh sees it, Topcoder has to make the model work not only for the customers but also for the coding community. “It’s our responsibility to create demand. For instance, we don’t want 50 people competing for one piece of work. In some cases we might have 2 or 3 submissions, in other cases 20 or 25 but people need to feel they have a chance of succeeding.” And Singh believes the community can be a Launchpad for software entrepreneurs by giving them a chance to compete for work on cutting edge projects. “We’re a market and all the evidence suggests that entrepreneurial activity grows up around markets,” he says. Singh believes Topcoder is sitting on the same collaborative commerce wave as businesses like Uber and Airb&B. It will be interesting to see if this way of supplying software solutions can gain real traction in the IT services market. Equally, though it will be fascinating to see whether this kind of model becomes accepted by coders as an effective way to pitch for prestige work and develop careers, either here in the UK or in other mature markets.
1a3a53b87a0488e0f6e8e4b256fe515c	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorclawson/2015/07/24/the-upward-march-of-fin-tech-gocardless-breaks-the-1bn-barrier/	The Upward March Of Fin Tech - GoCardless Breaks The $1B Barrier	The Upward March Of Fin Tech - GoCardless Breaks The $1B Barrier When it comes to lending money and facilitating the day-to-day transactions that enable British businesses to function and thrive, the big high street banks still rule the roost. Yes, alternative finance in the shape of crowdfunding, peer-to-peer lending and invoice trading has grown rapidly over the past three to four years, but the amounts raised by businesses through these channels remain small when compared to the £29bn in loans approved by major banks to SMEs throughout 2014. Established banks also dominate the deposits and payments markets. No Longer the Only Game In Town But it's a rapidly changing landscape. According to figures published by innovation agency Nesta, business lending by peer-peer-lenders totalled £749m in 2014, up 250% from the previous year. Meanwhile, the equity crowdfunding and invoice trading markets grew by 410% and 174% respectively. So what we're clearly seeing is an increasing willingness on the part of businesses to seek alternative financial services providers. And this trend isn't limited to businesses seeking to borrow (or sell shares). If you run a small company in search of a better deal, these days you might well chose newly-minted “challenger” bank to handle your deposits and payments or seek out a forex platform to administer your foreign currency dealings. In short, the “incumbent” bank no longer represents the only game in town. New Opportunities One way to establish a niche in the new financial services ecosystem is to offer something that the big banks are not currently offering to their customers. That's the approach taken by GoCardless. Founded in 2011 by Hiroki Takeuchi , Tom Blomfield and Matt Robinson, the company enables SME businesses in particular to collect recurring payments from their customers through the direct debit system. That sounds simple enough. Change your electricity supplier or take out a new mobile phone contract, and utility in question will probably collect payment by taking a sum of money from your account on an agreed date every month until the contract is terminated. Once set up, this arrangement makes things simple for the customer while ensuring the supplier receives timely payment. But it's not usually an option for SMEs as banks generally require evidence of trading record and minimum turnover before they will allow a company to set up direct debit accounts for its customers. The GoCardless Platform acts as an intermediary. It enables businesses that would otherwise be below the revenue threshold demanded by the banks to collect payments via direct debits. “Our technology opens up access to the direct debit system,” says Hiroki Takeuchi. “We can do that because we aggregate the volumes.” Usability is equally important. Takeuchi says the GoCardless platform has been built to make it as easy as possible for small and medium sized businesses to use. There is, for example, no need to wrestle with complex codes every time a new customer is added. Traction in the Market As things stand, GoCardless is processing payments for about 10,000 UK companies and its annual payment volume no has just burst through the $1bn mark. “We have an annual growth rate of about 300%, “ adds Takeuchi. But can it continue? GoCardless is not in competition with banks but its not inconceivable that one of Britain's big five might look at the growth of the service and conclude: 'we should be doing this ourselves.' Widen that out to the Fin Tech ecosystem as a whole and there are a lot of areas where major banks might adopt the technologies and services developed by new players and use the strength of their brands and the size of their long established customer bases to freeze out the challengers. Takeuchi is aware of the risk but believes that the path to sustainable success lies in providing a highly focused service which is demonstratively better and more customer-friendly than anything a generalist institution might come up with. “One of the things that characterises the fin tech companies that I speak to is a laser focus and commitment to ensuring that we do what we do really well,” he says. And that focus on quality has given GoCardless a customer base that extends beyond SMEs. “We now have big companies such as the Guardian and the FT using our service,” says Takeuchi. Rather than diversifying the company is maintaining a focus on direct debit payments. Meanwhile it is building out the technolog and plans to offer services not only in Britain but also in Europe, the US, Latin America and beyond. Given London's importance as global financial hub, it's perhaps not surprising that many of the startups and early stage companies emerging from Silicon Roundabout and the the surrounding Tech City district are focused on the financial services. The solutions they're creating are opening up new options for businesses of all sizes.
