ScienceTechnologyExplicit

Cognitive Engineering

Welcome to the Cognitive Engineering podcast. Occasionally coherent musings of Aleph Insights. We hope you like listening to them as much as we like recording them.

Play

Open in

21 episodes
weekly
Avg 40 min
English

Episodes 21

Newest Oldest Longest

All20 Unplayed20 In progress0 Played0

Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.

#409
Wednesday · 46 min
Faking it
"Fake it till you make it" is one of the most repeated pieces of career advice, but does it actually work? In this episode, the team explores the origin of the idea, when it genuinely helps people succeed, and where it crosses the line into deception or outright fraud. From Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Branson and Steven Spielberg to Elizabeth Holmes and Sam Bankman-Fried, they examine the fine line between confidence, ambition and dishonesty. Along the way they discuss why some professions are surprisingly easy to "fake" while others expose incompetence almost immediately, the psychology behind behavioural activation and imposter syndrome, and why genuine expertise still matters. The conversation concludes with a practical framework for deciding when projecting confidence is useful, and and when you're better off simply doing the work.
- Transcript
#408
August 12 · 39 min
Trillionaires
Elon Musk has become the world's first trillionaire. But is this simply the result of inflation and economic growth, or does it signal that we're entering a new era of wealth creation? In this episode, Nick, Peter and Fraser ask whether today's extraordinary fortunes are genuinely unprecedented or simply the latest point on a centuries-long trend. Along the way they unpack the difference between nominal and real wealth, ask who history's first 'real' billionaire might have been, and examine how technological revolutions have created new extremes of wealth. The conversation then broadens into a discussion about exponential growth, artificial intelligence and the future of capitalism. As AI increasingly replaces cognitive labour, could wealth become concentrated in the hands of those who own the technology rather than those who work? If so, what happens to employment, economic growth and the social contract? SpaceX acquires Cursor First dollar millionaire - John Jacob Astor First dollar billionaire - John D Rockefeller Holden Karnofsky, 'The Most Important Century' Thomas Young, 'The Last Man Who Knew Everything'
- Transcript
#406
July 29 · 37 min
Sheer Luxury
Why do people spend extraordinary amounts of money on objects that seem to serve no practical purpose? And what exactly separates luxury from quality? Inspired by the case of former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell's misuse of party funds for high-end personal purchases, Fraser, Nick and Peter use a series of examples to explore the deeper psychology of luxury. The conversation moves beyond political scandal into philosophy, economics and psychology, asking why humans are drawn to unnecessary things, whether luxury serves a genuine purpose, and where the line lies between excellence, indulgence and excess.
- Transcript
#405
July 22 · 47 min
AI Slop
In this episode, we explore the phenomenon of AI slop - the flood of bland, over-polished, formulaic content generated by chatbots and their ilk - and ask how AI content has gone from cool, to naff, to actively despised. The conversation ranges from AI-generated writing and artwork. to clip art, stock photography, PowerPoint transitions and social media, asking whether technologies become naff simply because everyone can use them, or because democratisation genuinely lowers quality. Along the way, we examine how status, craftsmanship and scarcity shape our perceptions of value, and whether AI is simply following a path that other technologies have trammelled before. Links: Rogers' theory of innovation diffusion Ricardo Montalbán Pierre Bourdieu
- Transcript
#404
July 15 · 35 min
It’ll Only Take Five Minutes
Why do days filled with quick, easy tasks leave us feeling as though we've achieved nothing? In this episode, we explore the psychology of the "five-minute job": the seemingly trivial administrative tasks that can consume entire days. Starting with Nick's frustration at Mondays disappearing into emails, shopping, backups and life admin, the discussion uncovers why knowledge work is uniquely vulnerable to interruption, why context switching is so mentally expensive, and why maintenance work rarely feels satisfying, even when it's essential. Along the way, we discuss cognitive psychology, productivity research, organisational behaviour and personal working styles, and ask whether we can ever learn to stop worrying and love the five-minute task. Links: Hofstadter's Law Parkinson's Law Zeigarnik Effect Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule Eisenhower Matrix The Strength of Weak Ties
- Transcript
#403
July 1 · 48 min
How to Decline
