Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@meszaroszoltan

meszaroszoltan/asd.xml

Last active June 18, 2023 13:53
Show Gist options
  • Save meszaroszoltan/1f1066053d2a6f60c7c8041ef564aa1b to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save meszaroszoltan/1f1066053d2a6f60c7c8041ef564aa1b to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
Raw
asd.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Audio Business</title>
<link>https://www.economist.com/business/</link>
<description />
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2023 15:26:11 GMT</pubDate>
<dc:date>2023-06-12T15:26:11Z</dc:date>
<item>
<title>The upside of workplace jargon</title>
<link>https://www.economist.com/business/2023/06/15/the-upside-of-workplace-jargon</link>
<description>&lt;a href="http://localhost:8080/api/audio/c734dbcc7d939ab073b8ca4a9a959f89111dc94f"&gt;Link to the audio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;div id="readability-page-1" class="page"&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;section&gt;
&lt;h1&gt;The upside of workplace jargon&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Acronyms and slang can help build cultures and improve efficiency&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/section&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;section&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;p data-caps="initial"&gt;&lt;span data-caps="initial"&gt;A&lt;/span&gt;&lt;small&gt;n idea to&lt;/small&gt; run up the flagpole: jargon gets an overly bad press. Not the kind of jargon that involves using the words “flagpole” and “run up”, but the kind that binds teams together. The kind that is exemplified by the term “nub”. In the very unlikely event that you find yourself on board a submarine but are not a member of the crew, you will be a nub. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;figure&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;figcaption&gt;
Listen to this story.
&lt;/figcaption&gt;
&lt;span&gt;Enjoy more audio and podcasts on &lt;a id="audio-ios-cta" href="https://economist-app.onelink.me/d2eC/bed1b25" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"&gt;iOS&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a id="audio-android-cta" href="https://economist-app.onelink.me/d2eC/7f3c199" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"&gt;Android&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;audio controls="" id="audio-player" preload="none" src="https://www.economist.com/media-assets/audio/056%20Business%20-%20Bartleby-17899bb71c5a21280e97cef6311baf51.mp3" title="The upside of workplace jargon" controlslist="nodownload"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Your browser does not support the &amp;lt;audio&amp;gt; element.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/audio&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/figure&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A nub is a “non-useful body”—someone who uses up oxygen, food and space and offers nothing in return. A nub is someone who is not on the team, and the opacity of jargon gives the word extra bite. Only insiders know what it means.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Useful crew members have their own names. This cast of characters includes nukes, coners, shower techs and other bubbleheads whose jobs may include looking after Sherwood Forest. (If you need to ask, you are a nub.) Although submarines are unusual environments, the use of jargon to signify specific practices, objects and people is prevalent in workplaces everywhere. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some of this jargon is not much more than slang. The “blue goose” is what White House staffers call the travelling presidential lectern. The “grid” is the nickname for the diary of planned policy announcements by the British government. Doctors have a private vocabulary for patients when they are out of earshot. “&lt;i&gt;Status dramaticus&lt;/i&gt;” is how some medics diagnose people who have not much wrong with them but behave as though death is nigh; “ash cash” is the fee that British doctors pocket for signing cremation forms. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Such shared language is not exactly high-minded but it does serve a useful purpose—creating a sense of tribe and of belonging. Each company generates its own particular lexicon. The &lt;small&gt;GE&lt;/small&gt; logo is also known as “the meatball” by people inside the industrial firm. At Stripe, a digital-payments company, hiring-committee meetings are called “tropes”. A “fourth leader” is what journalists at &lt;i&gt;The Economist&lt;/i&gt; call lighthearted opinion articles. No one knows why; it is usually the fifth of five editorials. But the knowing is enough. The code confers membership. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jargon can spread for practical reasons as well as cultural ones. The airline industry has the usual slang, from “deadheads” (off-duty crew on a commercial flight) to “George” (a common nickname for the autopilot). But codifying knowledge in agreed ways can be a serious business. Well over 1,000 passengers and crew lost their lives between 1976 and 2000 in accidents where misunderstandings over language were found to have played a role. Pilots use highly standardised and scripted terminology in order to reduce the scope for potentially fatal errors. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Terms can arise as a way of increasing efficiency. A paper published last year, by Ronald Burt of Bocconi University and Ray Reagans of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, looked at how jargon emerges naturally among groups. It describes an experiment in which volunteers are assigned to teams. Each team member is separately assigned a set of symbols, and one symbol is common to all of them. Team members must quickly identify this shared symbol by sending messages to each other that describe what they have been given.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To start with, the teams use quasi-sentences and generic words to get across what they are seeing (one symbol “looks like its leg is out in a kicking motion”). Soon enough everyone in the team is calling it “kicking man” or “kicker”. As rounds progress a tacitly agreed vocabulary allows teams to identify the common symbol more and more quickly. Different teams alight on different forms of jargon for each symbol, but the effect is the same: everyone knows what is meant and things get done faster.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jargon can be desperately unhelpful. The criminal-justice system is made more intimidating, to victims and suspects alike, by confusing terminology. Conversations between doctors and patients go much better when everyone understands each other. One reason why management jargon arouses so much irritation is because it usually substitutes for something that was doing the job perfectly well. No one hears the words “Let’s talk about it later” and feels baffled. Plenty of people do hear the phrase “Let’s put a pin in it” and wish they had a sharp object to hand. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is an awful lot of non-useful blather out there, in other words. But the fact that jargon emerges spontaneously and repeatedly suggests it has its merits. In the right circumstances it can help build a culture and act as a useful shorthand. If you think all jargon is worthless, it may be time to circle back. &lt;span data-ornament="ufinish"&gt;■&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Read more from Bartleby, our columnist on management and work:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/business/2023/06/08/why-employee-loyalty-can-be-overrated" data-tegid="pod7ikhd18bpiov43boa8ie0t6parucc"&gt;Why employee loyalty can be overrated&lt;/a&gt; (Jun 8th)&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/business/2023/06/01/how-to-beat-desk-rage"&gt;How to beat desk rage&lt;/a&gt; (Jun 1st)&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/business/2023/05/25/why-are-corporate-retreats-so-extravagant" data-tegid="luavpgkdl597jglimiqk81dmb3gnvtf2"&gt;Why are corporate retreats so extravagant?&lt;/a&gt; (May 25th)&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Also: How the Bartleby column &lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/column-names"&gt;got its name&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/section&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline "In praise of jargon"&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div data-test-id="vertical"&gt;
&lt;div orientation="vertical"&gt;
&lt;div orientation="vertical"&gt;
&lt;figure&gt;
&lt;img alt="BritGPT: How to make Britain an AI superpower" loading="lazy" width="1280" height="1684" decoding="async" data-nimg="1" sizes="300px" srcSet="https://www.economist.com/img/b/16/21/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 16w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/32/42/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 32w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/48/63/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 48w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/64/84/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 64w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/96/126/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 96w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/128/168/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 128w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/256/336/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 256w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/360/473/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 360w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/384/505/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 384w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/480/631/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 480w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/600/789/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 600w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/834/1097/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 834w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/960/1263/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 960w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/1096/1441/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 1096w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/1684/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 1280w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/1424/1873/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg 1424w" src="https://www.economist.com/img/b/1424/1873/90/media-assets/image/20230617_DE_UK.jpg"&gt;
&lt;/figure&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div orientation="vertical"&gt;
&lt;h3 orientation="vertical"&gt;From the June 17th 2023 edition&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p orientation="vertical"&gt;Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/printedition/2023-06-17" data-analytics="sidebar:weekly_edition"&gt;
&lt;svg viewbox="0 0 24 24" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"&gt;
&lt;g fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"&gt;
&lt;path d="M12 1c6.075 0 11 4.925 11 11s-4.925 11-11 11S1 18.075 1 12 5.925 1 12 1zm.142 4.5l-1.008 1.062c3.33 3.276 4.194 4.14 4.608 4.5-1.602-.018-3.168-.018-10.242-.018v1.584c7.074 0 8.73 0 10.242-.018-.432.36-1.314 1.206-4.608 4.536l1.008 1.044 6.354-6.354L12.142 5.5z" fill="#2E45B8" fill-rule="nonzero"&gt;&lt;/path&gt;
&lt;/g&gt;
&lt;/svg&gt;&lt;span&gt;Explore the edition&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<enclosure url="http://localhost:8080/api/audio/c734dbcc7d939ab073b8ca4a9a959f89111dc94f" type="audio/mp3" />
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2023 13:20:26 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">/content/hkocf4fcrg0b08vlqn3rsvbdj27i6ms8</guid>
<dc:date>2023-06-15T13:20:26Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Why tech giants want to strangle AI with red tape</title>
<link>https://www.economist.com/business/2023/05/25/why-tech-giants-want-to-strangle-ai-with-red-tape</link>
<description>&lt;a href="http://localhost:8080/api/audio/453cb0938f834aa6e0c001cef103e8bdd1e8f8cb"&gt;Link to the audio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;div id="readability-page-1" class="page"&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;section&gt;
&lt;h1&gt;Why tech giants want to strangle AI with red tape&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;They want to hold back open-source competitors&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/section&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;section&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;p data-caps="initial"&gt;&lt;span data-caps="initial"&gt;O&lt;/span&gt;&lt;small&gt;ne of the&lt;/small&gt; joys of writing about business is that rare moment when you realise conventions are shifting in front of you. It brings a shiver down the spine. Vaingloriously, you start scribbling down every detail of your surroundings, as if you are drafting the opening lines of a bestseller. It happened to your columnist recently in San Francisco, sitting in the pristine offices of Anthropic, a darling of the artificial-intelligence (&lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt;) scene. When Jack Clark, one of Anthropic’s co-founders, drew an analogy between the Baruch Plan, a (failed) effort in 1946 to put the world’s atomic weapons under &lt;small&gt;UN&lt;/small&gt; control, and the need for global co-ordination to prevent the proliferation of harmful &lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt;, there was that old familiar tingle. When entrepreneurs compare their creations, even tangentially, to nuclear bombs, it feels like a turning point.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;figure&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;figcaption&gt;
Listen to this story.