14702fe021e822e2e8d78c178bd58ef5	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorclawson/2016/07/28/brexit-beneficiaries-uk-smes-may-avoid-the-investment-downturn/	Brexit Beneficiaries? UK SMEs May Avoid The Investment Downturn	Brexit Beneficiaries? UK SMEs May Avoid The Investment Downturn The received wisdom on the UK's exit from the European Union is that it will result in a sharp downturn in investment, but there is, perhaps, a glimmer of light for entrepreneurs. The latest Lloyds Bank Investor Sentiment Report suggests that between June and July investor sentiment dipped sharply. This was most pronounced in the property market, which registered a decline of 35.6%, with sentiment in relation to UK shares and government bonds falling 21.75% and 15.58% respectively. On the face of it, this isn't good for anyone or any business trying to raise capital? But according to research published today (July 28) by London-based private equity house IW Capital, SMEs may – perhaps counter intuitively – be Brexit beneficiaries. Strong Support In a poll of 1,000 investors IW capital found that 52% intended to support SMEs in the wake of the leave vote. Confidence in entrepreneurs was most pronounced among younger investors. In the under 34 age group, 72% said they were even more likely to support SMEs. Unsurprisingly, given the concentration of investors in the capital, support for SMEs across all age groups was strongest in London where 68% of respondents declared themselves supportive. Commenting on the findings, IW Capital CEO Luke Davis acknowledged the turmoil in the investment market but welcomed the apparently robust sentiment as regards the SME community.“What we can take from this research is that there is a silver lining from a business perspective as our nation’s investors are willing to support SMEs in the wake of Brexit -something that cannot be said for other investment classes,” he said. A Safe Haven? The question is – why does support for entrepreneurs remains relatively strong at a time when confidence in other asset classes is plummeting? In common with the Lloyds Bank report, IW Capital's research highlights the negative impact of Brexit on overall investment confidence. More than half (55%) of respondents said they were not confident in the direction of the FTSE index of leading shares and there was also gloom over the prospects for property. So what makes SMEs different? Perhaps one answer is that continued volatility in the share,currency and property markets has left investors casting around for save havens. For instance, the Lloyds Bank snapshot of sentiment showed a renewed interest in gold and commodities. Small entrepreneurial companies are notoriously risky but that risk is at least a known quantity - and one that is understood by those who invest. Compare and contrast with the uncertain outlook elsewhere. In addition, investment in UK SMEs has been to some extent de-risked through tax incentives available under the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS). And as Luke Davis sees it, underlying strength of the UK economy is is underpinning confidence in small and medium sized businesses. "The UK is in a stable position to cope with market uncertainty because of the fact that it has a varied private sector, which is built on a range of industry sectors," he says. Furthermore, the UK’s collection of more than 5.4 million SMEs – accounting for 99.9% of the private sector – means that small businesses can help drive economic growth so we do not need to rely on a select group of multinationals. Meanwhile, in addition to angel investors and VCs, investment in early stage companies has been opened up to a bigger group of people by the success of equity crowdfunding platforms and other forms of alternative finance. "The alternative finance industry supporting these businesses has also expanded rapidly – growing by 84% last year – which has created a strong support system for SMEs," says Luke Davis. So it may be that among a growing investment community, SMEs are still seen as a viable option. But does all this amount to a silver lining? The jury must still be out on that one. Many small businesses aren't exposed to Europe, but they are certainly vulnerable to any downturn in the economy as a whole. Meanwhile, in the tech sector, there was certainly widespread concern ahead of the EU vote over the prospect of any reduction in the ability of businesses to recruit talent from across Europe and the possible exclusion from the coming European Single Market in Digital Services. On the plus side, the weakness of the pound, particularly against the dollar, is making exports more competitive. In the short term, IW Capital's research suggests that Brexit will not necessarily damage investment prospects and may in fact have triggered a small bounce in sentiment.