Every great power eventually faces decline—but does decline inevitably lead to collapse? In this episode, Fraser, Nick and Peter examine what it really means for a nation, empire or civilisation to decline. Is America's relative loss of global dominance something to fear, or simply the natural consequence of the rest of the world becoming more prosperous? Drawing on examples ranging from the British Empire and Ancient Rome to the Ottoman Empire and modern China, the discussion explores how nations rise, transform and reinvent themselves. The team argues that decline is rarely a sudden event, but a gradual process whose outcome depends less on economics than on identity, institutions and the ability to adapt. Along the way they distinguish between absolute and relative decline, debate whether empires ever truly disappear, introduce Nick's "Declinometer", and consider why Britain's transition from imperial power to modern nationhood was comparatively successful. The conversation concludes with a practical set of lessons for how countries, and perhaps even individuals, can learn to decline with dignity.
- Transcript
#400
June 17 · 44 min
Irrationality
In this episode, we begin with Hitler’s supposed Alpine Redoubt and use it to explore a broader question: how do we make sense of irrational decision-making? We discuss why Allied planners expected the Nazis to behave “sensibly” by retreating to Bavaria, when Hitler instead chose a symbolic last stand in Berlin. From there, we look at other examples where leaders appear to act against their own interests, including Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Trump’s strike on Iran. We then set out a framework for irrationality, asking whether bad decisions come from strange goals, wanting the wrong thing, misunderstanding the world, choosing tactics that do not work or simply failing to think clearly. We consider how this applies to politics, war, climate denial, government policy and personal choices, before turning to the awkward fact that apparent irrationality can sometimes be strategically useful. Ultimately, we conclude that irrationality is messy, difficult to diagnose and often inseparable from the values and beliefs that drive people in the first place.
- Transcript
#399
June 10 · 38 min
Weather Symbolism
In this episode, we explore why weather carries such powerful symbolic meaning in storytelling and everyday language. From storms representing conflict and change, to sunshine signalling hope and renewal, we unpack how these associations appear across literature, film and culture. We consider whether these meanings are rooted in physical experience—how weather affects our bodies and behaviour—or whether they emerge from deeper symbolic structures in how we think. We also examine how context shapes interpretation, noting that the same weather can mean very different things depending on geography, culture or situation. Along the way, we introduce a “symbolism-o-meter” to explain why certain phenomena—like weather—are especially rich for metaphor, due to their universal human experience and wide range of variations. Finally, we reflect on personal moments where weather and emotion aligned, illustrating how these symbolic connections play out in real life. A Passing Storm: https://www.artrenewal.org/artworks/a-passing-storm/james-jacques-joseph-tissot/1133
- Transcript
#397
June 3 · 45 min
Evil Corporations
In this episode, we explore the idea of “evil corporations,” prompted by a legal case in which a woman successfully sued social media companies for making their platforms addictive. We examine whether corporations deliberately design harmful products, concluding that in many cases they do, and question whether it makes sense to describe corporations as “evil” in human terms at all. Along the way, we trace a long history of suspicion toward large organisations, from the East India Company to modern tech giants, and discuss examples such as tobacco, leaded petrol and planned obsolescence. We also reflect on how corporations often rely on euphemistic language to soften harmful practices, while the individuals within them may not feel personally responsible for the outcomes. We then turn to why harmful behaviour emerges in the first place, focusing on structural forces like profit incentives, diffusion of responsibility and competitive pressures that can drive a race to the bottom. We compare corporate harms with those caused by governments, noting differences in visibility, scale and accountability, and ask whether corporations deserve particular scrutiny given their built-in amoral incentives. While we touch on alternative models such as stakeholder capitalism, we remain sceptical about their effectiveness in practice, ultimately returning to regulation as the most reliable tool available. Our conclusion is that corporations behaving badly should not come as a surprise, and that the real challenge is designing frameworks that recognise and constrain those tendencies. "Nicotine is not addictive": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08 Phoebus Cartel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel The Love Canal incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal Stakeholder Capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism
- Transcript
#398
May 27 · 39 min
The Sense of an Ending
