0:00

This message comes from NPR sponsor

0:02

Spectrum Business. Made to work just

0:04

like your small business. Fast, reliable

0:07

internet, phone, and mobile services. Made

0:09

to keep up with demand. And

0:12

made to deliver on a small

0:14

business budget. Discover more at spectrum.com/work.

0:17

This is

0:19

the TED Radio Hour. Each

0:22

week, groundbreaking TED Talks. Our

0:24

job now is to dream big. Delivered at TED

0:27

conferences. To bring about the future

0:29

we want to see. Around the

0:31

world. To understand who we are.

0:33

From those talks, we bring you

0:35

speakers and ideas that will surprise

0:37

you. You just don't know what you're going

0:39

to find. Challenge you. We truly have to ask

0:41

ourselves, like, why is it noteworthy? And even

0:43

change you. I literally feel like I'm

0:45

a different person. Yes. Do

0:47

you feel that way? Ideas worth

0:49

spreading. From TED

0:52

and NPR. I'm

0:56

Manoush Zomorodi. On the

0:58

show today, doppelgangers. You

1:02

know that moment when you catch a reflection

1:04

of yourself before your mind is

1:06

ready to believe that it is you? This

1:09

is Naomi Klein. She's

1:11

a best-selling author, a big thinker

1:13

type who's written about climate change,

1:15

corporate power, and feminism for over

1:18

20 years. She

1:20

has made a name for herself. Or

1:23

so she thought. We all

1:25

want to believe that we have some

1:27

control over how the world sees us.

1:30

We polish ourselves and try

1:32

to perfect ourselves and perform ourselves.

1:35

And when you're

1:37

being confused with somebody else on

1:39

an industrial scale, you

1:42

realize that you just can't control it

1:44

at all. For

1:47

Naomi, the mix-up started about 13

1:49

years ago, during the Occupy Wall

1:52

Street protests. And

1:54

I was there because I was writing my

1:56

book, This Changes Everything. And

1:59

during what of those protests, I

2:01

went to a public restroom and I

2:03

was in a stall and

2:05

I overheard two women talking about

2:07

me in very

2:09

unkind terms. Basically

2:12

they were trashing me and saying, you know, did

2:15

you read that article Naomi Klein wrote?

2:17

Oh my god, like she completely does

2:19

not understand our movement. And I was

2:21

just sort of mortified and it brought

2:23

back every mean girl experience in high school.

2:25

I had a lot of mean girls at my high school. And

2:29

then gradually it dawned on me that

2:31

they were not actually talking about me. They

2:33

were talking about another Naomi nonfiction writer. So

2:36

I came out and said to those

2:38

two women, I think

2:41

you're talking about Naomi Wolf. You have

2:43

your Naomi's confused. So

2:46

mistaking Naomi Klein for

2:48

Naomi Wolf, it's

2:50

not entirely surprising. Both are best

2:53

selling authors. Both have written sharp

2:55

critiques of patriarchy, capitalism, global

2:57

corporations. Naomi Klein

3:00

even remembers idolizing Naomi Wolf

3:02

in college when Wolf's debut

3:04

book, The Beauty Myth came out. She was

3:06

28 years old when The Beauty Myth came

3:08

out and she like wore leather jackets and

3:11

had amazing hair and looks like Valerie Bertinelli.

3:13

And I just thought you can

3:15

make a career out of sort of trashing patriarchy.

3:17

And I was inspired by

3:19

her to be honest. Yeah. And she was named Naomi.

3:21

So I was like, could I do that? So

3:25

yeah, in the early 2010s,

3:27

the Naomi's got mixed up a

3:29

lot, especially on Twitter. And

3:32

mostly it was kind of funny, maybe

3:34

a little annoying. But

3:36

then things took a turn

3:38

for the weird. I think it had been

3:40

happening gradually since 2014

3:42

in particular, where she

3:44

started to have different

3:47

conspiracy theories about Edward

3:49

Snowden, about Dominique Strauss-Kahn,

3:51

about chemtrails and clouds.

3:53

The confusion was still

3:55

relatively harmless. That

3:57

is until the pandemic struck. accelerated

4:01

a lot during the pandemic

4:03

because my doppelganger, Naomi

4:05

Wolf, is one of those people

4:07

who really fell down what

4:10

I see as a disinformation and

4:12

misinformation rabbit hole about the pandemic,

4:15

casting it as a bio

4:18

weapon that was cooked up in a lab

4:20

in order to destroy the West. Then

4:23

she said much the same about

4:25

the vaccines and the vaccine verification apps

4:27

and became a star on

4:30

the far right. Dr. Naomi Wolf.

4:32

And then suddenly on Steve Bannon's

4:34

show every day. A

4:36

police state situation and that's not

4:38

a partisan thing. And so people

4:41

would scream at me about this and get

4:43

very angry at me. What

4:46

happened to you or else they would praise me about

4:48

telling me how much they loved my appearances on

4:50

Sucker Carlson. That has

4:53

become the best idea since

4:55

World War II for enslaving

4:57

the world, the Western world.

5:00

What were some of the ideas that

5:02

were being attributed to you? Do you

5:04

remember offhand? That

5:07

I thought masks were making

5:10

children lose the ability to

5:12

smile. That

5:15

I thought that having

5:18

to get vaccinated

5:20

was a coup d'etat

5:24

that people who've been vaccinated no

5:28

longer smell like humans.

5:31

Someone was extremely upset with me

5:34

because I had supposedly claimed that

5:37

the vaccine verification apps were

5:39

like Jews being forced

5:41

to wear yellow stars under

5:43

the Nazis. So

5:45

I just wrote, are

5:48

you sure about that or keep your Naomi straight?

5:52

I mean to be blamed for that must have been really

5:55

upsetting, not just creepy. The

5:58

whole thing was a very strange experience. I

6:01

think I felt. But.

6:04

One of the most am like recurring.

6:07

Doppelganger feelings which is just

6:09

helplessness because. You

6:11

realize that you just can't control it

6:14

all then, and that there's somebody out

6:16

there who's doing all of these things

6:18

that people think. Is

6:20

you and there's not his thing you

6:22

can do about it. Anything you could

6:25

do to try set the record straight

6:27

would just make it worse, will just

6:29

will just increase the association in people's

6:31

minds. and I no longer felt that

6:34

I could participate in the public version

6:36

of me. And and I

6:38

just. Watched watched the idea of

6:41

me merged with the idea

6:43

of her in the Easter.