3eed10e3f683792613012d959b2a58b6	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorclawson/2017/10/31/a-team-game-can-telecoms-giant-telefonica-collaborate-successfully-with-entrepreneurs/?sh=6b75a0a11af5	A Team Game - Can Telecoms Giant Telefonica Collaborate Successfully With Entrepreneurs?	A Team Game - Can Telecoms Giant Telefonica Collaborate Successfully With Entrepreneurs? Pablo Rodriguez sees multiple collaboration Source - Alpha Running east to west across Barcelona, the Avinguda Diagonal is an 11 kilometer stretch of tree-lined road that enables the city’s residents and its visitors to move relatively easily from one district to another. If you want to go shopping, visit a museum, take in some modernist architecture, or get to an appointment, the chances are that the Diagonal will get you most of the way to where you want to go. And latterly, stretches of the avenue - or to be more precise, offices and work spaces in close proximity - have been attracting increasing numbers of technology startups, a trend that has been quickened by an official drive to establish the freshly-branded 22@ district as Barcelona’s innovation hub. But I’m looking down at the avenue, not from the window of a co-working center populated by eager startups , but from the fifteenth floor of Diagonal Zero Zero, an office block that is largely occupied by Telefonica. The tower sits at the eastern end of Diagonal, positioning the telecom giant close to the burgeoning Barcelona tech community. And the location is appropriate. I'm here to talk to Pablo Rodriguez and his team at Alpha, an initiative that should see Telefonica forging links with an increasing number of startups and entrepreneurs, both in the city and elsewhere, to drive forward ambitious projects. From Big Telco To Disruptive Player Telefonica is, on one level, the epitome of ‘big telco’ As a former state-owned monopoly it is more than accustomed to being the biggest player in its home market and since privatization it has expanded its operations across Europe, Latin America and the US. But with the core telecoms market - broadband, landlines, mobile, etc. - becoming increasingly commoditized, Telefonica is keen to tap into the tech startup scene in Barcelona, not least through an accelerator program known as Wayra. And more recently, the company has given the green light to Alpha - essentially a variation on the Google X, corporate skunkworks theme, originally envisaged by CEO Jose Maria Alvarez-Pallete and now operating as a semi-autonomous unit with its own governance structure. The aim of Alpha is to identify and bring to market disruptive technologies and business models that have potential to change the world. To deliver on its vision, Alpha aims to draw on the expertise of established entrepreneurs to guide its ideas from the drawing board to the big wide world. Bringing in Entrepreneurs As Alpha CEO Pablo Rodriguez explains when a project - dubbed a moonshot - it is given a green light, the next stage is to appoint a captain - and typically that will be an entrepreneur. “Our captains need to have experience in the field, “ he says. But they also need to be entrepreneurs. They need to have experience of entrepreneurship and they need to be able to put together a team.” S,o what does all this mean in practice? At any one time, the internal team at Alpha will be playing with perhaps 100 technology-focused ideas. Nothing, is off limits, You would expect a telecoms company to be looking at areas such as blockchain, the internet of things or big data, but the technologies under discussion also include, for instance, advances in neuroscience and what that means for human/machine interfaces. These are worked up through a mix of 'ideation' sessions and informal discussions. Over time (and it’s a continuing process) the majority of ideas are quietly dropped, leaving perhaps a dozen, at any one times, that might have legs. Roughly once a year , one will be chosen as a “moonshot” and funding allocated. At that point the entrepreneurial captain will be appointed and a team created, and a map of the way ahead drawn up. "It is the captain