In this episode, we ask how we know when something has really ended, starting with the much-criticised finale of Game of Thrones. We explore why some endings feel satisfying while others feel rushed, artificial or unresolved, looking at the difference between fiction and real life. We discuss how stories impose structure on events, why audiences crave resolution and how endings can depend on framing, perspective and the difference between something simply stopping and something properly ending. We then broaden the discussion to real-world endings, from the Second World War and the fall of apartheid to the Cold War, the war on terror and other messier historical examples. We consider why humans are so drawn to narrative, how stories help us understand the world and why fiction may train us to expect closure that reality rarely provides. Finally, we test a five-part “endingometer” for what makes an ending work: significance, uncertainty, symbolism, irreversibility and a quiet moment of resolution.
- Transcript
#396
May 20 · 46 min
How to Buy a Car
In this episode of the Cognitive Engineering Podcast, the team responds to a listener’s question about how to buy a car, using it as a springboard into wider ideas about decision-making. They explore the tension between analytical approaches—spreadsheets, cost breakdowns and rational comparisons—and more instinctive, emotionally driven choices. Drawing on their own contrasting experiences, from careful, criteria-based selection to impulsive, passion-led purchases, they highlight how factors like price, depreciation, usage and even the buying experience itself can influence both decisions and long-term satisfaction. The discussion also touches on how identity, politics and personal values can shape preferences, as well as the role of emotional responses in supposedly rational decisions. Broadening out beyond cars, the conversation examines how people make big, infrequent decisions more generally, from buying houses to choosing careers. The hosts discuss psychological concepts such as “maximisers” versus “satisfiers”, the role of subconscious decision-making and the tendency to rationalise choices after the fact. They note that more analysis doesn’t necessarily lead to greater satisfaction, and may even increase regret. Practical takeaways include reframing big purchases as ongoing costs versus ongoing value, being honest about what you actually care about and recognising that people quickly adapt to new possessions. Ultimately, they suggest that while structured thinking can help, overthinking can be counterproductive—and sometimes the better question isn’t which option to choose, but whether you’re asking the right question in the first place.
- Transcript
#395
May 13 · 43 min
Accessing the Past
In this episode, we explore why some older media remain surprisingly accessible while other, much newer works become almost impossible to experience. We compare a 300-year-old piece of music that can still be played from notation with old computer games that no longer run because of lost code, outdated hardware, vanished servers or obsolete software. We discuss how digital media can be fragile precisely because it depends on layers of technology, compression and decoding, whereas older forms like printed music, books or physical records can sometimes survive in more direct and recoverable ways. We then turn to a different kind of accessibility: whether we can still appreciate older works as their original audiences did. From silent films and early recordings to Trainspotting, Star Wars, strange 1970s cinema and old sci-fi television, we ask how much cultural context, nostalgia and changing technology shape our experience. We consider whether some art forms stop evolving or whether each generation simply mistakes its own moment for the endpoint. Finally, we share examples of older media we still enjoy, from Charlie Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy to cult sci-fi and ancient decorated stone spheres. P.T.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.T._(video_game) Difficulty of playing Black and White on the PC: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamesupport/comments/3glp00/black_white_the_first_game_on_windows_10/ Video game preservation efforts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_preservation Appreciation or Nostalgia? https://from.ncl.ac.uk/nostalgia-in-retro-gaming Bronze Age stone balls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carved_stone_balls
- Transcript
#394
May 6 · 35 min
Sensitive Topics
In this episode, we discuss a forthcoming board game about the Troubles in Northern Ireland and ask why some subjects feel uncomfortable when turned into games. We explore whether the controversy comes from the topic itself, the tone, the medium, the time elapsed since the events or the cultural distance from them. We compare this with other difficult subjects represented in films, books, video games and board games, from the Second World War and the war on terror to natural disasters and pandemics. We then look more closely at what games actually do, especially the idea of adopting temporary agency: playing a role without morally endorsing it. We ask whether participatory media are judged differently because players actively make choices, rather than simply watching or reading. Finally, we broaden the discussion into what makes board games compelling at all, comparing them with sport, horror films and other forms of imaginative suspension, before ending with a few reflections on why board games can be both intellectually rich and emotionally difficult to explain to non-gamers. The Troubles boardgame: https://www.compassgames.com/product/the-troubles-shadow-war-in-northern-ireland-pay-later/ Guardian article about the controversy: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/23/target-mainland-planned-troubles-board-game-condemned-in-northern-ireland La Famiglia: The Great Mafia War: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/367517/la-famiglia-the-great-mafia-war Labyrinth: The War on Terror: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/62227/labyrinth-the-war-on-terror-2001 Agency as Art by C. Thi Nguyen: https://academic.oup.com/book/32137