6:45

And it all just slip away. The

6:49

word doppelganger is German literally

6:51

translating to double walker as

6:53

in your ghost or shadow.

6:56

We. Often use the term to describe to

6:59

people who look similar. In In

7:01

and anyway. But in our

7:03

high tech world. He can mean so

7:05

much. And so on.

7:08

The show today. Ideas about

7:10

doppelgangers from the mirror world

7:12

that are online virtual selves

7:14

live in to digital twins.

7:16

Been built. Predict and treat

7:18

things like cancer and the

7:20

mystery. Of why in the moon

7:22

and earth. Are in fact

7:24

twins is. So.

7:27

Back to Naomi Klein's she

7:30

ended up writing a book

7:32

about her experience called Doppelganger.

7:34

It's a cultural critique of

7:36

the online world that modifies

7:38

our identities too. Dangerous.

7:42

It just struck me that having

7:44

this confusion out there and out

7:46

there on the internet of of

7:48

people confusing me for somebody else

7:50

who was not me was a

7:52

way of talking about something that

7:54

was much less specific to my

7:56

Naomi. Problem and was more universal to the way

7:59

we're all kind of. Infused about whether

8:01

we have control over ourselves. That all

8:03

in the digital age, right? Thing.

8:08

And one of the things that I

8:10

did it's part of this research trip

8:12

is I watched a lot of films

8:14

about doppelgangers and read a lot of

8:16

novels about doppelgangers and I was really

8:18

struck that you know for for for

8:21

filmmaker everyone from Charlie Chaplin with the

8:23

Great Dictator to Jordan Peele films like

8:25

us never really work with the figure

8:27

of the doppelganger. they are often used.

8:30

As a way to capture

8:32

the menace. Of a

8:34

society that is slipping into a

8:37

doppelganger of itself. And

8:40

specifically the kind of fascists double

8:42

that exists on the night that

8:44

always lurks on the edges of

8:46

a liberal open society. We know

8:48

that it can slip, we know

8:51

that it has flipped and and

8:53

I feel that seer right and

8:55

so on. And the fact that

8:57

my doppelganger. Has turned

9:00

into a doppelganger of her former

9:02

self rights and had changed so

9:04

dramatically had gone from being this

9:07

prominent feminist. The I who had

9:09

advised Al Gore when he ran

9:11

for President in A had really

9:13

been a big deal on the

9:16

Center left. Could. Now be

9:18

palling around with. With band and

9:20

and and Pearl Sand and. Me:

9:23

A really consorting with some nefarious

9:25

characters. Like. People are constantly

9:27

reading these articles. Whatever happened? To her? What?

9:29

Like As if as if she was. Visited by

9:32

a became a cast Stepford Wife rates.

9:35

It. Just struck me as an interesting way

9:37

to explore that. Sense of. Of

9:40

menace sense us played really as

9:42

possible. For for us to turn into.

9:45

Into it collective doppelganger of who we

9:47

think we are. There

9:51

is a passage in your book where

9:54

you start. To grasp

9:56

the reach that Naomi Wolf

9:58

was having online. Would

10:00

you know? Meaning That. Sure,

10:05

I. Admit that when Wolf first

10:08

started talking about vaccine passports

10:10

as mass surveillance networks, I

10:12

really didn't understand the effect

10:14

it was having. I.

10:16

Was focused on the many wrong

10:18

fact she was sharing as well

10:20

as the true fact that her

10:22

newfound celebrity on Fox was blowing.

10:24

Up my own social media. What?

10:27

Many of us who were cringe following

10:29

wolf at the time. This was the

10:31

extent to which her new messaging had.

10:33

Struck a chord not only.

10:36

Was foxes audience, but also with

10:38

a sizable cohort of people who

10:40

identify as less this or progressive

10:43

and were terrified of the black

10:45

mirror surveillance world she was describing.

10:49

Tell us more about what you're writing

10:51

there and and how it. What

10:54

you started to understand was

10:56

the reason why people who

10:59

you would have agreed with

11:01

our would have been sans

11:03

have started to share conspiracy

11:05

theories that celt outlandish. Yeah.

11:09

In the book I'm

11:11

ice say that conspiracy

11:13

culture. Often gets the

11:16

facts wrong but the ceilings

11:18

right arm and. This

11:20

really struck me wet wouldn't when Wolf

11:22

took her star turn on the right.

11:25

It was when she started to claim

11:27

that the vaccine verification apps that we

11:29

all downloaded onto our phones and for

11:31

a time or scans to get into

11:33

restaurants and concerts and things like that.

11:36

I'm. That. These the were

11:38

actually part of some kind of

11:40

nefarious plot that involve the Chinese

11:42

Communist Party and Zappos and Bill

11:45

Gates to bring what she called

11:47

a Ccp Chinese Communist Party social

11:49

Credit system to the West and

11:52

that if we did this, it

11:54

would be. At. A

11:56

at a sashes. To

11:58

and. Or. Government would

12:00

be able to listen to our phone

12:02

at not a phone conversations by are

12:05

real life conversations. In restaurants, we'd

12:07

be under surveillance all the time.

12:10

And she became. A star

12:12

on the right for this and a

12:14

laughingstock. I appear on the Liberal. Left for

12:16

this and would that this or snarky come

12:18

back about all of it was wait till

12:21

they hear about cell phones. A lot of

12:23

the conspiracies, the code that. Era. Where about

12:25

surveillance were at work? Where about the idea

12:27

that this was the way to get us

12:29

all tracked? They

12:32

were to happen into this all

12:35

pervasive see around a huge loss

12:37

of privacy that we've all experienced

12:39

because it's gotten addicted to our

12:41

cell phones in this way and

12:43

we don't know what happens with

12:45

our data. We don't really understand

12:47

what happens with the data that's

12:49

collected on Google maps and I'm

12:52

and that is creating an opportunity

12:54

for conspiracy to spread out of

12:56

that. really into those the Bin

12:58

Laden fears. When

13:01

we come back. Naomi Klein on

13:03

how conspiracy theorist profit by tapping

13:06

into those years on the Show

13:08

Today Doppelgangers I Ministers and Morality

13:10

and you're listening to the Ted

13:13

Radio. Our from Npr

13:15

Steve. This

13:31

message comes from apple cart. It gives you

13:33

unlimited daily. Cashback that can automatically

13:35

grow over time. When you open a

13:37

savings account. A high yield, low effort

13:39

way to grow your money with no fees.

