Talking With Friends, Sharing the Load Podcast

Joanna Piros

Some of my richest insights into ageing, health, love and grief, come from conversations with friends. This podcast is the audio version of those reports from the friend front, from the technology front, and from the reluctantly encountered shittiness epidemic. Topics include love, sex, technology, money, and very little politics. joannapiros.substack.com

  1. 8m ago

    You Can’t Bully a Crowd

    I’ve been watching this dynamic play out around me these past couple weeks and it’s amazing how classic the signs are: an insecure bully who resents someone else’s expertise, knowledge and popularity, coupled with timid bystanders and institutional collaboration. Toxic brew indeed. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joannapiros.substack.com/subscribe

    You Can’t Bully a Crowd

  2. Oct 21

    FLOOR WAX OR DESSERT TOPPING

    Recently I had the opportunity to speak to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs at their conference in Vancouver. My pitch to them was to start using a tool they already know, the same tool Incident Commanders use in the field, to structure more persuasive presentations to municipal masters, community groups and other stakeholders. In a nutshell, when the fire crews show up on the scene of your bad day, they create an Incident Action Plan which determines what they’re up against, what the strategic goal is, and what resources are available before deciding on tactical approaches. Strategic goals may change in a dynamic situation; you arrive to deal with a house fire only to learn the occupants may still be in the building. Suddenly you’ve moved from extinguishment to rescue, which changes the whole game. Considering how you structure your persuasive attempts, this is a handy little tool to put first things first. Numbers don’t interpret themselves. One of the threads in my presentation to the Fire Chiefs had to do with data as a tactical device. Increasingly we rely on data to make decisions in life, in business, in education, and in the fire service. The problem is, data analysis is by no means a perfect science. There’s dirty data, corrupted data, domain confusion, terminology confusion, and people analyzing data they fundamentally don’t understand. Fire Chiefs are not data analysts but they are the ones who wear the egg when the analysis fails, and it fails often and sometimes spectacularly. In one department someone who didn’t understand the fire service was generating the response metrics the Chief tucked in his pocket and took to City council where the media also reported on them. Problem is the terminology they used created the wrong metrics and Chief had to go back to Council and explain why the actual numbers are different. And then there’s the master plan consultants who reviewed incident data and used the location as the primary key, assuming that multiple rows of data at the same location meant it was the same event…so they rejected thousand of records, many of them for daily repeated calls to the same location, like a homeless shelter. Analyzing data has about a million traps to watch for: There’s the mean, median and average trap. Simple example for fire or other emergency services: you have seven response times in minutes: 3, 7, 4, 25, 5, 4, 6. To find the mean, you add them together and divide by the number of values so 54 divided by 7 is 7.7 Most people would say your average response time is under 8 minutes. For median, you rank them in order, lowest to highest: 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 25. The median is 5 — it’s simply the middle number in the list. You could also say your average response time is 5 minutes. That’s almost a 3 minute difference. Both are technically “the average.” A chief who says “our average response time is under 8 minutes” is being accurate. So is the one who says, “our typical response time is 5 minutes.” Same data, different story. When I teach in executive programs at the University of British Columbia, the administrators love their post course evaluations. Answers are ranked from 1 to 5 on various aspects of the course and when the university compiles the results they know that some students LOVE everything and some HATE everything so they throw out the lowest and highest score and use the rest. One of my clients told me the story of being raked over the coals by his board of directors because visits to the organizations website, which he managed, had dropped off