- Transcript
#393
April 29 · 43 min
Training
In this episode we discuss training: what it can realistically achieve, why it often fails and how people actually become good at things. The conversation begins with Aleph’s past experience delivering analytical training, and Nick’s frustration that training often strips away the excitement of discovery. The group explores whether people really learn best through formal instruction, or whether genuine understanding comes from practice, mistakes, motivation and real-world need. Links: Michael Polanyi's 'Tacit knowledge' - We know more than we can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge
- Transcript
#392
April 22 · 37 min
Aleph Peace Prize
Episode summary In this episode, the team explores what prizes are actually for. Starting with a discussion of FIFA’s much-mocked “Peace Prize” and the longer pedigree of the Nobel Peace Prize, they examine how prizes gain prestige, whether they genuinely incentivise good behaviour and how they can shape status, motivation and public recognition. The conversation moves from global peace prizes to personal experiences of winning school and university awards, before turning to the deeper question: what makes a prize valuable? Is it age, scarcity, continuity, the calibre of previous winners or the significance of what it rewards? The episode ends with the proposal of a new award: the Aleph Peace Prize, aimed not at symbolic virtue but at people or institutions that have plausibly reduced the risk of actual conflict. In this episode Why FIFA’s “Peace Prize” is seen as absurd and performative What the Nobel Peace Prize was originally meant to reward Controversial Nobel winners, including Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama How Nobel Peace Prize winners tend to fall into categories such as: peace process participants human rights advocates institution builders humanitarian organisations Whether prizes are mainly about: incentives recognition credentialisation reward Why prestige depends on factors like age, continuity, scarcity and past winners The idea that too many prizes can dilute the value of all prizes Personal reflections on school and university prizes, and how recognition can affect confidence and effort A proposed alternative peace prize focused on real-world conflict reduction
- Transcript
#396
April 15 · 30 min
Username and Password
In this episode, Fraser McGruer, Nick Hare, Chris Wragg and Peter Coghill explore one of modern life’s most persistent irritations: being asked to create yet another username and password. The conversation starts with a familiar frustration—setting up endless accounts for everyday tasks, from charging an electric car to buying a coffee—and quickly broadens into a deeper discussion about identity, convenience, data and the trade-offs built into digital life. Why do so many companies want us to log in all the time? Is it really about making life easier, or is it about harvesting data? The team examines the competing incentives at work: users want speed and low friction, while businesses want persistent identity, customer lock-in and as much information as possible. Along the way, they distinguish between situations where accounts are genuinely useful and those where they feel completely unnecessary. They also explore how the digital world has transformed ordinary interactions that once depended on human recognition and informal trust into bureaucratic login rituals. Nick introduces a “new account nuisance matrix” to sort the helpful from the pointless, while Peter outlines the technical case for more robust digital identity systems—without handing all power to Google, Apple or the state. The discussion ends with a look at possible solutions, including the idea of self-sovereign identity, where users retain control over their own credentials and data. In this episode: Why account creation feels so relentless now The trade-off between convenience and data harvesting Why companies want persistent digital identity The technical reasons accounts can be useful Why some logins feel justified and others feel absurd The differences between digital and analogue identity The nuisance of fragmented sign-ins and password fatigue Why centralised digital identity systems may be risky The case for self-sovereign identity Key ideas and concepts: Greed vs speed: businesses want your data, users want less friction Persistent identity: proving you’re the same person across visits or devices State: the saved information attached to you, such as baskets, preferences and purchase history Attribution and accountability: knowing who posted, purchased or interacted Account fatigue: the frustration caused by low-value services demanding high-effort sign-up Walled gardens: big tech identity