13:42

Apply for Apple Card in the

13:44

wallet app on I phone Apple

13:46

cards subject credit approval. Savings available

13:48

to Apple part owner is subject

13:50

to eligibility. Applecart in savings by

13:52

Goldman Sachs Bank Usa Salt Lake

13:54

City branch number as the I

13:56

see term Supply. this message comes

13:58

from npr sponsors spare Spectrum Business.

14:01

Made to work just like your

14:03

small business. Fast, reliable internet, phone

14:05

and mobile services. Made to keep

14:08

up with demand and made to

14:10

deliver on a small business budget.

14:12

Discover more at spectrum.com/work. This

14:15

message comes from NPR sponsor

14:18

Atlassian. Atlassian software like Jira,

14:20

Confluence and Trello help power global collaboration

14:22

for all teams so they can accomplish

14:24

everything that's impossible alone. That's why millions

14:27

of teams around the world, including 75%

14:29

of the Fortune 500, trust

14:33

Atlassian software. Learn how to

14:35

unleash the potential of your

14:37

team at atlassian.com. Atlassian. This

14:40

message comes from NPR sponsor

14:42

REI Co-op. REI has gear,

14:45

clothing, classes and advice for

14:47

camping and glamping, biking and

14:50

hiking, axing and snaxing, backpacking

14:53

and another outdoor thing that rhymes

14:55

with backpacking. Visit your local

14:57

REI Co-op or rei.com for the

14:59

million and one ways you can

15:02

opt outside. This message

15:04

comes from NPR sponsor, Teladoc

15:06

Health. There are lots of

15:09

reasons for wanting to

15:11

be healthy. Family, work, living

15:13

a fuller life. Teladoc Health

15:16

understands. Whether you have diabetes,

15:18

high blood pressure, or

15:20

just need to manage your

15:23

weight, Teladoc Health can help.

15:25

Visit teladochealth.com/whatsyourwhy for more

15:27

information. That's T-E-L-A-D-O-C health slash

15:30

whatsyourwhy. Hey,

15:33

listener, before we get back to the show, I

15:35

just want to let you know our next bonus

15:37

episode for TED Radio Hour Plus is coming out

15:40

soon. It's my conversation

15:42

with Lilly Singh. She's an actor,

15:44

comedian and former late night TV

15:46

host. We talk

15:48

about all kinds of things like what it

15:50

was like being the first bisexual woman of

15:53

color to host a late night show. Yeah,

15:55

she has a lot to say about

15:57

all the boxes that she's been put in. And

16:00

what it was like when she finally did

16:02

get to host late night. Wow. Anyway,

16:06

that is coming Wednesday. If

16:08

you're not a TED Radio

16:10

Hour Plus supporter yet, please

16:13

join your fellow listeners to get

16:15

all kinds of bonus content and

16:17

all our episodes sponsor free.

16:20

Just go to plus.npr.org/TED or

16:22

give it a try right

16:24

in the Apple Podcasts app.

16:27

And thanks. It's

16:30

the TED Radio Hour from NPR. I'm

16:33

Manoush Zomorodi. On the

16:35

show today, doppelgangers. We

16:37

were just talking to writer Naomi Klein,

16:40

who has spent much of the

16:42

last decade being confused with the

16:44

writer Naomi Wolf. I

16:46

think I felt one of

16:49

the most recurring doppelganger feelings, which

16:51

is just helplessness. This mix-up started

16:53

causing a lot of trouble for

16:56

Klein, especially when Wolf began

16:58

touting dangerous conspiracy theories. The World

17:00

Economic Forum, the World Health Organization

17:02

have united to create

17:05

a new world order in which we're dead

17:07

or disabled or sterilized. Why

17:10

would ideas like these attract

17:12

people like Wolf, who

17:14

had never leaned extreme right before?

17:17

I say that conspiracy

17:19

culture often gets the

17:22

facts wrong, but the feelings right.

17:24

Klein says liberals and her fellow

17:27

progressives failed to acknowledge

17:29

all the pandemic fears from

17:31

masking, vaccine mandates, surveillance to

17:34

rising inequality and corporate

17:36

profiteering. This

17:38

provided an opening. And

17:40

I think the failure to do that really

17:43

rolled out the red carpet for

17:45

the right to what

17:48

I call a mix and match. Well,

17:50

they take a few of traditional kind

17:52

of left wing issues. There

17:55

are days when Steve Bannon sounds like Bernie. There

17:57

are days where he sounds like me. And

18:00

then he mixes it with anti-immigrant

18:03

xenophobia with anti-black racism with this

18:05

whole very Nefarious right-wing agenda and

18:08

an authoritarian agenda, you know, so

18:10

I started listening to Bannon but

18:12

then found myself just Interested

18:15

in how he was creating what I

18:17

called a mirror world of everything in

18:20

the world that I recognize Mirror

18:22

publishing companies mirror social media

18:24

companies mirror arguments mirror

18:27

currency but I was also struck

18:29

by how he would perform a certain kind

18:31

of Inclusivity and kindness

18:33

which I think would surprise people

18:35

who? Only

18:38

see clips of Bannon online where he's

18:40

sort of roaring Ferociously about

18:42

how he's gonna you know put the heads

18:44

of his opponents on spikes, which is you

18:47

know part of Steve Bannon for sure But if you listen

18:49

to him at in greater Depth

18:53

you see this other side which

18:55

where he is part of

18:57

the opportunism part of the way he

18:59

defines himself against The

19:02

liberals and the leftists is by by talking

19:04

about how mean we are to one another

19:08

And how in his world,

19:10

you know, if you come over you're gonna

19:12

be you're gonna be treated with kindness You're gonna

19:14

there's and that's why he was so

19:16

I think attracted to wolf is

19:19

that it allows him to perform this

19:22

willingness to Be

19:24

in conversation with somebody who you would think he

19:26

would be on the other side

19:30

So it sounds like you think the

19:32

liberals democrats middle whatever you want to

19:34

call them missed a trick here Oh,

19:37

yeah But I do think that

19:39

it is within the power of

19:41

the left and the center left

19:43

To not hand over all of these

19:46

other issues that are traditionally our issues

19:49

Standing up to corporations and standing

19:51

up against profiteering so that he doesn't have

19:53

such a powerful cocktail to mix Give

19:58

any idea what Do your doubleganger

20:00

thinks of you? Does Naomi Wolf, had

20:02

she made any passing comment or mention

20:04

of what she thinks of the book?