&lt;/figcaption&gt;
&lt;span&gt;Enjoy more audio and podcasts on &lt;a id="audio-ios-cta" href="https://economist-app.onelink.me/d2eC/bed1b25" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"&gt;iOS&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a id="audio-android-cta" href="https://economist-app.onelink.me/d2eC/7f3c199" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"&gt;Android&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;audio controls="" id="audio-player" preload="none" src="https://www.economist.com/media-assets/audio/059%20Business%20-%20Schumpeter-1effee2944482126370e691749f4e286.mp3" title="Why tech giants want to strangle AI with red tape" controlslist="nodownload"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Your browser does not support the &amp;lt;audio&amp;gt; element.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/audio&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/figure&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since Chat&lt;small&gt;GPT&lt;/small&gt; burst onto the scene late last year there has been no shortage of angst about the existential risks posed by &lt;small&gt;AI.&lt;/small&gt; But this is different. Listen to some of the field’s pioneers and they are less worried about a dystopian future when machines outthink humans, and more about the dangers lurking within the stuff they are making now. Chat&lt;small&gt;GPT &lt;/small&gt;is an example of “generative” &lt;small&gt;ai&lt;/small&gt;, which creates humanlike content based on its analysis of texts, images and sounds on the internet. Sam Altman, &lt;small&gt;CEO&lt;/small&gt; of Open&lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt;, the startup that built it, told a congressional hearing this month that regulatory intervention is critical to manage the risks of the increasingly powerful “large language models” (&lt;small&gt;LLM&lt;/small&gt;s) behind the bots.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the absence of rules, some of his counterparts in San Francisco say they have already set up back channels with government officials in Washington, &lt;small&gt;DC&lt;/small&gt;, to discuss the potential harms discovered while examining their chatbots. These include toxic material, such as racism, and dangerous capabilities, like child-grooming or bomb-making. Mustafa Suleyman, co-founder of Inflection &lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt; (and board member of &lt;i&gt;The Economist&lt;/i&gt;’s parent company), plans in coming weeks to offer generous bounties to hackers who can discover vulnerabilities in his firm’s digital talking companion, Pi.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Such caution makes this incipient tech boom look different from the past—at least on the surface. As usual, venture capital is rolling in. But unlike the “move fast and break things” approach of yesteryear, many of the startup pitches now are first and foremost about safety. The old Silicon Valley adage about regulation—that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission—has been jettisoned. Startups such as Open&lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt;, Anthropic and Inflection are so keen to convey the idea that they won’t sacrifice safety just to make money that they have put in place corporate structures that constrain profit-maximisation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another way in which this boom looks different is that the startups building their proprietary &lt;small&gt;LLM&lt;/small&gt;s aren’t aiming to overturn the existing big-tech hierarchy. In fact they may help consolidate it. That is because their relationships with the tech giants leading in the race for generative &lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt; are symbiotic. Open&lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt; is joined at the hip to Microsoft, a big investor that uses the former’s technology to improve its software and search products. Alphabet’s Google has a sizeable stake in Anthropic; on May 23rd the startup announced its latest funding round of $450m, which included more investment from the tech giant. Making their business ties even tighter, the young firms rely on big tech’s cloud-computing platforms to train their models on oceans of data, which enable the chatbots to behave like human interlocutors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Like the startups, Microsoft and Google are keen to show they take safety seriously—even as they battle each other fiercely in the chatbot race. They, too, argue that new rules are needed and that international co-operation on overseeing &lt;small&gt;LLM&lt;/small&gt;s is essential. As Alphabet’s &lt;small&gt;CEO&lt;/small&gt;, Sundar Pichai, put it, “&lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt; is too important not to regulate, and too important not to regulate well.” &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Such overtures may be perfectly justified by the risks of misinformation, electoral manipulation, terrorism, job disruption and other potential hazards that increasingly powerful &lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt; models may spawn. Yet it is worth bearing in mind that regulation will also bring benefits to the tech giants. That is because it tends to reinforce existing market structures, creating costs that incumbents find easiest to bear, and raising barriers to entry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is important. If big tech uses regulation to fortify its position at the commanding heights of generative &lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt;, there is a trade-off. The giants are more likely to deploy the technology to make their existing products better than to replace them altogether. They will seek to protect their core businesses (enterprise software in Microsoft’s case and search in Google’s). Instead of ushering in an era of Schumpeterian creative destruction, it will serve as a reminder that large incumbents currently control the innovation process—what some call “creative accumulation”. The technology may end up being less revolutionary than it could be. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;LLaMA on the loose &lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Such an outcome is not a foregone conclusion. One of the wild cards is open-source &lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt;, which has proliferated since March when &lt;small&gt;LL&lt;/small&gt;a&lt;small&gt;Ma&lt;/small&gt;, the &lt;small&gt;LLM&lt;/small&gt; developed by Meta, leaked online. Already the buzz in Silicon Valley is that open-source developers are able to build generative-&lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt; models that are almost as good as the existing proprietary ones, and hundredths of the cost. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Anthropic’s Mr Clark describes open-source &lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt; as a “very troubling concept”. Though it is a good way of speeding up innovation, it is also inherently hard to control, whether in the hands of a hostile state or a 17-year-old ransomware-maker. Such concerns will be thrashed out as the world’s regulatory bodies grapple with generative &lt;small&gt;AI&lt;/small&gt;. Microsoft and Google—and, by extension, their startup charges—have much deeper pockets than open-source developers to handle whatever the regulators come up with. They also have more at stake in preserving the stability of the information-technology system that has turned them into titans. For once, the desire for safety and for profits may be aligned. &lt;span data-ornament="ufinish"&gt;■&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Read more from Schumpeter, our columnist on global business:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/business/2023/05/18/americas-culture-wars-threaten-its-single-market"&gt;America’s culture wars threaten its single market&lt;/a&gt; (May 18th)&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/business/2023/05/10/writers-on-strike-beware-hollywood-has-changed-for-ever" data-tegid="e1glkiqo4or4944k0984tfrdts4gpj4h"&gt;Writers on strike beware: Hollywood has changed for ever&lt;/a&gt; (May 10th)&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/business/2023/05/03/america-needs-a-jab-in-its-corporate-backside"&gt;America needs a jab in its corporate backside&lt;/a&gt; (May 3rd)&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Also: If you want to write directly to Schumpeter, email him at &lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed9e8e8598809d8899889fad888e82838280849e99c38e8280"&gt;&lt;span data-cfemail="90e3f3f8e5fde0f5e4f5e2d0f5f3fffefffdf9e3e4bef3fffd"&gt;[email&amp;nbsp;protected]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. And here is &lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/column-names"&gt;an explanation&lt;/a&gt; of how the Schumpeter column got its name.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/section&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline "Non-proliferation treaties"&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div data-test-id="vertical"&gt;
&lt;div orientation="vertical"&gt;
&lt;div orientation="vertical"&gt;
&lt;figure&gt;
&lt;img alt="The haunting" loading="lazy" width="1280" height="1684" decoding="async" data-nimg="1" sizes="300px" srcSet="https://www.economist.com/img/b/16/21/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 16w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/32/42/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 32w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/48/63/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 48w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/64/84/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 64w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/96/126/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 96w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/128/168/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 128w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/256/336/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 256w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/360/473/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 360w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/384/505/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 384w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/480/631/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 480w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/600/789/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 600w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/834/1097/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 834w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/960/1263/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 960w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/1096/1441/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 1096w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/1684/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 1280w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/1424/1873/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 1424w" src="https://www.economist.com/img/b/1424/1873/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg"&gt;
&lt;/figure&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div orientation="vertical"&gt;
&lt;h3 orientation="vertical"&gt;From the May 27th 2023 edition&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p orientation="vertical"&gt;Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/printedition/2023-05-27" data-analytics="sidebar:weekly_edition"&gt;
&lt;svg viewbox="0 0 24 24" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"&gt;
&lt;g fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"&gt;
&lt;path d="M12 1c6.075 0 11 4.925 11 11s-4.925 11-11 11S1 18.075 1 12 5.925 1 12 1zm.142 4.5l-1.008 1.062c3.33 3.276 4.194 4.14 4.608 4.5-1.602-.018-3.168-.018-10.242-.018v1.584c7.074 0 8.73 0 10.242-.018-.432.36-1.314 1.206-4.608 4.536l1.008 1.044 6.354-6.354L12.142 5.5z" fill="#2E45B8" fill-rule="nonzero"&gt;&lt;/path&gt;