who will lay out the 5-7 year plan and milestones along the way," says Rodriguez. Shooting At The Moon As things stand, Alpha has two moonshots in development - one focused on delivering energy to those parts of the world that are currently disconnected from the grid and the other aiming to use data to improve the health outcomes of individuals. Both of these fall well outside Telefonica's traditional stomping ground. Which in part explains why the idea of entrepreneurship is so important. Corporate businesses often fund extensive R&D departments and in many cases staff are invited to think out of the box. Telefonica itself has been doing this for many years. But The difficulty for a large organisation lies in implementing an idea that sits outside the corporate comfort zone. To get off the ground, it will have to get past the board and even then, it may not be something that sits well within the culture of the organisation. The chances are there will be no internal expertise. Rodriguez - who himself worked at Bell Labs before decamping to Silicon Valley - says corporate R&D often fails to deliver because researchers - and the companies - don’t necessarily have resources, vision or board level backing to shepherd them to the market. You could also argue perhaps that the majority of corporate businesses aren't that good at disruption. Hence the Alpha Focus on building teams headed by experts with entrepreneurial skills. Oliver Harrison who heads up Alpha Health is a case in point. A trained doctor, he helped create a data-based health infrastructure for Abu Dhabi In 2013, he founded Ithaca Health, a company that aimed to use data to bring about behavioral change. The company failed, but that experience, paved the way for his current role as a moonshot captain. Step By Step It’s early days. As Harrison explains, the aim of the project is to use data to empower individuals to make better choices in areas such as diet, exercise and smoking habits to reduce the incidence of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, strokes, etc. Crucially data will also be used to identify those who are most likely to respond. Early tests have gone well, but as Harrison acknowledges, one key challenge is monetization. “Selling to insurers is very tough and selling direct to the public is also very tough, so we have to think outside the B2B or B2C box. At the moment, we’re looking at some of the payment models that are coming out of the sharing economy.” In addition to hiring entrepreneurs, Alpha is keen to collaborate with a large range of organisations, including scientists, NGOs, entrepreneurs and startups. "We realize we can't do this alone. The only way to do this is through collaboration," says Rodriguez. And as innovation Officer Maurice Conti adds, for some moonshot projects, buying a startup might provide an out-of-the-box team. Signing On So what if you’re an entrepreneur keen to work with Alpha. At one level, Rodriguez is keen to describe the unit as a Knowledge Hub, where all are welcome to share ideas and collaborate, while also providing incentives to do so. But when it comes to recruitment, Alpha is picky. Captains and other senior team members are chosen through a process in which the ideal candidate is profiled and then matched to a real world individual. Slightly spookily, Alpha starts by giving its ideal candidate a name and biography and even set of personality traits that would be right for the project. The next step is to find the closest match in the real world. Like many tech startups, Alpha is seeking to solve big problems and make money in the process and with Telefonica as an arms length shareholder it can draw on patient capital. By creating lean teams headed by captains, it hopes to emulate something of the agility of startups while also drawing on entrepreneurial expertise through recruitment and collaboration. Time will tell if this approach will successfully meld corporate objectives with the agility and ability to drive forward ideas characterized by entrepreneurs. Proof of the pudding will be the emergence of strong, sustainable, tech-led businesses.