20:07

Are you? It's

20:09

definitely more than a passing comment. She's,

20:12

she's, she's posted quite a

20:14

bit about it. She even has a conspiracy about

20:16

it, which

20:18

I'm not going to go into. But

20:22

she has said that she hasn't read it. So

20:25

I do wish that she would, because I think

20:28

that if she did, she would find that it

20:30

isn't what she thinks it is, that it, that

20:32

it is kinder than she thinks it is, and

20:34

less about her than she thinks it is. So

20:38

the irony of you writing this book in

20:40

some ways is, well, you started out by

20:42

having a little bit of a brand problem,

20:44

right? That people were confusing you with another

20:47

Naomi. But this book, I mean,

20:49

I googled both of you, and it's

20:51

the book that comes up now in

20:54

some ways you have drowned

20:56

out mentions of the other Naomi,

20:58

or at least in my Google.

21:02

Is it possible to ever really

21:04

confront your doppelganger? I mean,

21:07

was that your intention? Confronting

21:11

your doppelganger in literature and art always

21:13

ends badly. Edgar Allen

21:15

Poe, Dostoevsky, Dorian Gray.

21:21

Oh my God, if you try to stab your

21:23

doppelganger, you will end up bloody on the ground.

21:27

I think the only way out of

21:29

a doppelganger tangle, from what I can

21:32

tell, is really to earnestly believe

21:34

that a mirror is being held up to

21:36

you, that you have

21:38

to look at with some

21:40

honesty and willingness to see

21:43

a side of yourself that you might not like to

21:45

see. I often say that sometimes

21:47

when people describe doppelgangers, they say that it's

21:50

like looking into a living mirror. But

21:54

in my experience, it's much worse

21:56

than that. Because

21:59

you haven't been able to prepare. your mind yet

22:01

to believe that it's you. You don't have

22:03

your mirror face on. You don't, you know,

22:05

and you have to be willing to accept

22:07

that that might actually be you. There's

22:10

a reason that you're getting confused. That it might

22:12

be trying to show you something. It might

22:14

be a challenge to change

22:16

if you don't like what you see, right? And

22:20

I'm trying. I'm trying to learn from it.

22:23

I guess I'm wondering, do you have advice for people

22:25

who are listening about how to

22:28

think of their doppelgangers or their different

22:30

identities in the world? Should they beware?

22:32

Should they be kind to them? My

22:36

only advice is to cling a little

22:38

less tightly to the self you think

22:40

you are. Yeah, and you know, at

22:44

the end of

22:46

the book I quote Iris Murdoch,

22:48

the British novelist and philosopher, who

22:51

talks about unselfing

22:53

as almost a

22:55

transcendent state where when

22:58

we behold beauty, whether in

23:00

the natural world or in a piece

23:02

of art, when we

23:04

allow ourselves to be

23:07

transported by it, what we're doing is

23:09

we are forgetting about ourselves.

23:14

And I think it's true that we can

23:16

really only behold the beauty

23:19

and tragedy of the world

23:21

when we are able to

23:23

unself and not think, what does this mean

23:26

to me? What can I post about it

23:28

so that people think I'm the right kind

23:30

of self? But when we

23:32

actually just get out of the way and

23:35

unself and show up, yeah,

23:38

that's what my doppelganger journey taught

23:40

me in it and I have to relearn

23:42

it about six times a day. That's

23:46

Naomi Klein. Her latest book is

23:48

Doppelganger, a trip into the mirror

23:50

world. You can watch her talks

23:52

at ted.com. And

23:55

by the way, we reached out to Naomi Wolf

23:57

for her comments and did not hear

23:59

back. On

24:02

the show today, doppelgangers. Okay guys,

24:04

going to the moon. Good evening,

24:07

America, and welcome aboard Apollo

24:09

13. On April 11,

24:13

1970, the historic US spaceflight Apollo

24:15

13 launched. Okay, Houston,

24:17

we have Lamb extraction. Maybe you saw the 1995 movie

24:19

about it. We

24:22

copied that 13. With Tom Hanks, Bill

24:24

Paxton, and Kevin Bacon. Houston, we have a

24:26

problem. And remember

24:28

that scene? The pivotal scene when

24:30

the oxygen tank explodes on board.

24:35

It's got to be the oxygen. Stranding the astronauts

24:37

in space. Sending

24:40

the mission into turmoil. It

24:45

was a disaster. The

24:48

world watched as the astronauts drifted

24:50

further and further away from Earth.

24:53

How to get the spacecraft back

24:55

on track and come home. Well,

24:59

NASA had numerous simulators on the

25:02

ground that were being fed data

25:04

from the real spacecraft 200,000 miles

25:06

away. So

25:09

let's get to work. Let's lay it out.

25:11

These simulators could replicate what was happening on

25:13

board. Give me the exact same conditions we've

25:15

got in there now. And strategize how

25:18

to get the astronauts back

25:20

safely. It

25:22

helped NASA predict and

25:25

then execute the return mission that brought

25:27

the astronauts home. Today

25:38

we have a word for a

25:40

souped-up version of NASA's simulators, digital

25:43

twins. These are

25:45

computer simulations that are constantly

25:48

being updated with real-time data.

25:50

And the technology is getting

25:52

much more advanced. Instead

25:55

of the astronauts sending data back to mission

25:57

control, aircrafts and their simulators are now in

25:59

the air. simulators, for example, can

26:01

send data back and forth, mirroring

26:03

and guiding each other. What

26:06

really makes a digital twin special

26:08

is that that virtual representation is

26:10

connected to

26:12

the physical world and there's

26:15

a bidirectional flow between the virtual

26:17

and the physical. This

26:19

is aerospace engineer Karen Wilcox.

26:22

And then that digital twin is now becoming

26:24

a personalized dynamic

26:26

virtual representation, which

26:28

in turn can be used to drive new decisions.