precipitously. He had to gently tell them that AI search agents cull the information and present it to the seeker who rarely goes any further to the actual source site. Doh! Data misinterpretation and miscalculation happens in all fields, and has done for some time. False equivalency, courtesy SNL. Ranking schools by student testing is one of many measurements that conflate the school with the student. It’s the most pervasive data mistake in education and has been going on for decades, resulting in defunding and penalizing schools based on standardized test scores to evaluate school and teacher quality. The Fraser Institute began ranking in 1998 and year after year the same private schools in BC cluster at the top while schools serving high numbers of ESL and special needs students rank at the very bottom. This finding is so consistent and predictable that a UBC study confirmed parental income and ESL student numbers are the actual drivers of the score. The data has never wavered because the methodology never did. For example, York House private school is consistently the top ranked school. In 2014, for example, it reported no ESL students and no special needs children. The same year, Nisga’a Elementary, which often is found at the bottom of the list, has almost 50 percent ESL students and almost 12 percent with special needs. A newish study from the University of Ottawa tested whether standardized test results can be delinked from socioeconomic factors. The answer is no, they can’t. Most educators, including those at the top ranked schools, agree the methodology is skewed in favour of private schools and wealthy neighbourhoods. In 2016, the Fraser Institute’s own Executive Vice President said the school ranking system was part of a “communications agenda” designed to convince people there was a problem with the public school system. The methodology has also been rejected in court. Some parents argued for custody based on the fact they live close to a highly ranked (by Fraser Institute) school. In an Ontario trial, the judge ruled the think-tank’s rankings were not admissible as evidence noting, “I am not persuaded that a straight ranking system…is a reliable indicator of what’s in the children’s best interests.” A dozen years earlier, in a BC Supreme Court case, a father tried to use Fraser Institute rankings to argue school choice in a custody dispute. Justice R.A. McKinnon threw that out too. Beyond the problem of dirty data, there’s something called domain blindness: an analyst who is good at data crunching but doesn’t understand the field from whence the data comes. This happens often enough in the fire service that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA, 2024) has recently released a new requirement outlining what qualifications someone must have to crunch fire numbers. You can find it at their website https://www.nfpa.org/ if you’d like a guide to what your organization might consider. It’s not a free download, however. Here’s another way ranking went badly wrong. In 2012, the US government decided to penalize hospitals if their patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge, reasoning that readmission meant patients had not been treated properly. One might argue with the premise in the first place but the way it was designed doubled and tripled down on the mistakes. Hospitals were penalized if a patient was readmitted to any other hospital so they were shocked to discover the stats being wielded against them as they couldn’t know what they didn’t know. The data also counted any readmission so a patient discharged after a knee replacement, subsequently admitted for appendicitis, was included in the naughty list. And then there was the socioeconomic aspect as well. Hospitals serving poor communities with high rates of chronic disease had structurally higher readmissions, no matter how good the care. Just like schools. Ultimately nearly 80 percent of hospitals measured were penalized and hospitals serving poor people were penalized most. The data was real, but flawed, the analysis was technically correct but the whole thing didn’t reflect actual clinical practice. And then there’s metrics that are flat out dishonest. I wrote about Wells Fargo in last week’s post where staff feeling the pressure to meet targets, opened accounts on behalf of people who never consented to it. Management was delighted with the reported metrics and never though… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joannapiros.substack.com/subscribe