&lt;/g&gt;
&lt;/svg&gt;&lt;span&gt;Explore the edition&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<enclosure url="http://localhost:8080/api/audio/453cb0938f834aa6e0c001cef103e8bdd1e8f8cb" type="audio/mp3" />
<pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2023 12:59:02 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">/content/v01qtojbl3frgnek68m04dj6g9au686o</guid>
<dc:date>2023-05-25T12:59:02Z</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Can carbon removal become a trillion-dollar business?</title>
<link>https://www.economist.com/business/2023/05/21/can-carbon-removal-become-a-trillion-dollar-business</link>
<description>&lt;a href="http://localhost:8080/api/audio/a2a5900a05f75961c0863b289fa57ab70cfd6027"&gt;Link to the audio&lt;/a&gt;&lt;hr&gt;&lt;div id="readability-page-1" class="page"&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;section&gt;
&lt;h1&gt;Can carbon removal become a trillion-dollar business?&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Quite possibly—and not before time&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;/section&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;section&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;p data-caps="initial"&gt;&lt;span data-caps="initial"&gt;“T&lt;/span&gt;&lt;small&gt;ODAY WE SEE&lt;/small&gt; the birth of a new species,” declared Julio Friedmann, gazing across the bleak landscape. Along with several hundred grandees, the energy technologist had travelled to Notrees, a remote corner of the Texas oil patch, in late April. He was invited by 1PointFive, an arm of Occidental Petroleum, an American oil firm, and of Carbon Engineering, a Canadian startup backed by Bill Gates. The species in question is in some ways akin to a tree—but not the botanical sort, nowhere to be seen on the barren terrain. Rather, it is an arboreal artifice: the world’s first commercial-scale “direct air capture” (&lt;small&gt;DAC&lt;/small&gt;) plant. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;figure&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;figcaption&gt;
Listen to this story.
&lt;/figcaption&gt;
&lt;span&gt;Enjoy more audio and podcasts on &lt;a id="audio-ios-cta" href="https://economist-app.onelink.me/d2eC/bed1b25" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"&gt;iOS&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a id="audio-android-cta" href="https://economist-app.onelink.me/d2eC/7f3c199" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"&gt;Android&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;audio controls="" id="audio-player" preload="none" src="https://www.economist.com/media-assets/audio/052%20Business%20-%20Climate%20technology-471c2c17c4c5a939c7836b74da5fcaff.mp3" title="Can carbon removal become a trillion-dollar business?" controlslist="nodownload"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Your browser does not support the &amp;lt;audio&amp;gt; element.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/audio&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/figure&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Like a tree, &lt;small&gt;DAC&lt;/small&gt; sucks carbon dioxide from the air, concentrates it and makes it available for some use. In the natural case, that use is creating organic molecules through photosynthesis. For &lt;small&gt;DAC&lt;/small&gt;, it can be things for which humans already use CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, like adding fizz to drinks, spurring plant growth in greenhouses or, in Occidental’s case, injecting it into oilfields to squeeze more drops of crude from the deposits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yet some of the 500,000 tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; that the Notrees plant will capture annually, once fully operational in 2025, will be pumped beneath the plains in the service of a grander goal: fighting climate change. For unlike the carbon stored in biological plants, which can be released when they are cut down or burned, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; artificially sequestered may well stay sequestered indefinitely. Companies that want to net out some of their own carbon emissions but do not trust biology-based offsets will pay the project’s managers per stashed tonne. That makes the Notrees launch the green shoot of something else, too: a real industry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Carbon Engineering and its rivals, like &lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/09/18/the-worlds-biggest-carbon-removal-plant-switches-on"&gt;Climeworks&lt;/a&gt;, a Swiss firm, Global Thermostat, a Californian one, and myriad startups worldwide, are attracting capital. Occidental plans to build 100 large-scale &lt;small&gt;DAC&lt;/small&gt; facilities by 2035. Others are trying to mop up CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; produced by power plants and industrial processes before it enters the atmosphere, an approach known as carbon capture and storage (&lt;small&gt;CCS&lt;/small&gt;). In April ExxonMobil unveiled plans for its newish low-carbon division, whose long-term goal is to offer such decarbonisation as a service for industrial customers in sectors, like steel and cement, where emissions are otherwise hard to abate. The oil giant thinks this sector could be raking in annual revenues of $6trn globally by 2050.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;figure&gt;
&lt;span itemscope="" itemprop="image" itemtype="https://schema.org/ImageObject" data-slim="1"&gt;