26:32

You could have a digital version of your

26:34

home and track how your energy costs would

26:36

rise or fall if you went solar. Power

26:39

companies are building digital twins of their

26:41

new designs to see how they'll respond

26:44

under different conditions. Karen

26:46

says the applications for digital twins

26:48

are endless. But remember,

26:51

she's an aerospace engineer. And so she's

26:53

pretty excited about how they're being used

26:55

in her field. I want you to

26:57

think about the digital twin of my

27:00

aircraft. Here's Karen Wilcox on the TED

27:02

stage. So as I create that

27:04

digital twin, I'm going to be collecting

27:07

data from the sensors onboard the

27:09

aircraft. I'm going to be collecting data

27:12

from inspections I might make of the

27:14

aircraft. And I'm going to be

27:16

assimilating that data into the models. And

27:19

what's really important is that I'm

27:21

not building a generic model of

27:23

just any old telemaster aircraft. I

27:26

am building a personalized model of the very

27:28

aircraft that is right now sitting in my

27:30

garage down the road in South Austin. And

27:33

so that digital twin will capture

27:36

the differences, the variability from my

27:38

aircraft to say my neighbor's aircraft.

27:41

And what's more, that digital twin will not be

27:43

static. It's going to

27:45

change as my aircraft ages

27:47

and degrades and gets

27:50

damaged and gets repaired. We will be

27:52

assimilating data all the time and the

27:54

digital twin will follow the aircraft through

27:56

its life. You

27:59

can imagine. in some future world that

28:01

an operator, an airline, has a digital

28:03

twin for every single one of the

28:05

aircraft in their fleet. That

28:08

digital twin is being updated every day

28:10

or maybe even every hour with data

28:12

collected from its physical twin so

28:15

that it is an up-to-date representation of everything

28:17

that's going on with that aircraft. It's

28:20

now able to identify when a

28:22

problem may be about to occur

28:24

before you get all those passengers

28:26

on the plane. You

28:28

could imagine the value in that, that first of all

28:31

that keeps us safer. Second

28:33

of all, it leads to more efficient practices

28:35

which saves money, it keeps the engines

28:37

running more efficiently, which has reduced environmental

28:40

impact. So just a lot that can

28:42

be done by having your

28:44

fingers on personalized, dynamic,

28:47

just-in-time information. And

28:49

predictive, right? You could say, well, this

28:51

time around the aircraft is going to

28:53

be fine, but after six more flights to

28:55

Minneapolis, we need to definitely

28:57

check this particular part because the

29:00

model has looked into

29:02

the future and shown that this is a

29:04

potential issue. That is exactly

29:06

right. And the models are really, when combined

29:08

with the data, what led us to predict

29:10

into the future and to

29:13

make predictions about conditions that

29:15

we haven't seen yet. And then that's

29:17

really what drives decision-making. Let's

29:21

talk about another more personal

29:23

way that digital twins are

29:26

going to be in our lives and

29:29

that comes to healthcare. And

29:31

my understanding is you have partnered with

29:33

a group of oncologists to research how

29:36

digital twins can be used in cancer

29:38

treatment? That's right. So

29:41

here at UT Austin, we

29:44

started talking with the Center

29:46

for Computational Oncology and the

29:48

Oden Institute, who are really

29:50

interested in the idea of digital twins as

29:53

a way to move towards personalized

29:55

cancer care. And

29:57

as my group of aerospace engineers started

29:59

talking... with the group of oncology

30:02

experts, begin to really

30:04

realize that even though the

30:07

physics of biology, of course, is very different, there's

30:10

so many common challenges. So

30:14

Karen says, picture a patient with a

30:16

brain cancer diagnosis. The

30:19

first step, taking lots of images of

30:21

their brain. Where is the tumor? How

30:23

big is it? How dense is it?

30:26

Using all that data, scientists can build

30:28

a virtual version of the tumor. We

30:30

have very powerful models, mathematical

30:32

models, that can represent a

30:34

tumor and make predictions

30:37

about how that tumor's

30:39

gonna grow. Is it gonna end up

30:41

pushing on different parts of the

30:43

anatomy? But here's the crucial goal. Using

30:46

the tumor's digital twin to predict

30:48

which treatment it will respond to

30:51

best, based on so

30:53

many factors, like the patient's

30:55

anatomy. Her physiology on what's

30:57

going on with her body.

30:59

We think we would be better to front load

31:02

some of her radiotherapy and then give her a

31:04

break in the middle and then go back to

31:06

high doses. The future vision

31:08

is really having the digital twin

31:10

work hand in hand with the

31:12

human clinician to try to

31:14

achieve the best outcomes for that individual patient.

31:18

I mean, that sounds amazing. So you

31:20

could create a digital twin based

31:23

on what your cardiovascular strength

31:25

is and your blood

31:27

type. And then could you add variations to see how

31:29

things would go? So for example, if you got

31:32

chemotherapy and you quit smoking

31:34

and brought your blood pressure down,

31:36

we think we could predict that

31:39

your outcome would be X.

31:42

If you didn't do those things, here's what

31:44

that could look like, that kind of thing?

31:46

That's absolutely the vision. We're still

31:49

a long way from being able to

31:51

get to that point. You can

31:53

imagine that as human beings, our biological

31:56

systems are so incredibly complex. still

32:00

don't yet have the computational power

32:02

to be able to model a

32:04

full human where we could really start to

32:07

connect all those different things you mentioned. But

32:09

what you described, absolutely, this is the vision. So

32:13

that's the health of the human. But

32:16

explain how the same sort of modeling

32:19

applies to improving the health

32:21

of our planet. Yeah, absolutely.

32:25

A future vision is could we one day

32:27

have a digital twin of planet Earth? Being

32:30

able to have a digital twin at the scale of

32:32

full planet Earth goes well beyond

32:34

what we can do today with

32:37

our models and our algorithms

32:39

and our data. But I think

32:41

this is a fantastic vision because

32:44

it also starts to think about

32:46

integrating all those disparate

32:48

pieces of our planet Earth that we know

32:50

are connected so that we really

32:52

start to make decision making in

32:54

a holistic way as a planet

32:56

rather than as individuals or individual

32:58

nations. I mean, that word

33:01

holistic, that really seems

33:03

to capture the promise of digital

33:05

twins when it comes to solving

33:07

all these big problems like mortal

33:10

illnesses and, gosh, climate change.

33:12

That's exactly right. So

33:15

this sounds like a huge challenge,

33:17

and indeed it is. But

33:19

the good news is that we have a lot

33:21

of hope for addressing this challenge. And

33:24

a big part of this hope

33:26

rests on this notion of predictive

33:28

physics-based models that let us make

33:31

predictions, predict how an Antarctic ice

33:33

sheet might flow under different

33:35

future temperature scenarios to

33:37

help guide decisions about where to

33:40

drill ice cores, where to take

33:42

observations, and ultimately to inform the

33:44

decision making around our future climate.