systems that simplify things while increasing dependency Self-sovereign identity: a model where users control their own credentials and access Examples discussed: Electric vehicle charging apps Coffee shop loyalty schemes Amazon and frictionless checkout Independent bookshops and analogue ordering Guest checkout versus full account creation House buying and repeated identity verification Smart home devices that require accounts Local newspaper paywalls Recipe websites and corporate brochure downloads Google, Apple and Facebook sign-in systems Timestamps 00:00 Introduction: username and password fatigue 00:27 Nick’s frustration with electric car charging apps and endless account creation 02:40 Peter introduces the “greed versus speed” tension behind digital accounts 03:28 Data harvesting, free products and the business model behind sign-ups 04:17 Why convenience often pushes people towards platforms like Amazon 05:03 Chris questions whether personal data is really as valuable as companies claim 07:14 Nick explains the legitimate technical reasons accounts exist: identity, state and accountability 10:39 Why digital life makes account creation feel more frequent and intrusive 11:32 Chris compares digital sign-ups with older, more human forms of transaction 12:56 The independent bookshop as an analogue alternative 14:15 Identity and authentication in the physical world 15:32 Online purchasing as self-service bureaucracy 16:18 Peter points out that non-digital bureaucracy can be just as bad, especially when buying a house 17:14 The appeal of a reusable digital identity 18:03 Why fragmented identity systems are inefficient and frustrating 19:46 Nick presents the “new account nuisance matrix” 20:19 Good accounts versus pointless accounts 23:25 The worst part of the Internet: sign-up demands for low-value services 24:42 Electric car charging as a prime example of unnecessary account friction 25:21 Peter begins discussing solutions and warns against false promises from big tech 26:18 The dangers of relying on Google, Apple or governments to own digital identity 28:02 Why centralised identity systems create security risks 28:48 Self-sovereign identity as a possible solution 29:26 Outro Contact If there’s a topic you’d like the team to cover, email: podcast@alephinsights.com
- Transcript
#391
April 8 · 42 min
Turning It Off and On Again
In this episode, Fraser McGruer, Nick Hare, Peter Coghill and Chris Wragg explore one of the most enduring pieces of technical advice: have you tried turning it off and on again? What begins with a glitchy video call and a reluctant router reboot quickly develops into a wide-ranging discussion about systems, states and the surprisingly deep logic behind rebooting—not just in computers, but in societies, economies and even our own lives. The team unpack what actually happens when you power cycle a device, from memory leaks and zombie processes to cosmic rays flipping bits in memory. From there, they build a broader framework: what counts as a “state”, what a “good state” might be, and when a system can—or cannot—be reset. Peter introduces a theory of rebootability, with criteria including whether a system has an external reference point, whether it depends on consensus, and whether it can be restarted from outside itself. These ideas are applied to everything from national constitutions and financial systems to climate change and rainforest collapse. Along the way, the conversation touches on revolutions, failed societal resets, post-war reconstruction, and the limits of trying to “go back” to a supposedly better past. The episode closes with personal reflections on resets—from Covid lockdowns to life-changing career shifts and the everyday reboot of sleep. In this episode: Why turning something off and on again actually works What a “state” is (and why it matters) The concept of a “known good state” Peter’s theory of rebootability Systems that can’t be reset (climate, ecosystems, global economy) The role of consensus in rebooting social systems Why revolutions and resets often fail The appeal of starting over—from software to psychology Personal and societal examples of “reboots” Key ideas and concepts: State: The internal condition of a system that determines how it responds to inputs Known good state: A reliable baseline you can return to Rebootability: Whether a system can be reset to a functioning state Bootstrap problem: A system often needs something external to restart it Path dependency / hysteresis: How the past shapes what’s possible now Consensus vs reality: Some systems only work if people agree they work Tipping points: States from which recovery is difficult or impossible Examples discussed: Routers, computers and memory leaks Chess, board games and “soft locks” The climate and rainforest collapse Written constitutions as “system blueprints” Currency resets (e.g. post-war Germany) The French Revolution and failed systemic resets Post-war Germany and Japan vs Iraq and Afghanistan Religious and mythological “reboots” (e.g. the Flood narrative) Sleep as a daily biological reboot
- Transcript
#390
April 1 · 38 min
Culturally Significant Deaths