  3. Oct 21

    Floor Wax or Dessert Topping?

    When I spoke to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs recently, I talked about strategy and tactics from a perspective other than the one they’re accustomed to. I spoke about data as a tactical approach and how it can go so wrong so easily. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joannapiros.substack.com/subscribe

    Floor Wax or Dessert Topping?

  4. Oct 14

    Doveryai, No Proveryai

    It’s a 9th century Russian proverb, westernized and popularized by Ronald Reagan during arms control talks in the 80s. (He got it from a Russian historian who advised him for years, including during the 1986 Reykjavik summit with Mikhail Gorbachev.) It means, trust but verify, and even that adage itself can’t be entirely trusted. Recent research into trust says once your vigilance turns up danger signs, monitoring likely will replace trust. In other words, is it even possible to both trust and simultaneously verify? Our lives runs mostly on delegated trust. We purchase and consume foods and supplements, follow workout regimens and submit to medical procedures, not because we have the expertise to evaluate the science, but because we trust the source. These days we trust the wisdom of the crowd for restaurant and hotel reviews, travel advice, online shopping, you name it. I’ll give you a recent personal example. In keeping with my Buy Canadian mantra, I have been purchasing a couple specific supplements from Arcwell, a pharma producer in Victoria, BC. Just last week I received an email from them inviting me to try a new product, Fisetin. Here’s a bit from the attached blog: Aging is something we usually notice from the outside: changes in energy, strength, recovery, or appearance. But some of the most important changes associated with aging happen much deeper—at the cellular level… Cellular senescence has become one of the most intriguing areas of healthy-aging research. Now, fisetin—a naturally occurring plant flavonoid—is moving from laboratory studies into human clinical research. Here’s what we know, what we’re still learning, and why Arcwell® is helping advance the science… I ordered the product knowing full well that a one-month trial won’t show me any appreciable results, nor will I be able to be tested in any significant way, so why bother? I’ve been trying to figure that out and in doing so, have come up with some markers of trust and triggers that did their magic ON ME. First off, I was immediately reminded of a scientist who gave a lecture here in my town, where she said, “ageing is a reversible disease”. She went on to discuss it through a lens of cellular biology. I connected new information with information that impressed me and stuck in my head from a decade ago. Secondly, I had previously written to Arcwell asking if they had any research into effects I was noticing after taking one of their products for some months. The Chief Science Officer wrote to me promptly and cited a docking trial (computer modelling rather than human trial) which supported my lived experience. Thirdly, candour builds trust and the email about Fisetin was straightforward in saying the clinical evidence is thin but promising. Fourthly, their slogan, We don’t simply want to follow healthy-aging research. We want to help advance it, aligns with my values and explains why I volunteer for health and ageing related studies. An introductory article from the 2026 Journal of Trust Research, “Trust in our divided world” (as an intro to related research) says in our fragmented and polarized world, trust is taking a shit-kicking. Mistrust of people who are not just like us is exacerbated by a steady diet of traditional and social media. They quote one study which found that: …individual feelings of political trust shape perceptions of economic risk, a deviation from the more common assumption that risk shapes trust. Thus, losing trust appears to have important implications via decreasing our individual – and, potentially, collective – ability to cope with the risks produced by economic, social, and political life. Low trust is not the same as distrust and sometimes, low trust is simply prudence. It’s when distrust solidifies that we begin to look at people and actions, even those of high integrity, as being manipulative or self serving. “You only saved that baby from the bear so you would look good to the neighbours.” As trust erodes, divisiveness increases and the whole mess spirals out of control to the point where it may never be regained. How long will it take Canada, or the rest of the world, to trust the US government? Realistically, what are the chances the various players in the middle east will ever trust and move beyond violent conflict? Most human communication runs on a truth-default which means we’re hardwired to believe what people tell us although trust requires an additional, cognitive, step, sort of like the trust but verify advice. I came across an interesting piece about teens online which found that their default is to accept online information as true because overcoming or assessing it takes cognitive effort, an effort that is made with alarming infrequency, and not just on the part of adolescents. In other words, we trust because we mostly can’t verify and don’t want to weigh and judge and expend the cognitive calories that can be hoarded in favour of flopping out on the couch with Netflix. Summarizing my own experience with Fisetin supplements, we trust based on perceived expertise, integrity and benevolence. When trust is lost it doesn’t just disappear. Like energy, it has to go somewhere and often it goes to those who we see as being more like us, more benevolent towards us. It’s an interesting wrinkle that for all the anti-vax rhetoric coming out of the Kennedy camp, statistics show most people, even those who agree with him, still trust their own doctors far more. KFF, a US non-profit health research organization, reports that six out of ten Republicans trust Kennedy for health information. They also found a slim majority of parents who identify as MAGA or MAHA supporters say they trust Kennedy on vaccines, but more of them trust their child’s pediatrician. So, in a weird but contemporaneously viable way, people kept on trusting their own doctor while also trusting a political figure who appears to attack “the system”, one who became a standard bearer for a particular kind of identity politics. As I speak with groups of CEOs in workshops and in executive education and leadership programs, the state of trust in the world comes up often, especially in the context of leadership and how to be someone who others, be they employees, shareholders, customers, will trust in a world where trust has become elusive and fragile. People don’t know who to trust. How can you trust this is a real person? I have lost trust in my doctor/mechanic/accountant/lawyer/spouse/friend etc. How can I make people trust me? Can I trust the data? If you pay close attention to current affairs, it’s easy to assume we are in a massive trust deficit, an El Nino of mistrust. Not all recent statistics agree that is the case and trust me (ha!) I looked high and low to support my personal view of trust erosion. Edelman’s Trust Barometer surveys 34,000 respondents in 28 countries. Bear in mind, this is an online survey so skews to people with unfettered internet access. Also, Edelman is a PR firm which is selling its solutions to a lack of trust to its clients. With that proviso, here’s what their latest survey says: “Insularity has emerged as the next crisis of trust,” said Richard Edelman, CEO of Edelman. “Over the past five years, we have seen a descent from fear to polarization to grievance and now to insularity. People are retreating from dialogue and compromise, choosing the safety of the familiar over the perceived risk of change. We favor nationalism over global connection and individual gain over joint progress. Our mentality has shifted from ‘we’ to ‘me.’ As a result, trust is increasingly concentrated among those closest to us, including My CEO (66 percent), My fellow citizens (64 percent) and My neighbors (64 percent), while nearly 7 in 10 fear institutional leaders are deliberately misleading the public.” The survey found insularity manifests as a resistance to foreign companies and products, even if it costs us more to stay domestic, and we’re certainly seeing that in Cana… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joannapiros.substack.com/subscribe