33:47

I hope you're excited, like I am, about the idea

33:50

of a digital twin. And maybe as you go home,

33:52

you can look around and think, oh, what if we

33:54

had a digital twin of that? I

33:56

personally could not be more excited

33:59

about it. future world where

34:01

digital twins are enabling safer,

34:03

more efficient engineering systems. They're

34:06

enabling a better understanding of the natural world

34:08

around us and they're enabling better

34:11

medical outcomes for all of us as

34:13

an individual. Thank you.

34:18

My digital twin would have told me at 47 to

34:21

enjoy red wine because within the next couple of

34:23

years, my body would not be able to

34:25

metabolize it as well. The prediction would have

34:27

been there and you could have taken that trip to Tuscany before

34:29

it was too late, right? Right, exactly.

34:33

That was aerospace engineer Karen

34:36

Wilcox. You can see her

34:38

full talk at ted.com. On

34:41

the show today, doppelgangers. I'm

34:43

Manoush Zomorodi and you're listening to the

34:45

TED Radio Hour from NPR. We'll

34:48

be right back. This

35:03

message comes from NPR sponsor Capella

35:05

University. With Capella's FlexPath learning

35:07

format, you can earn your degree online

35:09

at your own pace and get support

35:11

from people who care about your success.

35:14

Imagine your future differently at

35:16

capella.edu. This

35:19

message comes from NPR sponsor BetterHelp.

35:21

No relationship is easy all the

35:23

time. In fact, the best friendships,

35:25

partnerships, and family connections come from

35:28

putting in the time and effort

35:30

to make them great. Give your

35:32

relationships some love with BetterHelp's convenient,

35:34

affordable online therapy. Visit betterhelp.com/NPR today

35:36

to get 10% off your

35:38

first month. That's

35:41

betterhelp.com/NPR. This

35:45

message comes from NPR sponsor Viking.

35:47

Committed to exploring the world in

35:49

comfort. Journey through the heart of

35:51

Europe on an elegant Viking longship

35:53

with thoughtful service, destination-focused

35:55

dining, and cultural enrichment. On

35:58

board and on board. shore.

36:01

And every Viking voyage is all

36:03

inclusive, with no children and

36:05

no casinos. Discover more

36:07

at viking.com. NPR

36:09

Plus is a new way to support

36:11

public media and get more from your

36:13

favorite NPR podcasts like Fresh Air. Sometimes I'll

36:15

actually preface the question with, if it

36:17

makes you too uncomfortable to talk about,

36:19

if it's too personal, just tell me.

36:22

Here's the question. For behind-the-scenes content,

36:24

bonus episodes, and more, sign up

36:27

at plus.npr.org. It's

36:31

the TED Radio Hour from NPR.

36:34

I'm Manoush Zomorodi. On

36:36

the show today, ideas about

36:38

doppelgangers, twins. So,

36:42

on a clear night, you might look

36:44

up at the sky and wonder, what

36:47

is our connection to our closest

36:49

neighbor up there, the moon?

36:52

The Earth and the moon have

36:55

a special relationship, and

36:57

it's different than anything else we see

36:59

in the solar system. We

37:02

think of it like the Earth and the moon

37:04

are identical twins. This

37:07

is planetary scientist Sarah Stewart.

37:10

And what she means by identical twins

37:12

is that the Earth and the moon

37:14

are made of rocks that have the

37:16

same isotopes, basically the

37:18

same geological DNA. The

37:21

Earth and the moon have

37:23

nearly identical ratios

37:25

of isotopes, and

37:28

so they definitely had different lives

37:30

after they were formed, but

37:32

they must have been made from the

37:34

same original materials, the

37:37

original rocks floating around

37:39

the sun. And

37:42

this is really unusual. No

37:45

other pair of bodies in the solar system has

37:48

this same relationship. And

37:50

that's been a big puzzle to

37:52

explain. So

37:55

the prevailing theory about how the moon

37:57

and Earth formed has been around

38:00

for years, but it

38:02

never quite explained how the two could

38:04

be made of the same materials. And

38:07

this really bugged Sarah. The

38:09

leading idea for the origin

38:11

of the Earth and Moon is called the

38:13

Giant Impact Theory. Sarah

38:15

Stewart continues from the TED stage. The

38:19

theory states that a Mars-sized body struck

38:21

the young Earth, and the Moon formed

38:23

from the debris disk around the planet.

38:27

The theory can explain so many things about

38:29

the Moon, but it has a

38:31

huge flaw. It

38:34

predicts that the Moon is mostly made

38:36

from the Mars-sized planet, that the Earth

38:38

and the Moon are made from

38:40

different materials. But that's not

38:42

what we see. The Earth and

38:44

the Moon are actually like identical twins.

38:48

When I started working on the origin of the Moon, there

38:51

were scientists that wanted to reject the whole idea

38:53

of the Giant Impact. They

38:55

didn't see any way for this theory to

38:58

explain special relationship between the Earth and

39:00

the Moon. We were

39:02

all trying to think of new ideas. The

39:05

problem was there weren't any better ideas.

39:09

All of the other ideas had even

39:11

bigger flaws. So

39:14

Sarah and her team wondered, maybe

39:17

the Giant Impact played out differently.

39:20

Maybe all those billions of years

39:22

ago, things smashed together in a

39:24

way no one had considered yet.

39:27

They needed to find out. Yeah,

39:32

my lab is called the Shock

39:35

Compression Lab. It

39:38

has two huge cannons that

39:41

we use to generate pressures

39:43

like those generated by planets

39:46

colliding together. We

39:49

smash stuff together and we zap them

39:51

with lasers and we try and recreate

39:53

what happened in the early solar system.

39:56

Can I just ask you, this sounds

39:58

dangerous. Is this dangerous? Absolutely. what makes

40:00

it so much fun. Awesome.

40:05

The team did all kinds of simulations,

40:09

and one day they saw something that

40:11

they didn't recognize. I

40:13

remember distinctly where we

40:15

looked at the computer

40:18

data, and when we were looking

40:20

at it, what we were

40:22

seeing was something that was much, much

40:24

larger than the Earth, meaning its radius

40:27

was many times

40:29

bigger. It was hot and

40:32

mostly gas in the outer layers.