1b28115b434902ed908ee5336a34ad8a	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorclawson/2018/03/14/escaping-the-stereotypes-women-are-underrepresented-in-tech-but-there-are-solutions/	Escaping The Stereotypes - Women Are Underrepresented In Tech But There Are Solutions	Escaping The Stereotypes - Women Are Underrepresented In Tech But There Are Solutions Maja Borota-Nedic of Rentalcars.com says businesses can sponsor coding clubs Source: Rentalcars.com “Technology is no longer a male domain,” says Monica Eaton-Cardone, CIO and co-founder of the Chargeback Company. As advances in technology requires new thinking that only different backgrounds and experiences can offer, we need to escape these age-old stereotypes.” Few would argue with those sentiments. Digital technology in particular is now so deeply embedded in all our lives that from a consumer perspective, there really is no gender divide - men and women are equally enthusiastic users of the services and functionality delivered by smartphones,tablets, smartphones and the rest.. In theory then, a digital tech industry that is addressing a huge female audience - let’s assume 50% total - with its products and services should also be employing a similar percentage of women. Different Aspirations But perhaps unsurprisingly, Britain’s tech industry is not doing that well when it comes to attracting women into its ranks. Witness a report published last week by Tech City - a body set up by then Prime Minister David Cameron to help digital startups grow more quickly - and prepared in collaboration with Hays Digital and the University of Sheffield. The report finds that a much smaller percentage of young women aspire to pursue careers in the tech sector than their male counterparts. To be more precise, more than a third of young men (36%) aspire to work in the tech sector compared with just 13% of women. Basing their findings on interviews with 1,000 young people, augmented by an analysis of 80,000 posts on social media site Reddit, the researchers say the gender gap can be partly attributed to confidence issues. When asked why they weren’t attracted to a tech sector that most acknowledged offered good career prospects, women tended to say that they didn’t have the skills or felt they wouldn’t fit in. UK women, have of course, made their mark as founders rather than simply as employees in the tech sector. But even then there are gender imbalances, not least in the ability of female-led companies to raise money. To coincide with International Women’s Day, the UK Business Angels Association pointing out that only 14% of business angels are women and just 27% of VC Fund staff. This is important because female investors are more likely to back female led companies. According to the UKBAA, 54% of female investors have backed at least one company founded by a woman. Only a very small percentage of male investors can say the same thing. Solutions Not Problems So the question is, how can Britain’s digital tech companies - many of them startups and early stage - attract more women into the industry? And it’s a question that might require a rapid answer, if and when Brexit curbs the flow of European talent into the UK. There is no overnight fix. As Maja Borota-Nedic, head of engineering at Rentalcars.com, points out, young women do seem to be less attracted to the STEM subjects that would lead to a career in tech. “Only a small percentage of young women go into computer science,” she says. “But the problem starts a lot earlier. I don’t think girls at school are attracted to tech subjects to the same extent as boys.” But citing her own experience, Borota-Nedic says if young women are given the opportunity to develop digital skills, many will develop a passion. “I got into physics first and from there I got into coding and that set me up for my career.” Cultural Engineering So there is scope for a certain amount of cultural engineering if efforts are made to introduce young women to coding at an early stage. “The industry can do something here by sponsoring coding clubs,” says Borota-Nedic. Eaton-Cardone agrees and would introduce a degree of compulsion. “At a young age, opinions form on what gender is suited to what industry and, as a result, young girls often miss the chance to discover a latent talent and aptitude for technology,” she says. “To prevent these opinions forming, we need to remove the barrier to young girls’ progression in this area by eliminating independent subject choosing. Conventional Viewpoints While acknowledging that removing choice might sound extreme, Eaton-Cardone - who has grown her company from startup to a business employing 400 people - argues that young-women can all too easily slip into holding a “conventional” viewpoint about their own abilities and start believing that they don’t have the aptitude for tech careers. “Pushing girls into the exciting realm of technology – and revealing the deceptiveness of the conventional viewpoint it currently upholds – will be beneficial for the future of female-led tech innovations,” she says. Employment Practices Take a walk into a shared workspace just about anywhere in London’s Tech City district and the chances are your first impression will be of a young, progressive industry, peopled by forward-thinking, socially liberal founders and managers. So in theory, there should be no hidden hurdles preventing women from taking up employment. But as Allegra Santis, Creating Marketing Specialist at intranet software company, OAK points out, there can be hidden barriers. The tech industry can begin by identifying internally why women are not applying or if they are, why they’re not invited to an interview. Many women are fully qualified for a position but might have gaps in their CVs due to maternity leave, raising children, or taking care of an ill family member,” she says “A solution is for tech companies to become more involved in the hiring process by encouraging their employees to check their network, make more personal connections through social media and partner with more female-friendly recruitment agencies.” So,if there no easy answers, there are solutions. The tech sector - like all industries - benefits from diversity. Fostering that diversity must start in schools, but businesses, whether startups or established, can do their bit.