  5. Oct 14

    Doveryai, No Proveryai

    Turns out our hyper nationalism and buy domestic reality flows directly from a lack of trust. Sounds logical, right? But it’s a little more nuanced than I had expected. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joannapiros.substack.com/subscribe

    Doveryai, No Proveryai

  6. Oct 7

    Wrapping It In The Flag

    Ever since madness descended on the continent, I’ve been doing my best to “shop Canadian”. That has meant forgoing celery, as it’s almost always from the US, and spending much longer at the store checking labels. If you’re fortunate enough to live near farms, as I do, there is an abundance of clearly Canadian produce to revel in. Alas, there’s also Canadian winter and a distinct shortage of greenhouse capacity. But I digress. I really like this comment from Mark Carney’s September video, so have clipped it here, for your enjoyment. I kept the opener, just for fun. Building on the national mood, it didn’t take long for producers of virtually everything to see the advantage in selling Canadian to Canadians. Perhaps the most discussed and painful example is our beloved Tim Horton’s, the “double double” test of Canadian identity. Yes, the company has a rich and very patriotic history, founded in Hamilton Ontario by hockey player Tim Horton and grown up to be a national institution after Horton’s death in ‘74. Where we part national company, however, is in 2014 when Timmy’s was merged with Burger King in an $11.4 billion deal backed by a Brazilian-American investment firm, 3G Capital. The spin-off company now owns Tim’s, Burger King, Popeyes and Firehouse Subs. All in that’s around 33,000 restaurants in over 120 countries with $49 billion in annual sales. Funnily enough, or maybe not funny at all, it’s that huge sales tally which prompted the entity to put their HQ in Oakville, wait for it…..for tax reasons. Just last year the president of Tim Hortons Canada and US said the chain was looking to replace US suppliers with Canadian ones, to reduce tariff cost exposure saying, “We will make it even more Canadian”. It seems to be paying off as more and more of us are driving through daily. And we’re torn between the cultural attachment, driven by relentless marketing, and the facts of ownership. Unlike Tim’s, Molson Coors is not a daily ritual for most of us. Molson merged with the AmericanCoors Co. in 2005 to form Molson Coors Beverage Company, headquartered in the distinctly not Canadian city of Chicago. The majority American parent company is running a massive “Made by Canadians” campaign for the Molson Canadian brand. You decide. Lay’s potato chips are made in Canada from Canadian potatoes, by a company owned by Pepsico. Where do you want to draw the line? It’s tough to be purer than Caesar’s wife when it comes to many products and services. And there’s the rub! When you decide to buy or not to buy, what do you look for and care about? If you care about Canadian employment you want to know where the product or service is made, employing who, exactly? If you’re more concerned about your colourful Canadian bills flowing across the border, you care more about ownership. And that’s where things get very complex. For example, what’s the difference between Product of Canada and Made in Canada? Glad you asked. "Product of" is the strict one, meaning virtually all Canadian. "Made in" means finished here, not necessarily grown or sourced here. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency defines both terms and doesn’t weigh in on diapers, blankets, children’s shoes or hair products. For anything that isn't food, it's the Competition Bureau that sets the rules, under the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, and the Textile Labelling Act, and these thresholds are actually stricter than they are for food. To be labelled “Product of Canada” under these acts, the item’s last substantial transformation must have happened in Canada, and at least 98% of total direct production costs were incurred in Canada. For “Made in Canada” designation, the last few stitches had to be done in Canada and at least 51% of production costs were incurred in Canada. The label also has to disclose foreign content so you’ll often see the words, “made in Canada with imported parts”. By the way, slapping a red maple leaf on the packaging or label essentially makes a claim for “Made in Canada”, at least so far as the Competition Bureau is concerned. And