What a bummer. RIP to the podcast.
100 threads and real no updates.
They choose this. They’re not prevented from saying so.
I started listening to the podcast last summer. Everything was so new to me and I was learning so much I went back and listened to all the 2022 episodes. When I caught up I went back and started listening at episode 1. Those old episodes are so great. I’ve learned the most, by far, from Chad, but really enjoy the excitement and youthful energy of Nate. I much prefer listening to the older episodes than the newer ones, the chemistry between Chad, Nate, and Jonathan was so perfect. I’m sure Ivy is a great person, but I could barely get through this last episode comparing to what it should be with Chad instead of Ivy. Hopefully, Chad will start his own occasional podcast.
Maybe Zwift hired Chad to create the plans?
In the UK I would say that the involuntary/voluntary sits with the employee
Voluntary Redundancy = Redundancy was made by the employer, but employee are given the option to be in the number going
Involuntary Redundancy = The employer tells the people who are going
So in this case Involuntary departure (not redundancy) I take it the Chad was told to go, which is why I find it shameful the way it was announced, if you want to “respect all involved” don’t say anything / key it simple “Chads left, lets all wish him all the best for the future”, before somebody says “TR and openness”, they don’t share lots of stuff User Numbers, Turnover, realistic road maps, there was no need to share this
There may be millions of incorrect opinions about what constitutes these systems, but that doesn’t make them definitions.
And what exactly should we assume about these 4 countries?
Redundancy means the job that the person is doing is no longer needed.
It doesn’t mean ‘fired’ - that the person is no longer needed and can be replaced because the job still needs doing.
Which is why I said
I was using the Redundancy as an example, Voluntary Redundancy is a common term in UK
Nate says that line about death from a second concussion, it’s a 1/2 chance. I’ve spent time googling this and can find absolutely no evidence of it.
Yes, there’s a lot of well intentioned but nevertheless pseudoscience talk from those two.
The idea seemed to be one would talk science, one would try to make it relatable. A very tricky thing to do, in fairness. Most science isn’t relatable to real world and simple takeaways.
Good science communication is super hard, and scientists don’t get rewarded for being good at it. Just knowing what to aim for is super difficult. And if you want to explain something by analogy or by means of an illustration, then your explanation is likely false if people want to use the picture you painted and extend it further than intended.
The strategy to have two or three levels of explanations is very good, because people can listen to Chad/Amber/Sarah, Jonathan or Nate, depending on where they see themselves.
The other choice is they have made is whether to dedicate an entire episode to one topic and one topic alone, and script that. Or to keep a good degree of free flow. The Science of Getting Faster podcast follows the first recipe, The Ask a Cycling Coach podcast the latter. I don’t think there is one right way, just different horses for courses … or whatever the saying is 
Nate’s role in science-related discussions is the be the “idiot” (no offense intended), i. e. an “average” person who knows very little about the subject matter. Hence, he will use colloquial expressions like “in 99 % of the cases …” You just got to parse it correctly as a listener.
Who is Nate’s boss?
The god emperor of mankind
Venture capitalists? Banks? I doubt TR is debt free.
This took me about 30 seconds to find…
- “Second Impact Syndrome is a rare condition in which a second, often mild, impact occurs when someone is still suffering from an initial concussion that results in 50% of the cases ending in death and the other half in permanent brain damage.”
Maybe Chad decided to stay on legacy pricing 
Definition was a poor choice of words. What I meant was, those words mean different things to different people. What matters when discussing these things is having a concrete example for comparison, which is why I threw out those 4 examples of countries, so people arent arguing using ‘definitions’ of economic terms that few laypeople even agree on.
I can see why Nate would say 50%. I can also see why @Simo429 would say this doesn’t pan out. Of cases called Second Impact Syndrome (SIS) reported in the literature by 2021, ~50% died (19/45 cases). The big caveat is that only 45 total cases were found in this extensive literature review.
While we’re all worried about the catastrophic potential of this syndrome, no one knows the true risk of incurring SIS after a concussion. There are 1.6 to 3.8 million sports related concussions in the USA alone every year. Certainly 50% of people who hit their head a second time do NOT get SIS.
Amber brought a solid understanding of the literature and how to communicate it accurately that the others miss.
Sorry, I still don’t understand what those 4 countries are supposed to be examples of.