&lt;meta itemProp="url" content="https://www.economist.com/img/b/608/739/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC232.png"&gt;&lt;img loading="lazy" src="https://www.economist.com/img/b/608/739/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC232.png" srcSet="https://www.economist.com/img/b/200/243/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC232.png 200w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/300/365/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC232.png 300w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/400/486/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC232.png 400w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/600/729/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC232.png 600w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/640/778/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC232.png 640w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/800/972/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC232.png 800w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/1000/1215/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC232.png 1000w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/1556/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC232.png 1280w" sizes="336px" alt=""&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/figure&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The boom in carbon removal, whether from the air or from industrial point sources, cannot come fast enough. The &lt;small&gt;UN&lt;/small&gt;-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that if Earth is to have a chance of warming by less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, renewables, electric vehicles and other emissions reductions are not enough. &lt;small&gt;CCS&lt;/small&gt; and sources of “negative emissions” such as &lt;small&gt;DAC&lt;/small&gt; must play a part. The Department of Energy calculates that America’s climate targets require capturing and storing between 400m and 1.8bn tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; annually by 2050, up from 20m tonnes today. Wood Mackenzie, an energy consultancy, reckons various forms of carbon removal account for a fifth of the global emissions reductions needed to emit no net greenhouse gases by 2050. If Wood Mackenzie is right, this would be equivalent to sucking up more than 8bn tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; annually. That means an awful lot of industrial-scale carbon-removal ventures (see chart 1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For years such projects were regarded as technically plausible, perhaps, but uneconomical. An influential estimate by the American Physical Society in 2011 put the cost of &lt;small&gt;DAC&lt;/small&gt; at $600 per tonne of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; captured. By comparison, permits to emit one tonne trade at around $100 in the &lt;small&gt;EU&lt;/small&gt;’s emissions-trading system. &lt;small&gt;CCS&lt;/small&gt; has been a perennial disappointment. Simon Flowers of Wood Mackenzie says the power sector has spent some $10bn over the years trying to get it to work, without much success.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;figure&gt;
&lt;span itemscope="" itemprop="image" itemtype="https://schema.org/ImageObject" data-slim="1"&gt;
&lt;meta itemProp="url" content="https://www.economist.com/img/b/608/1195/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC233.png"&gt;&lt;img loading="lazy" src="https://www.economist.com/img/b/608/1195/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC233.png" srcSet="https://www.economist.com/img/b/200/393/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC233.png 200w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/300/590/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC233.png 300w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/400/786/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC233.png 400w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/600/1179/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC233.png 600w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/640/1258/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC233.png 640w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/800/1572/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC233.png 800w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/1000/1965/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC233.png 1000w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/2516/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBC233.png 1280w" sizes="336px" alt=""&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/figure&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Backers of the new crop of carbon-removal projects think this time is different. One reason for their optimism is better and, crucially, cheaper technology (see chart 2). The cost of sequestering a tonne of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; beneath Notrees has not been disclosed, but a paper from 2018 published in the journal &lt;i&gt;Joule&lt;/i&gt; put the price tag for Carbon Engineering’s &lt;small&gt;DAC&lt;/small&gt; system at between $94 and $232 per tonne when operating at scale. That is much less than $600, and not a world away from the &lt;small&gt;EU&lt;/small&gt;’s carbon price. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;small&gt;CcS&lt;/small&gt;, which should be cheaper than &lt;small&gt;DAC&lt;/small&gt;, is also showing a bit more promise. Svante, a Canadian startup, uses inexpensive materials to capture CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; from dirty industrial flue gas for around $50 a tonne (though that excludes transport and storage). Other companies are converting the captured carbon into products which they then hope to sell at a profit. CarbonFree, which works with &lt;small&gt;US&lt;/small&gt; Steel and &lt;small&gt;BP&lt;/small&gt;, a British oil-and-gas company, takes CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; from industrial processes and turns it into speciality chemicals. LanzaTech, which has a commercial-scale partnership with ArcelorMittal, a European steel giant, and several Chinese industrial firms, builds bioreactors that convert industrial carbon emissions into useful materials. Some make their way into portable carbon stores, such as Lululemon yoga pants.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;figure&gt;