while the thresholds are stricter than those for food, the enforcement is not as stringent. Since the onset of tariff fever, your phone’s online store has exploded with various apps to help you fly the maple leaf in your shopping cart. Many of these upstarts have since collapsed but there are some viable options should you choose to double click to install. I started to pull together a list of all the related apps on my phone’s app store, to compare how they derive their ratings, and realized it would take me until the end of time to make it happen so I readily admit I turned to my robot friend for this nifty chart of the six solid apps which actually seem to exist. Because there are more of them than there are me, Canadian Press did just this kind of comparison recently and determined the top three above are the best in class, should you wish to avail yourself. Happily, there are some places where it’s easy to buy Canadian with no doubts. One of them is fish. Adam Pearl and Geoff Austin grew up fishing together off the coast of Vancouver Island. In July of 2002, on their way home from prawning, they hit a riptide on the north coast of the island and the 53 foot boat capsized and sank, forcing the two to swim out of an overturned vessel in frigid waters. They figured it was time to move inland for a bit, open a fish shop, and raise families. They found their destination in Nelson, BC on the shores of Kootenay Lake which is almost big enough to qualify as an ocean. Fisherman’s Market has just launched a clever marketing campaign to entice us to buy Canadian seafood, with a twist. They’re not invoking patriotism or anti-US-ism, they’re telling stories which give us a reason to care. Here’s Adam Pearl. If you normally buy your fish at the local grocery store, rather than a specialty fish shop, you can still ask the question, where is this from? Nothing performatively Canuck about Good Leaf Farms who practice indoor, vertical farming in Montreal, Guelph and Calgary. The company was founded on the opposite coast, in Truro, Nova Scotia by entrepreneur Gregg Curwin, in 2011. A few years later the New Brunswick giant, McCain Foods invested and eventually became the largest shareholder with an investment exceeding $65 million CDN. Farm Credit Canada joined the ranks in 2025. Export Development Canada is in the mix, as is Power Sustainable, owned by the Desmarais family of Montreal. So, two crown corporations and a couple big time Canadian families; you can’t get much more north of 49 than this. Closer to me geographically, there’s Up Vertical farms of Pitt Meadows, BC. It is founded and owned by brothers Bahram and Shahram Rashti who describe their system as Canadian designed, fully automated and “touchless”, designed and built by them over a decade. And then there’s the iconic all-Canadian burger chain, A & W. It may not be the biggest but it’s likely the most loved. You may not know that A & W was born in Winnipeg in 1956, to American parents, but grew up and declared its independence in the north. The US chain came first and the Winnipeg restaurant opened as a licensed subsidiary. It was then sold to Unilever in 1972 and in 1995 a Canadian group led by then president Jeff Mooney, with 5 VPs, bought it back as a fully independent Canadian entity. A&W Canada was miles ahead of the market when it moved to beef raised without hormones or steroids back in 2013. Ironically, when they launched the values-based branding, there weren’t enough Canadian ranchers meeting the hormone free standard so beef had to come from the US and Australia. While all this is playing out at the retail level, most provincial governments came on board with the ban on American alcohol products. At the federal level, last year’s announced “Buy Canadian Policy” prioritizes Canadian suppliers in federal procurement. At least seven of our allies… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joannapiros.substack.com/subscribe

  7. Oct 7

    Wrapping it in the Flag

    While the boycott of travel south of the line has shown signs of softening as Canadians hanker for the warmer weather, we’re even more determined than ever to buy Canadian when it comes to products. That determination means a lot more work than most of us had in mind but there are ways to lighten your load. This is a longer piece so sit back and relax while I tell you all about it! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joannapiros.substack.com/subscribe