7f956f9eac3edd9e21ef4b917e4b41b4	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorclawson/2018/09/17/scaling-a-i-culture-is-super-important-says-peltarions-ceo-but-maintaining-it-is-a-challenge/	Scaling A.I. - Culture Is Super Important Says Peltarion's CEO But Maintaining It Is A Challenge	Scaling A.I. - Culture Is Super Important Says Peltarion's CEO But Maintaining It Is A Challenge Luka CrnKovic Kriis says culture is super important Source - Peltarion Earlier this year, Sweden-based artificial intelligence company, Peltarion began a new phase of its development. Originally established in 2004, the company launched its first A.I. product about two years later - a windows based system that has been used, to date, by about 300 customers, including NASA, Dell and BMW. But in January of this year, Peltarion began beta tests of a platform that was designed allow even those with little or no in-depth knowledge of the technology to use artificial intelligence within their organisations. And as CEO and co-founder, Luka Crnkovic-Friis explains, Peltarion’s technology is being used across a broad spectrum of industries - and for purposes that range from predicting sales to diagnosing brain tumors more quickly. The platform is enabling teams within customer organisations to model, design and execute A.I. solutions that are tailored specifically for their particular requirements. Rapid Expansion The launch of the platform has coincided with a very rapid expansion of Peltarion’s own workforce. Backed by 14m euro in funding from EQT Ventures and FAM, the company’s workforce has risen from 20 to 50 in the course of a few months. And as the business has scaled up and opened new offices overseas, it has had to work hard to maintain a distinct culture while recruiting in a technology sector where talent is notoriously hard to find. “There is a general acceptance that culture is super important,” says Crnkovic Friis “The key as you grow is to understand the initial culture.” And perhaps the problem for many companies is that they don’t really realize they have a culture. In a small team, it stems from the personalities of the founders and also the first employees. There is clearly a culture - hopefully one that fosters innovation and rapid business development - but it may not be very well defined. And as the business grows, that vital cultural X factor disappears as new members of the team (and perhaps also new tiers of management) come in. As Crnkovic-Friis sees it, too many business let a vital ingredient of early success slip away. “It’s very easy to be complacent and not realise that as you grow you have to maintain the culture,” he says. “If you don’t, it dilutes.” But what does that mean in practice? How do you pin culture down? Defining Culture In the case of Peltarion, Crnkovic-Friis says the culture is partly derived from its origins in Sweden. “Different European countries have different working cultures,” he says. And that in itself raises challenges when opening up offices abroad. Peltarion has a presence in the UK - where the culture is sufficiently similar not to cause problems. Now, as the company is expanding into the US, there is, he believes, a bigger challenge due to different attitudes towards the way work is structured and managed. “People in the US are used to working in a more defined way,” he says. Looking to the specifics, Crnkovic Friis says Peltarion is committed to flat structures - everyone working on one level and able to talk to each other - and the kind of transparency that allows all members of staff to access most of the company’s data, unless there is a very strong reason to impose restrictions. Perhaps most importantly, Peltarion seeks to foster a sense of responsibility. “People are responsible for something larger than their own role,” he says. “For instance, if something needs fixing people will take responsibility for fixing it.” Workshopping Values The question is, of course - what does a company actually do to resolve those broad values into something solid, and thus preserve the original culture as the company scales. Hiring is important, of course, and the co-founders still sit in on interviews but it doesn’t end there. “We have workshops,” says Crnkovic Friis. “We get people to write down what it is about the company that makes it good to work for. “ From there, the values are defined (written down) and also the behaviors that deliver on those values. “We also define what we do and what is that we do uniquely,” he adds. It's a way of solidifying something that might otherwise be intangible. Like many tech companies, Peltarion is at the start of a rapid expansion journey that may well continue apace, given the appetite for all things A.I. Like many fast-growth businesses, it wants to hang onto its values and sense of mission. To do that it is building cultural coherence into its hiring and management policies. It's a challenge that a great many entrepreneurial businesses face.