In this episode, we explore a deceptively simple question: what makes a death culturally significant? The conversation begins with an unsatisfying Reddit-style list of famous deaths by decade and quickly turns into a more analytical discussion. The team teases apart different kinds of significance: the death of an already important person, the death of someone whose future mattered as much as their past, and deaths that became historically or culturally transformative even when the individual was not especially well known. Along the way, they discuss deaths that mark the end of an era, deaths that act as catalysts for social or political change, and deaths that become mythologised through mourning, media and time. They also consider whether cultural significance can be measured at all, and toy with building a rough model comparing the significance of a person’s life with the significance of their death. Examples range from Princess Diana, JFK and Julius Caesar to George Floyd, Mohamed Bouazizi, Emmett Till and Jesus, with stops along the way for Harambe, Queen Victoria, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Alan Turing. The episode closes on a more personal note, as each speaker reflects on a death that feels significant to them personally, from Ray Charles to John Cazale and Alan Turing, before things take an irreverent turn in classic Cognitive Engineering fashion. In this episode: What counts as a culturally significant death The difference between a significant life and a significant death Deaths that changed history versus deaths that symbolised lost potential Whether cultural significance can be measured Why time, myth and collective mourning matter Personal reflections on deaths that still resonate People and examples mentioned: Queen Victoria, Vladimir Lenin, John Lennon, Princess Diana, Elvis Presley, John F. Kennedy, Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, the Big Bopper, Queen Elizabeth II, Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro, Michael Jackson, George Floyd, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Kurt Cobain, Amy Winehouse, Jimi Hendrix, Harambe, Mohamed Bouazizi, Kitty Genovese, Emmett Till, Neda Agha-Soltan, Rachel Corrie, Thích Quảng Đức, the Princes in the Tower, William of Norwich, Crispus Attucks, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King Jr, Jeffrey Epstein, Ray Charles, John Cazale, John Candy and Alan Turing.
- Transcript
#389
March 18 · 33 min
Inventions
Where did all the eccentric inventors go? The men (and women) in sheds, the gadgets with flashing lights, the sense that the future was arriving one bizarre prototype at a time. In this episode of the Cognitive Engineering Podcast, the panel ask whether invention has become boring — or whether our idea of invention is simply out of date. Starting with Tomorrow’s World, the Innovations catalogue and the golden age of gadgetry, the conversation moves into patents, capital intensity, incremental progress and the shift from lone inventors to teams, firms and platforms. Along the way, the hosts explore whether innovation has moved from atoms to bits, whether low-hanging fruit has already been picked, and why we might be surrounded by astonishing technology while feeling less excited than ever. The episode closes with personal “inventions”, disappointing gadgets, and a reminder that creativity may be more democratised now than at any point in history — even if it no longer looks like a bearded professor wheeling something dangerous into a TV studio. Topics covered Tomorrow’s World, gadgets and the romance of invention The myth of the lone inventor Atoms vs bits: physical invention and software What patent data actually shows about innovation Capital intensity and “low-hanging fruit” Incremental vs breakthrough innovation Why batteries and concrete are more exciting than they sound Democratisation of invention: GitHub, maker spaces and 3D printing Falling costs and the invisibility of progress Why technology might feel boring despite being extraordinary Key ideas & moments The heyday of individual inventors may have been the 19th century, not the 1980s Most inventions today are still physical — just less visible Incremental progress can be transformative without being dramatic Cheap, abundant technology dulls our sense of wonder Why invention may be everywhere, but invention stories are disappearing Fraser’s dual-glasses “optical breakthrough” (and its controversial reception) Contributors Fraser McGruer Nick Hare Peter Coghill About the podcast The Cognitive Engineering Podcast explores decision-making, technology, creativity and complex systems through thoughtful, wide-ranging conversations. New episodes are released every week or two. Links For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com A few things we mentioned in this podcast: - The Innovations Catalogue http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2957409.stm - Decline of the Independent Inventor https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w11654/w11654.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com - The ‘bungling inventor’ trope https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BunglingInventor
- Transcript
#388
March 4 · 40 min
Destroying the World
A few things we mentioned in this podcast: - Mirror life https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/17/science/mirror-cell-life-dangers For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com
- Transcript

Showing 1–20 of 21 episodes