40:36

What was this new hot, gassy

40:38

thing? So

40:41

imagine a glowing ball

40:43

of swirling gas. From

40:46

the side it looks kind of like a... Like

40:49

a frisbee? A bow tie. Oh,

40:51

a bow tie, okay. Almost like a

40:53

bow tie. There's a knot in the

40:55

middle, that's where most of the Earth

40:58

is, but then it flares out at

41:00

the edges. So looking from the

41:02

side, that's the shape it

41:04

would be, and it would be glowing bright

41:07

like a fire hearth, because

41:10

the rock in it is magma

41:13

and rock vapor filling

41:16

this object. Can I

41:18

just make sure I'm with you? Yeah. There's

41:21

an impact. Something hits

41:23

very early planet Earth to

41:26

the point where it actually

41:29

changes shape. It goes from

41:31

being round like

41:34

a ball, spherical, to flattening into more

41:36

of a disc and having more of

41:38

a gaseous sort of

41:42

look to it. Less firm edges, very

41:44

blurry around the edges, and almost like on

41:47

fire, very, very hot. That's

41:51

right. So

41:53

when the Mars-like object struck the

41:55

Earth, so much energy

41:57

has been dumped into the planet that

42:00

it's so extended and spinning

42:02

so rapidly that

42:05

it morphs into a disk in its

42:07

outer layers. And it

42:09

no longer has that spherical shape and it

42:11

no longer rotates altogether.

42:15

It's so large that

42:18

the moon would begin to

42:20

form inside of that

42:22

swirling gas. We

42:25

had to come up with a name for

42:28

an object that's not a planet. We

42:31

named this new

42:34

object a synestia. It's

42:37

named after the Greek goddess Hestia,

42:40

which is the goddess of the hearth and home. A

42:43

synestia gives us a new way

42:46

to solve the problem of the origin

42:48

of the moon. We propose

42:51

that the moon formed inside

42:53

a huge, vaporous synestia. The

42:57

moon grew from magma rain that

42:59

condensed out of the rock vapor.

43:03

The moon's special connection to Earth

43:05

is because the moon formed inside

43:07

the Earth when Earth was a

43:09

synestia. The moon

43:11

could have orbited inside the synestia

43:13

for years, hidden from

43:15

view. The

43:17

moon is revealed by the

43:19

synestia cooling and shrinking inside

43:22

of its orbit. The

43:25

synestia turns into planet Earth

43:27

only after cooling for hundreds

43:29

of years longer. In

43:32

our new theory, the giant

43:34

impact makes a synestia, and

43:37

the synestia divides into two new

43:39

bodies, creating our

43:42

isotopically identical Earth and

43:44

moon. So

43:47

your theory explains why they

43:49

are twins. But

43:52

if the moon and the Earth came from

43:54

the same fiery situation, why do they look

43:56

so different? Right,

43:59

the twin. Moon analogy isn't perfect for

44:01

the Earth and Moon because we do

44:03

see such stark differences. All

44:07

of the water and gas that become

44:09

our oceans and atmospheres, they

44:11

are bound to the larger object. It

44:14

had the larger gravity field. And so

44:16

the Earth has the richness of the

44:18

oceans and our atmosphere. And

44:21

when the Moon separated from the

44:23

synestia, it separated

44:25

without an atmosphere.

44:27

It was a molten ball

44:29

with rock vapor only, but

44:31

didn't have the carbon dioxide

44:33

that made up Earth's first atmosphere.

44:37

So the two paths of the planets

44:39

diverged after they separated from

44:41

one another. And

44:44

the level of precision is now at

44:47

the point where we can see little

44:49

differences on each planet

44:52

that reflect processes that

44:54

happened after their origin,

44:56

in addition to their

44:58

origin. But there's, I sound

45:00

like there's still a lot to learn, a lot

45:02

you don't know. Well, the more

45:04

we see. So we

45:07

scientists have a burning desire to

45:10

explain how the Earth got to

45:12

be the Earth. And

45:14

the Moon forming giant impact is

45:17

a key event in the

45:19

history of Earth and perhaps may

45:22

have been important in why Earth is

45:24

the habitable planet. So

45:26

I think we'll continue trying

45:29

to understand the details of

45:31

what made the Earth and Moon because

45:34

of the importance of explaining the

45:36

Earth. So

45:42

can I just ask you, when you look

45:44

up at the Moon, I'm guessing you see

45:46

something or you think

45:48

something very different than what

45:50

I do or most people.

45:53

Yes, I spent a lot

45:55

of time pondering what

45:58

it would be like when everything was mixed And

46:02

at that time, all of

46:04

the atoms that we have today in the

46:06

two bodies were mixed together and swirling together.

46:10

And me sitting here today and you

46:12

sitting here today, we're

46:14

part of that. Our

46:17

atoms were swirling around with moon

46:19

atoms, and that's just an incredible

46:21

thing to ponder. Oh,

46:24

I love that. That's

46:26

what makes this event so special and so

46:28

personal for all of us, that

46:31

we were part of it, even if it

46:33

was a deep history of our existence. That's

46:39

Sarah Stewart. She's a professor of

46:41

planetary science at UC Davis and

46:43

a MacArthur Genius Award winner. You

46:45

can see her full talk at

46:48

ted.com. On

46:50

the show today, doppelgangers. And

46:53

we want to end this episode

46:55

talking more about twins, but

46:57

the human kind. For

47:00

decades, identical twins have been

47:02

observed and studied by researchers

47:04

trying to answer the

47:06

age-old question, what

47:09

is nature and what is nurture?

47:12

Nancy Siegel is a professor of

47:15

developmental psychology and the director of

47:17

the Twin Studies Center at California

47:19

State University, Fullerton. Here

47:21

she is on the TED stage in 2017. Let's

47:26

talk about twins. Twins

47:29

turn heads wherever they go. Society

47:33

tells us that we all differ in

47:35

appearance and behavior. So

47:37

when we encounter two people who look and

47:39

act so much alike, it challenges

47:41

our belief in the way that the world works.

47:45

We find ourselves intrigued and drawn

47:47

into twins' lives, trying to understand

47:50

them. For

47:53

most of human history, psychologists

47:55

believed that we were largely products of

47:57

our environment. The

47:59

twin race... research is teaching us that so

48:01

many more of our behaviors than we ever

48:03

would have imagined are influenced

48:06

by the genes. There

48:09

are two kinds of twins, identical

48:12

and fraternal, and both are

48:14

essential in twin research. Identical

48:17

twins result when a single fertilized

48:19

egg divides within the first 14

48:22

days after conception, and these

48:24

twins share all their genes in common. Fraternal

48:28

twins share half their genes on

48:30

average, just like ordinary brothers and

48:32

sisters, and they result

48:35

when a woman releases two eggs

48:37

at the same time that are

48:39

separately fertilized by two separate sperm.