f838911744a594aecf7852631545484a	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorclawson/2018/11/28/when-the-eu-money-runs-out-how-brexit-will-affect-investment-in-uk-entrepreneurs/	When The EU Money Runs Out - How Brexit Will Affect Investment In U.K. Entrepreneurs	When The EU Money Runs Out - How Brexit Will Affect Investment In U.K. Entrepreneurs Rael Sarembock of Capital Step says ways must be found for SMEs to continue to access capital Source - Capital Step Ask the average man or woman on the British street to describe the workings of the European Structural Investment (ESI) program and the response would probably be a blank stare. The same would be true if you asked for an opinion on the work of the European Investment Bank or the European Investment Fund. Little was said about these institutions and initiatives during the 2016 referendum campaign and, to be honest, amid an ever more clamorous debate on the shape of Britain’s future relationship with the E.U., they are still not widely discussed. But they do matter. For instance, an average of 2.5bn euro has been allocated annually to the U.K. from various ESI funds in the period between 2014 and 2020, according to British Government figures, and the biggest percentage of that sum goes to projects designed to support SMEs. For its part, the European Investment Bank has advanced around 117bn euro over to British projects over its lifetime. It’s priorities include supporting innovation and ensuring that SMEs have access to finance. Meanwhile, the European Investment Fund provides funding for VCs and around 2m euro has been pumped into funds operating in Britain. There are other funding initiatives too - such as Horizon, which was established to support innovation. The role that these institutions play goes to the heart of the political arguments within the U.K. over the costs and benefits of EU membership. Those on the remain side point to the good that the likes of the EIB and ESI do. For their part, proponents of "leave" will say that the U.K. would be better placed when it is funding its own programs. But one thing is certain. As the U.K. disentangles itself from Europe, funding from these sources will dry up and while alternatives have been established, the beneficiaries are unlikely to see a totally smooth transition. The Impact on Investment And this will affect investment. As Jenny Tooth, CEO of the U.K. Business Angels Association (UKBAA), points out, the various European programs that support entrepreneurs - either directly or by helping to create a benign trading environment through their investments in, say, infrastructure or training - play a part in the thinking of angels when they risk their own cash. Jenny Tooth of the UKBAA Source - UKBAA She cites the example of the European Investment Fund (EIF). “It has been instrumental in ensuring that there is follow on funding for companies that have secured angel investing,” she says. “That gives certainty to angel investors.” UK membership of the E.U. continues until March 2019 and - as long as the withdrawal agreement is approved in the U.K. Parliament - there will be a period of transition. But Europe’s commitment to U.K. entrepreneurship has already taken a hit. In the wake of the 2016 referendum, the EIF froze the flow of cash to U.K.-based VCs, forcing them to look elsewhere for funding. On the Border Angel investment could be affected by other E.U.-related factors too - not least in Ireland. “What we’ve seen in Ireland is that angels from the Republic who live close to the border are looking in Northern Ireland for opportunities,” says Tooth. “And an all-Ireland business angels association has been formed.” In other words, there are real opportunities to encourage cross-border investment -something that would benefit both parts of Ireland. But now there is also uncertainty surrounding the post-Brexit investment climate. The English Regions. The Brexit map of Britain reveals that the most enthusiastic leave voters were found in the regions of England, including the Midlands and North East. “The Irony is that these are the regions that will suffer most from the withdrawal of E.U. funds,” says Tooth. And certainly what these areas can’t afford is a reduction in investment in entrepreneurs. So what is to be done? Tooth says the U.K. has been putting its own institutions in place - notably the British Business Bank - to help counter the impact of withdrawal from EU institutions. Innovation agency, Innovate U.K. is providing funding to tech companies and there will also be help for the 'regions' through initiatives being developed under the Government’s Industrial Strategy. But Tooth thinks that the transition from one set of funding sources to another is unlikely to be smooth. In the meantime, the UKBAA is engaged in an ongoing campaign to encourage angel investing and also provide resources and information to angels across the U.K.. There is a particular focus on supporting angel investment in the English regions. Concern about access to finance extends beyond the requirements of fast-growth finance seeking equity funding. Family businesses may also suffer and there are real concerns about this. Witness a survey by finance provider Capital Step, in which around two fifths of respondents expressed fears that Brexit could "break family businesses." Capital Step co-founder Rael Sarembock identifies two Brexit-related questions hanging over the outlook for family businesses. "First of all, there still a lot of uncertainty about the shape of the final deal," he says. "And the secondly people are asking what Brexit means for the ability of family businesses to access capital." As he sees it, the family business sector has not enjoyed the same level of support that government has extended to fast-growth tech companies. “Government really has to think about ways to ensure that capital is allocated to SMEs,” he says. Businesses also face a period of uncertainty. The withdrawal deal - even if ratified - simply leads on to trade talks and no one as yet can predict the outcome. Tooth believes angels should play a role in helping businesses transition. “Angels bring not only money but also experience,” she says. “They can offer strategic advice.” END
c26e86a570109f206eee134c3dc48aa1	https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorclawson/2019/02/13/a-pause-for-breath-early-stage-investment-into-u-k-fast-growth-companies-falls/	A Pause For Breath? - Early Stage Investment Into U.K. Fast Growth Companies Falls	A Pause For Breath? - Early Stage Investment Into U.K. Fast Growth Companies Falls Beauhurst report sees reports a pause for breath in U.K. startup investment Source - Beauhurst Here in the U.K. we’ve become accustomed to analysts and assorted number crunchers telling us that, despite the storm clouds bubbling up around Brexit, the UK tech startup sector is in robust good health. And often the buoyancy of the industry is evidenced by the sheer scale of investor cash being channeled into early stage businesses. Every year - usually in January or February - reports come out telling us that the previous twelve months broke new investment records. So what about 2018? Well, according to a round up of the year just been published by fast-growth business analyst Beauhurst, the investment party is showing signs of winding down. On the face of it, 2018 wasn’t a bad year. A record £8.27bn was invested in 2017, which as Beauhurst points out was more than the combined total of the years 2011 to 2013. In that respect, the £7bn invested last year was perhaps disappointing. but arguably not surprising, nor any kind of disastrous implosion. Indeed, around 1,600 investments were made. Again. that was fewer than in 2017 but pretty close to the numbers of deals seen in 2015 and 2016. From a glass half-full perspective you might say that 2017 represented something of an outlier year. 2018 was something more normal. Seed Stage Woes But the devil is in the detail. Once you begin to break the numbers down a more worrying picture begins to emerge. Beauhurst’s figures - wriiten up by analyst Henry Whorwood - suggest that seed stage deals have fallen by a hefty 15%. And in terms of year-by-year comparisons, the number of deals fell to levels not seen since 2014. In other words, what the data reveals is that very early stage companies in search of capital were facing challenging conditions. So is this a temporary downturn in a road that will ultimately resume its upward trend or are we seeing early signs that a Britain’s startup boom is has is beginning to run out of steam in the face of challenging economic conditions? What Happens Next? A lot depends on what happens next in the UK economy. As Beauhurst points out, Seed finance is particularly vulnerable to changes in investor sentiment, which is in turn strongly influenced by the economic outlook. Now, the UK economy has continued to grow despite Brexit concerns - but by the same token no one can deny that the complete lack of certainty surrounding Britain’s future trading status with the E.U. has created an environment in which investors are becoming increasingly risk averse. The biggest impact has been on angel investing. Deals in this category fell by a whopping 35% in 2017 and as Beauhurst sees it, this was likely to be the result of individual investors scaling down their commitments in response to political gridlock over the direction of Brexit. And the report does find a correlation between a decline in investment in the second half of the year and an unfolding political stalemate as MPs backing different flavours of Brexit - hard, soft and not at all - squared up to each other in Parliament. There is perhaps light at the end of the tunnel. If 2018’s pause for breath is simply a result of political and economic uncertainty, then any settlement of the Brexit issue should - in theory - pave the way for early stage investment to begin flowing again. But this is not guaranteed. Meanwhile, the Beauhurst report does contain some bright spots. Crowdfunding had a record year with the number of deals beginning to rise. It was also rather a good year for Blockchain-related investments, which rose by 75% And it’s important to note that headline figures disguise of a lot of variation. For some investors - and presumably the startups they invest in - optimism and confidence remain the orders of the day. Luke Davis, CEO of investment house IW Capital, dealflow has not abated. “In 2018 we have had more dealflow than ever,” he says. And if the number of deals was down overall, businesses in Wales and the North West of England saw an upturn in volumes, perhaps indicating greater investor interest in the UK regions. And as Davis sees it, Britain’s regions offer new opportunities - not just to invest in tech but also in sectors such as engineering. He says his own firm has a growing regional focus. “We have been appointing new regional directors.” But the Beauhurst report sound raises an important issue - there are economic storm clouds ahead and around us, and the tech sector, despite all the excitement it generates, can't necessarily escape the heavy weather.