&lt;span itemscope="" itemprop="image" itemtype="https://schema.org/ImageObject" data-slim="1"&gt;
&lt;meta itemProp="url" content="https://www.economist.com/img/b/608/1836/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBM955.png"&gt;&lt;img loading="lazy" src="https://www.economist.com/img/b/608/1836/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBM955.png" srcSet="https://www.economist.com/img/b/200/604/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBM955.png 200w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/300/906/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBM955.png 300w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/400/1208/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBM955.png 400w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/600/1812/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBM955.png 600w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/640/1933/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBM955.png 640w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/800/2416/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBM955.png 800w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/1000/3020/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBM955.png 1000w,https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/3865/90/media-assets/image/20230527_WBM955.png 1280w" sizes="336px" alt=""&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/figure&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All told, carbon capture, utilisation and storage (&lt;small&gt;CCUS&lt;/small&gt; in the field’s acronym-rich jargon) may attract $150bn in investments globally this decade, predicts Wood Mackenzie. Assessing current and proposed projects, the consultancy reckons that global &lt;small&gt;CCUS &lt;/small&gt;capacity—which on its definition includes &lt;small&gt;cCS,&lt;/small&gt; the sundry ways to put the captured carbon to use, as well as &lt;small&gt;DAC&lt;/small&gt;—will rise more than sevenfold by 2030. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second—possibly bigger—factor behind the recent flurry of carbon-removal activity is government action. One obvious way to promote the industry would be to make carbon polluters pay a high enough fee for every tonne of carbon they emit that it would be in their interest to pay carbon removers to mop it all up, either at the source or from the atmosphere. A reasonable carbon price like the &lt;small&gt;EU&lt;/small&gt;’s current one may, just about, make &lt;small&gt;CCS&lt;/small&gt; viable. For &lt;small&gt;DAC&lt;/small&gt; to be a profitable enterprise, though, the tax would probably need to be a fair bit higher, which could smother economies still dependent on hydrocarbons. That, plus the dim prospects for a global carbon tax, means that state support is needed to bridge the gap between the current price of carbon and the cost of extracting it. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The emerging view among technologists, investors and buyers is that carbon removal will develop like waste management did decades ago—as an initially costly endeavour that needs public support to get off the ground but can in time turn profitable. Policymakers are coming over to this view. Some of the hundreds of billions of dollars in America’s recently approved climate handouts are aimed at bootstrapping the industry into existence. An enhanced tax credit included in one of the laws, the Inflation Reduction Act, provides up to $85 per tonne of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; permanently stored, and $60 per tonne of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; used for enhanced oil recovery, which also sequesters CO&lt;sub&gt;2 &lt;/sub&gt;(albeit in order to produce more hydrocarbons). Clio Crespy of Guggenheim Securities, an investment firm, calculates that this credit increases the volume of emissions in America that are “in the money” for carbon removal more than tenfold. The &lt;small&gt;EU&lt;/small&gt;’s response to America’s climate bonanza is likely to promote carbon removal, too. Earlier this year the &lt;small&gt;EU&lt;/small&gt; and Norway announced a “green alliance” to boost regional carbon-capture plans.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Buyers of carbon credits are starting to line up. Tech firms, keen to burnish their progressive credentials, are leading the way. On May 15th Microsoft said it would purchase (for an undisclosed sum) 2.7m tonnes of carbon captured over a decade from biomass-burning power plants run by Orsted, a Danish clean-energy firm, and pumped underneath the North Sea by a consortium involving Equinor, Shell and TotalEnergies, three European oil giants. On May 18th Frontier, a buyers’ club with a $1bn carbon-removal pot bankrolled mainly by Alphabet, Meta, Stripe and Shopify, announced a $53m deal with Charm Industrial. The firm will remove 112,000 tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; between 2024 and 2030 by converting agricultural waste, which would otherwise emit carbon as it decomposes, into an oil that can be stored underground. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Big tech is not alone. NextGen, a joint venture between Mitsubishi Corporation, a Japanese conglomerate, and South Pole, a Swiss developer of carbon-removal projects, intends to acquire over 1m tonnes in certified CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-removal credits by 2025, and sell them on to others. It has just announced the purchase of nearly 200,000 tonnes’ worth of such credits from 1PointFive and two other ventures. The end-buyers include SwissRe and &lt;small&gt;UBS&lt;/small&gt;, two Swiss financial giants, Mitsui &lt;small&gt;OSK&lt;/small&gt; Lines, a Japanese shipping firm, and Boston Consulting Group. On May 23rd JPMorgan Chase, America’s biggest bank, said it would spend over $200m in the coming years on buying credits from carbon-removal firms.