    Wrapping it in the Flag

  8. Sep 23

    A Daily Dose of Navel Gazing

    I really like Substack, or I wouldn’t be here. I’ve already fled Facebook, X, Insta and never had TikTok or Blue Sky. However, there are some aspects of Substack that are beginning to irk me more and more so if you’re not in the mood for a rant, please click away and come back next week for something more solid. What does it mean to publish at the rhythm of breaking news when you’re writing personal essays? What’s that say to your readers about the value of their time? You have to be pretty bloody compelling to capture our interest with something personal every bleeding day. In the news business, breaking news is the cream on the top but another staple of the biz is the man bites dog genre, often the human interest, the unusual, the unexpected. With Substacks, I feel the strictly personal essay/confessional falls into this category and here’s the gripe: TOO MANY ALREADY! When these happen all the time it becomes the pedestrian version of dog bites man, not all that remarkable, nor worth commenting on. I don’t need a navel-gazing personal essay from the same writer every day of the week. I don’t even have lengthy conversations with my closest friends that often! True, I don’t have to open and read every one and I truly don’t but there’s something annoying about this frequency. It’s like getting constant text messages from a friend who needs to document every detail of their day: Just had avocado toast at the new cafe. Omg. These Substacks would be so much better served, and consumed, if they were less frequent. Putting annoying icing on the cake is the author’s reference to how much work it is to produce this volume of output, to which I would say, so stop it! Asking me to upgrade to a paid subscription so I can receive even more? Not happening, sorry. Part of the problem is the algorithm chase and Substack has to wear part of that but the bigger piece comes from a secondary economy of writers on Substack who post only about how to grow your publication, and many of them charge you for the “kit” or advice or workshop which tells you to post MORE. Like two to five Notes posts every day. That same blogger built and will happily sell you a Chrome extension for batch scheduling Notes so you can actually leave the keyboard and go for a walk. His website does point out, though, that “No scheduler can fix weak positioning or generic writing; the offer and ideas still need to be strong”. But in the next breath we see that posts are not assessed by their editorial or emotional valence but rather whether or not they moved the subscriber needle. Substack itself recommends posting once a week for most of us, and emphasizes consistency as the gold standard. Unlike other platforms, Substack has been fairly transparent about the algorithm and despite some rumoured secret updates the main information was revealed at an event at their HQ in October of last year. Co-founder Hamish McKenzie and head of machine learning, Mike Cohen, explained how it works: Cohen said it’s optimized for discovery leading to subscription, the goal is to “get people to discover, subscribe, and ideally pay”, and that’s how and why the feed was built. When someone opens the Substack app, the algorithm looks at who they are, where they are, what language they use, who they follow and subscribe to, and their stated interests. That all gets stirred in a cauldron and results in a numerical profile of them which dictates what gets shown in their feeds. It’s a guess at what will resonate with you. As far as I can tell, though, no one at that tell-all event at Substack HQ put their finger on the problem that’s irking me: if the algorithm is built to show whatever creates a sense of connection between you and a writer, and the data shows that confessional Notes outperform others, then the platform isn’t a pile of navel-gazing by accident. There’s lots of data on frequency, engagement and revenue but no one seems to be measuring, or even talking about, what it costs us, the readers. I’m wondering about churn, unsubscribes or reader fatigue. There’s certainly anecdotal evidence from many conversations I’ve had, usually the comment is, “he/she posts way to often, and usually it’s repetitive”. One complaint came from someone who had a paid subscription, received absolutely nothing for months, and found there’s no way to get a refund from an author who simply stops. Two extremes, almost equally annoying. One more thing to flag if you’re still with me. Wayne Horton has written a piece about how Apple horns in on your money if you upgrade to a paid subscription on the Substack app. Read more about that here. So for those of you who wondered how we got here, this has been a roundabout explanation, complete with bitchfest; same as it ever was. Now, let’s see, what would be a suitable musical offering? Until next time, keep asking yourself, how did I get here? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit joannapiros.substack.com/subscribe

See All (155)

About

Some of my richest insights into ageing, health, love and grief, come from conversations with friends. This podcast is the audio version of those reports from the friend front, from the technology front, and from the reluctantly encountered shittiness epidemic. Topics include love, sex, technology, money, and very little politics. joannapiros.substack.com

Information