48:42

We can compare the similarity

48:44

of identical twins in running

48:46

speed or in how fast

48:49

they solve math problems to the

48:51

similarity of fraternal twins, and

48:53

if identical twins are more alike, and they

48:56

usually are, this tells

48:58

us that the genes play an important

49:00

role. Now

49:02

most studies use identical twins

49:04

raised together, but studying

49:06

the rare pairs of identical twins

49:09

reared apart is even better, because

49:12

if identical twins raised apart

49:14

are as alike as identical

49:17

twins raised together, this is

49:19

even more compelling evidence that genes

49:21

are important in our development. Think

49:25

about the identical Jim twins, Jim

49:27

Lewis and Jim Springer, who

49:29

grew up in different Ohio cities. They

49:32

didn't meet until they were nearly 40,

49:35

and they discovered that both twins bit their

49:38

fingernails down to the nub. They

49:41

both drove light blue Chevrolet's. They

49:44

both had mixed headache

49:46

syndromes beginning in their teenage years, and

49:49

they both liked to vacation on the same

49:51

three block strip of beach in Florida.

49:57

The Jim twins also both named their

49:59

sons. James Allen. Now

50:02

James is a fairly common first name

50:04

but Allen is a much less common

50:07

first or second name. Both

50:09

of the twins had worked part-time in sheriff's

50:12

offices and part-time at McDonald's

50:16

and they loved to scatter love letters around the

50:18

house for their wives. And

50:21

in a curious twist, both

50:24

twins had married women named Linda. Divorced

50:28

them and married women named Betty.

50:33

But then one of the gym twins

50:35

divorced Betty and married Sandy. We

50:38

know the divorce is a partly genetically influenced

50:41

trait so you can imagine the

50:43

worry in the part of the remaining Betty.

50:49

And I also studied Barbara and Daphne,

50:52

the giggle twins. My

50:55

colleagues and I affectionately called on that because when

50:57

they met for the first time they

50:59

discovered that they laughed uncontrollably with each

51:01

other and with nobody else. And

51:06

they had the same crooked pinky fingers,

51:09

the same disinterest in politics and

51:11

they drank their coffee cold,

51:13

black and without sugar. These

51:17

twins had had a first miscarriage

51:20

in their first pregnancy followed

51:22

by two healthy boys and a daughter.

51:25

That may not be so surprising because

51:28

female physiology may in fact the sex

51:30

of our children and in

51:32

this case the physiology was perfectly

51:34

matched. I

51:36

finally want to mention two sets

51:38

of identical twins, males born

51:41

in Columbia South America. One

51:44

pair from the city, one pair from

51:46

the country. We don't know

51:48

how this happened but early

51:51

on in the premature nursery one

51:54

newborn twin was accidentally

51:56

exchanged with one newborn twin

51:58

and the other pair. So

52:00

these two sets of brothers

52:02

grew up thinking they were

52:05

fraternal twins, when in

52:07

fact they were completely genetically

52:09

unrelated. When

52:11

they were 25, the truth was discovered

52:14

and the real pairs were reunited. I

52:17

went down to Bogota to study them, and

52:20

I discovered that the personalities of

52:22

the reunited twins aligned almost perfectly.

52:25

In one case, the

52:28

twins were outgoing, gregarious,

52:30

risk-taking, and in the other case, they

52:32

were introverted, a little

52:34

cautious, a little restrained. Again,

52:37

we don't fully understand the reasons

52:39

behind these similarities, but seeing

52:41

them repeated in identical twins, more

52:43

so than fraternal twins, gives us

52:46

a genetic perspective on human

52:48

development. Twins

52:51

are not just mere objects of fascination.

52:54

Just by being themselves, just by

52:56

acting naturally, it gives

52:59

science a powerful tool for

53:01

understanding genetic and environmental influences

53:03

on behavior. And

53:05

in this way, they tell us about our humanity,

53:08

why we are the way that we are, and

53:11

how we got that way. Thank

53:14

you. That

53:18

was Nancy Siegel. Her latest

53:20

book is called Deliberately Divided,

53:22

inside the controversial study of

53:24

twins and triplets adopted apart.

53:28

She, by the way, is also a

53:30

twin, the fraternal kind, and you can

53:32

see her full talk at ted.com. Thank

53:36

you so much for listening to our

53:38

show, Doppelgangers. This episode

53:40

was produced by James De La

53:42

Houssie, Katie Monteleone, Matthew Cloutier, and

53:44

Fiona Guerin. It was edited by

53:47

Sanaz Meshkenpour and me. Our

53:50

production staff at NPR also includes

53:52

Rachel Faulkner-White and Harsha Nihada. Irene

53:54

Noguchi is our executive producer. Our

53:57

audio engineers were Robert Rodriguez.

54:00

and David Greenberg. Her

54:02

Z-Music was written by Romteen Arablui.

54:04

Our partners at TED are Chris

54:06

Anderson, Michelle Quint, Alejandra Salazar,

54:09

and Daniela Balarezo. I'm

54:11

Manoush Zamarodi, and you have been listening to the

54:13

TED Radio Hour from NPR. This

54:21

message comes from NPR sponsor, Shopify, the

54:23

global commerce platform that helps you sell

54:25

and show up exactly the way you

54:28

want to. Customize your online store to

54:30

your style. Sign up for a $1

54:32

per month trial period

54:35

at shopify.com/NPR. Support

54:37

for NPR and the following message come

54:40

from TIAA. On a

54:42

mission with Wyclef Jean to give

54:44

back with Wyclef's new record, Paper

54:46

Right. With TIAA, streams turn into

54:49

donations to a nonprofit called First

54:51

Generation Investors. Stream now wherever you

54:53

get your music. I'm

54:56

glad you said that, because nobody says that. Can

54:59

I just say thank you to you for such

55:01

a thoughtful interview? Oh my God,

55:03

yeah, I think you nailed it. Bullseye,

55:05

interviews with creators you love and creators

55:08

you need to know. Listen

55:10

to the Bullseye podcast only from

55:12

NPR and Maximum Fun.