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Maybe the biggest sign that the carbon-removal business has legs is its embrace by the oil industry. Occidental is keen on &lt;small&gt;DAC&lt;/small&gt;. ExxonMobil says it will spend $17bn from 2022 to 2027 on “lower-emissions investments”, with a slug going to &lt;small&gt;ccs&lt;/small&gt;. Its main American rival, Chevron, is hosting Svante at one of its Californian oilfields. As the Microsoft deal shows, their European peers want to convert parts of the North Sea floor into a giant carbon sink. Equinor and Wintershall, a German oil-and-gas firm, have already secured licences to stash carbon captured from German industry in North Sea sites. Hugo Dijkgraaf, Wintershall’s technology chief, thinks his firm can abate up to 30m tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year by 2040. The idea, he says, is to turn “from an oil-and-gas company into a gas-and-carbon-management company”. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Saudi Arabia, home to Saudi Aramco, the world’s oil colossus, has a goal of increasing &lt;small&gt;CCS&lt;/small&gt; capacity fivefold in the next 12 years. Its mega-storage facility at Jubail Industrial City is expected to be operational by 2027. &lt;small&gt;ADNOC&lt;/small&gt;, Aramco’s Emirati counterpart, wants to increase its capacity sixfold by 2030, to 5m tonnes a year. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The oilmen’s critics allege that their enthusiasm for carbon removal is mainly about improving their reputations in the eyes of increasingly climate-conscious consumers, while pumping more crude for longer. There is surely some truth to this. But given the urgent need to both capture carbon at source and achieve voluminous negative emissions, the willing involvement of giant oil firms, with their vast capital budgets and useful expertise in engineering and geology, is to be welcomed. &lt;span data-ornament="ufinish"&gt;■&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;To stay on top of the biggest stories in business and technology, sign up to the &lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/newsletters/the-bottom-line"&gt;Bottom Line&lt;/a&gt;, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. For more coverage of climate change, sign up for &lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/newsletters"&gt;The Climate Issue&lt;/a&gt;, our fortnightly subscriber-only newsletter, or visit our &lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/climate-change"&gt;climate-change hub&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/section&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline "A giant sucking sound"&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div data-test-id="vertical"&gt;
&lt;div orientation="vertical"&gt;
&lt;div orientation="vertical"&gt;
&lt;figure&gt;
&lt;img alt="The haunting" loading="lazy" width="1280" height="1684" decoding="async" data-nimg="1" sizes="300px" srcSet="https://www.economist.com/img/b/16/21/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 16w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/32/42/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 32w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/48/63/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 48w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/64/84/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 64w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/96/126/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 96w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/128/168/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 128w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/256/336/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 256w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/360/473/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 360w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/384/505/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 384w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/480/631/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 480w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/600/789/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 600w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/834/1097/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 834w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/960/1263/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 960w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/1096/1441/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 1096w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/1684/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 1280w, https://www.economist.com/img/b/1424/1873/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg 1424w" src="https://www.economist.com/img/b/1424/1873/90/media-assets/image/20230527_DE_EU.jpg"&gt;
&lt;/figure&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div orientation="vertical"&gt;
&lt;h3 orientation="vertical"&gt;From the May 27th 2023 edition&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p orientation="vertical"&gt;Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;a href="https://www.economist.com/printedition/2023-05-27" data-analytics="sidebar:weekly_edition"&gt;
&lt;svg viewbox="0 0 24 24" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"&gt;
&lt;g fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"&gt;
&lt;path d="M12 1c6.075 0 11 4.925 11 11s-4.925 11-11 11S1 18.075 1 12 5.925 1 12 1zm.142 4.5l-1.008 1.062c3.33 3.276 4.194 4.14 4.608 4.5-1.602-.018-3.168-.018-10.242-.018v1.584c7.074 0 8.73 0 10.242-.018-.432.36-1.314 1.206-4.608 4.536l1.008 1.044 6.354-6.354L12.142 5.5z" fill="#2E45B8" fill-rule="nonzero"&gt;&lt;/path&gt;
&lt;/g&gt;
&lt;/svg&gt;&lt;span&gt;Explore the edition&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description>
<enclosure url="http://localhost:8080/api/audio/a2a5900a05f75961c0863b289fa57ab70cfd6027" type="audio/mp3" />
<pubDate>Sun, 21 May 2023 16:56:04 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">/content/h8pil0p9a97m23otaa4pso0t23h2ph8s</guid>
<dc:date>2023-05-21T16:56:04Z</dc:date>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment