ResidentialBusiness

Billionaire Elon Musk’s DOGE team is expanding use of his artificial intelligence chatbot Grok in the U.S. federal government to analyze data, said three people familiar with the matter, potentially violating conflict-of-interest laws and putting at risk sensitive information on millions of Americans. Such use of Grok could reinforce concerns among privacy advocates and others that Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency team appears to be casting aside long-established protections over the handling of sensitive data as President Donald The President shakes up the U.S. bureaucracy. One of the three people familiar with the matter, who has knowledge of DOGE’s activities, said Musk’s team was using a customized version of the Grok chatbot. The apparent aim was for DOGE to sift through data more efficiently, this person said. “They ask questions, get it to prepare reports, give data analysis.” The second and third person said DOGE staff also told Department of Homeland Security officials to use it even though Grok had not been approved within the department. Reuters could not determine the specific data that had been fed into the generative AI tool or how the custom system was set up. Grok was developed by xAI, a tech operation that Musk launched in 2023 on his social media platform, X. If the data was sensitive or confidential government information, the arrangement could violate security and privacy laws, said five specialists in technology and government ethics. It could also give the Tesla and SpaceX CEO access to valuable nonpublic federal contracting data at agencies he privately does business with or be used to help train Grok, a process in which AI models analyze troves of data, the experts said. Musk could also gain an unfair competitive advantage over other AI service providers from use of Grok in the federal government, they added. Musk, the White House and xAI did not respond to requests for comment. A Homeland Security spokesperson denied DOGE had pressed DHS staff to use Grok. “DOGE hasn’t pushed any employees to use any particular tools or products,” said the spokesperson, who did not respond to further questions. “DOGE is here to find and fight waste, fraud and abuse.” Musk’s xAI, an industry newcomer compared to rivals OpenAI and Anthropic, says on its website that it may monitor Grok users for “specific business purposes.” “AI’s knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible,” the website says. As part of Musk’s stated push to eliminate government waste and inefficiency, the billionaire and his DOGE team have accessed heavily safeguarded federal databases that store personal information on millions of Americans. Experts said that data is typically off limits to all but a handful of officials because of the risk that it could be sold, lost, leaked, violate the privacy of Americans or expose the country to security threats. Typically, data sharing within the federal government requires agency authorization and the involvement of government specialists to ensure compliance with privacy, confidentiality and other laws. Analyzing sensitive federal data with Grok would mark an important shift in the work of DOGE, a team of software engineers and others connected to Musk. They have overseen the firing of thousands of federal workers, seized control of sensitive data systems and sought to dismantle agencies in the name of combating alleged waste, fraud and abuse. “Given the scale of data that DOGE has amassed and given the numerous concerns of porting that data into software like Grok, this to me is about as serious a privacy threat as you get,” said Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a nonprofit that advocates for privacy. His concerns include the risk that government data will leak back to xAI, a private company, and a lack of clarity over who has access to this custom version of Grok. DOGE’s access to federal information could give Grok and xAI an edge over other potential AI contractors looking to provide government services, said Cary Coglianese, an expert on federal regulations and ethics at the University of Pennsylvania. “The company has a financial interest in insisting that their product be used by federal employees,” he said. “APPEARANCE OF SELF-DEALING” In addition to using Grok for its own analysis of government data, DOGE staff told DHS officials over the last two months to use Grok even though it had not been approved for use at the sprawling agency, said the second and third person. DHS oversees border security, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity and other sensitive national security functions. If federal employees are officially given access to Grok for such use, the federal government has to pay Musk’s organization for access, the people said. “They were pushing it to be used across the department,” said one of the people. Reuters could not independently establish if and how much the federal government would have been charged to use Grok. Reporters also couldn’t determine if DHS workers followed the directive by DOGE staff to use Grok or ignored the request. DHS, under the previous Biden administration, created policies last year allowing its staff to use specific AI platforms, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, the Claude chatbot developed by Anthropic and another AI tool developed by Grammarly. DHS also created an internal DHS chatbot. The aim was to make DHS among the first federal agencies to embrace the technology and use generative AI, which can write research reports and carry out other complex tasks in response to prompts. Under the policy, staff could use the commercial bots for non-sensitive, non-confidential data, while DHS’s internal bot could be fed more sensitive data, records posted on DHS’s website show. In May, DHS officials abruptly shut down employee access to all commercial AI tools – including ChatGPT – after workers were suspected of improperly using them with sensitive data, said the second and third sources. Instead, staff can still use the internal DHS AI tool. Reuters could not determine whether this prevented DOGE from promoting Grok at DHS. DHS did not respond to questions about the matter. Musk, the world’s richest person, told investors last month that he would reduce his time with DOGE to a day or two a week starting in May. As a special government employee, he can only serve for 130 days. It’s unclear when that term ends. If he reduces his hours to part time, he could extend his term beyond May. He has said, however, that his DOGE team will continue with their work as he winds down his role at the White House. If Musk was directly involved in decisions to use Grok, it could violate a criminal conflict-of-interest statute which bars officials — including special government employees — from participating in matters that could benefit them financially, said Richard Painter, ethics counsel to former Republican President George W. Bush and a University of Minnesota professor. “This gives the appearance that DOGE is pressuring agencies to use software to enrich Musk and xAI, and not to the benefit of the American people,” said Painter. The statute is rarely prosecuted but can result in fines or jail time. If DOGE staffers were pushing Grok’s use without Musk’s involvement, for instance to ingratiate themselves with the billionaire, that would be ethically problematic but not a violation of the conflict-of-interest statute, said Painter. “We can’t prosecute it, but it would be the job of the White House to prevent it. It gives the appearance of self-dealing.” The push to use Grok coincides with a larger DOGE effort led by two staffers on Musk’s team, Kyle Schutt and Edward Coristine, to use AI in the federal bureaucracy, said two other people familiar with DOGE’s operations. Coristine, a 19-year-old who has used the online moniker “Big Balls,” is one of DOGE’s highest-profile members. Schutt and Coristine did not respond to requests for comment. DOGE staffers have attempted to gain access to DHS employee emails in recent months and ordered staff to train AI to identify communications suggesting an employee is not “loyal” to The President’s political agenda, the two sources said. Reuters could not establish whether Grok was used for such surveillance. In the last few weeks, a group of roughly a dozen workers at a Department of Defense agency were told by a supervisor that an algorithmic tool was monitoring some of their computer activity, according to two additional people briefed on the conversations. Reuters also reviewed two separate text message exchanges by people who were directly involved in the conversations. The sources asked that the specific agency not be named out of concern over potential retribution. They were not aware of what tool was being used. Using AI to identify the personal political beliefs of employees could violate civil service laws aimed at shielding career civil servants from political interference, said Coglianese, the expert on federal regulations and ethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In a statement to Reuters, the Department of Defense said the department’s DOGE team had not been involved in any network monitoring nor had DOGE been “directed” to use any AI tools, including Grok. “It’s important to note that all government computers are inherently subject to monitoring as part of the standard user agreement,” said Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson. The department did not respond to follow-up questions about whether any new monitoring systems had been deployed recently. (Additional reporting by Jeffrey Dastin and Alexandra Alper. Editing by Jason Szep) —Marisa Taylor, Alexandra Ulmer, Reuters View the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication. At $336 (down from its usual $449), the Sonos Move 2 is seeing its lowest price ever right now, according to price trackers. That makes it a bit easier to justify if you've been eyeing a portable Bluetooth speaker that doesn’t compromise on sound. Sonos Move 2 $336.00 at Amazon /images/amazon-prime.svg $449.00 Save $113.00 Get Deal Get Deal $336.00 at Amazon /images/amazon-prime.svg $449.00 Save $113.00 This isn’t some lightweight travel companion you toss in a beach bag. It’s nearly 6.6 pounds, built like a tank, and clearly meant to pull double duty as both an indoor speaker and an outdoor one. It looks clean, charges on a minimalist wireless base, and comes in either matte black or white. The audio setup includes dual tweeters for stereo separation and a single woofer that holds its own, especially at moderate volumes. At higher levels, the bass pulls back a bit to prevent distortion, but unless you’re constantly maxing it out, that won’t be a huge issue, notes this PCMag review. Bluetooth 5.0 is a little behind the times and won’t please audiophiles who want higher-res streaming on the go. But this speaker was clearly built with wifi use in mind—and on that front, it shines. Pair it with the Sonos app, and you get access to EQ adjustments, TruePlay room tuning, and the ability to link it to other Sonos speakers. It also supports AirPlay 2 and hands-free voice control with both Alexa and Sonos Voice. It’s not fully waterproof, but the IP56 rating means it’ll survive a heavy downpour or occasional rinsing. The battery life has been bumped up to a solid 24 hours (though that number depends on how loud you play it and how often you use voice or wifi features), and the app makes setup and everyday use easy, whether you're already in the Sonos ecosystem or not. The Move 2 is expensive, no doubt, and Bluetooth specs could be better. But if you care about full-bodied, room-filling sound, smart features, and portability that doesn’t feel like a toy, this might be the speaker to grab, especially while it’s at its best price yet. View the full article

University to seek an order blocking the administration’s effort to stop it enrolling foreign studentsView the full article

Financial meltdown averted, I merely worry about inflation, interest rates and the dollarView the full article

Rapidly rising tuition and housing costs both contributed to lower homeownership rates and a more than twofold surge in student debt in under 15 years. View the full article

AI always reminds me of Clippy, the infamous talking paperclip added to Microsoft Office in the '90s. This little guy frustrated users, was based on a faulty understanding of how people want to use technology, and had a way of showing up even after you specifically turned it off. It was probably inevitable, then, for someone to make a tool that combines large language models and the 30-year-old animated paperclip. That someone is developer Felix Rieseberg, who built a Windows 95-themed Clippy app that can run real large language models on your computer. The application is available on Windows, Mac, and Linux devices, and works offline. Clippy looks just the way you remember and hovers over whatever you're working on. He cycles through several animations. Click on him to start chatting, the way you would with any other large language model. The application works offline, meaning you can chat with Clippy on a train or airplane if you really want to. To be clear: this is not intended to be a functional tool. Rieseberg calls it an art project he made just because it's fun. "If you get as little as a small chuckle out of it, I’m happy to hear it," says the project's "about" page. Even so, Clippy is probably the easiest tool I've come across for running large language models locally on a computer. Just download the application, install it, then choose which model you want to run in the Windows 95 themed preferences. The default, Google's Gemma, works well enough. Credit: Justin Pot This application is based on Ollama, an open source application built by Meta which makes it possible to run a variety of large language models on your own computer. Clippy offers eight different models to try out. Generally, the larger they are the more system resources they'll take to use—you can try a few different ones to get a feel for how well they work on your device. It's fun, if not entirely practical. Clippy can't access the internet, so you can't get real-time information, and the responses aren't as sophisticated as what you'd get from a top-of-the-line AI service. There are a few more things you can tweak in the settings, including the default font and whether Clippy should always be on the top. You can also write your own system prompt for Clippy, allowing you to take control of his personality. This AI-powered art project isn't going to change the world, and it's not supposed to. It's a piece of art, like this musical masterpiece Clippy inspired earlier this year. View the full article

On days of heavy pollution in Sulphur, a southwest Louisiana town surrounded by more than 16 industrial plants, Cynthia “Cindy” Robertson once flew a red flag outside her home so her community knew they faced health hazards from high levels of soot and other pollutants. But she stopped flying the flag after Louisiana passed a law last May that threatened fines of up to $1 million for sharing information about air quality that did not meet strict standards. On Thursday, Robertson’s group Micah 6:8 Mission and other Louisiana environmental organizations sued the state in federal court over the law they say restricts their free speech and undermines their ability to promote public health in heavily industrialized communities. When neighbors asked where the flags went, “I’d tell them, ‘The state of Louisiana says we can’t tell y’all that stuff,'” Robertson said. While the state has argued the law ensures that accurate data is shared with the public, environmental groups like Micah 6:8 Mission believed it was intended to censor them with “onerous restrictions” and violates their free speech rights, according to the lawsuit. Despite having received Environmental Protection Agency funding to monitor Sulphur’s pollution using high quality air monitors for several years, Michah 6:8 Mission stopped posting data on the group’s social media after the law was signed last May, Robertson said. While federal law requires publicly disclosed monitoring of major pollutants, fence-line communities in Louisiana have long sought data on their exposure to hazardous and likely carcinogenic chemicals like chloroprene and ethylene oxide, which were not subject to these same regulations. Under the Biden administration, the EPA tightened regulations for these pollutants, though the The President administration has committed to rolling them back. The Biden administration’s EPA also injected funding to support community-based air monitoring, especially in neighborhoods on the “fence-line” with industrial plants that emitted pollutants that they were not required to publicly monitor under federal law. Some groups say they lack confidence in the data the state does provide and embraced the chance to monitor the air themselves with federal funding. “These programs help detect pollution levels in areas of the country not well served by traditional and costly air monitoring systems,” the lawsuit stated. In response to the influx of grassroots air monitoring, Louisiana’s Legislature passed the Community Air Monitoring Reliability Act, or CAMRA, which requires that community groups that monitor pollutants “for the purpose of alleging violations or noncompliance” of federal law must follow EPA standards, including approved equipment that can costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. “You can’t talk about air quality unless you’re using the equipment that they want you to use,” said David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project, which represents the plaintiffs. He added there was no need for community groups to purchase such expensive equipment when cheaper technology could provide “perfectly adequate results . . . to be able to tell your community, your family, whether or not the air they’re breathing is safe.” Community groups sharing information based on cheaper air monitoring equipment that did not meet these requirements could face penalties of $32,500 a day and up to $1 million for intentional violations, according to analysis from the Environmental Integrity Project. “We’re a small nonprofit, we couldn’t afford to pay one day’s worth of that,” Robertson said. “And the way the law is written, it’s so ambiguous, you don’t really know what you can and can’t do.” There is no known instance in which the state has pursued these penalties, but community groups say the law has a chilling effect on their work. “The purpose of this was very clear: to silence the science, preventing people from doing anything with it, sharing it in any form,” said Caitlion Hunter, director of research and policy for Rise St. James, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “I’m not sure how regulating community air monitoring programs ‘violates their constitutional rights’,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill countered in a written statement. Industry groups are excluded from the law’s requirements, the lawsuit notes. The law presumes “that air monitoring information lacks accuracy if disseminated by community air monitoring groups, but not by industry participants or the state,” the complaint states. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency declined to comment, citing pending litigation. Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. —Jack Brook, Associated Press/Report for America View the full article

European stocks slide and Wall Street set to open lower after US president attacks the bloc View the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Two months ago, I downloaded and started using the Steppin app, which locks up your most distracting apps and forces you to trade your real-world steps for them. After just three days, I was finding it enjoyable enough to review it, but now that I've spent 68 days with the app, I'm even more impressed. While it's still only available on iOS, an Android version is available on a waitlist and not much has changed in terms of interface or use since I first reviewed it, but I've found it much easier to navigate and incorporate into my life. My social media use is definitely downThe app works by syncing with your Apple Health data and pulling in the steps your phone or fitness tracker record, then converting them to minutes that you can redeem on your preferred apps. Once you add an app to your blocklist, you'll be prompted to open Steppin every time you try to open the blocked app. Then, you have the choice of selecting between one and 30 minutes of unlocked time or just abandoning the pursuit altogether. My settings are calibrated such that 50 steps unlocks one minute of app time. When I started, I added two apps to my blocklist: Instagram and a game called Project Makeover. My time on those apps has absolutely bottomed out. For the most part, this is a good thing. I can't even tell you the last time I watched a nonsensical Reel. On the flip side, though, I'll admit it's actually had a little bit of an impact on my social life. Instagram is where, for better or worse, people broadcast the goings-on in their lives, so I've missed out on a few things like milestone announcements from people I consider friends, but not best friends who would text me good news directly. I do feel rude for not "liking" these posts or congratulating them in the DMs when I eventually see or hear about the news days later. For as much as my mom complains that "social media isn't real life," that's not exactly true anymore and I am missing out on some real-life-adjacent things in my quest to stop looking at so many stupid Reels. I think it's a fine trade-off, but it's definitely something I've noticed. Still, it's given me a lot of time back and I'm grateful for it. I check my screen time every week and have seen it taking a nosedive. This week, my daily average is down 18% from last week, my "pickups"—or the amount of times I've unlocked my phone—are down 14% from last week, and my average notifications are down 8% from last week, though Poshmark, with over 6,000 notifications this week, is an outlier because I get a notification every time someone shares, likes, or buys one of my listings and have been using a third-party app to maximize how often those things happen. Don't worry, though. I set those alerts to appear quietly in my notification feed; they don't generate a push notification that lights up my lock screen. As it all relates to the little dopamine bops my brain has become wired to seek out from short-form videos and bite-sized hot takes, I've definitely noticed I'm just less interested in seeking that stuff out—to a point. Time without it has certainly acted like a detox and I don't necessarily feel the urge to look at posts that will shock, enrage, titillate, or otherwise entertain me, which wasn't true three months ago. That said, I've noticed that it's been a little easier for me to get sucked in by other apps that I didn't used to look at that often and didn't initially add to my blocklist—it was as though some of my previous Instagram time just spilled over into other apps. For a while there, I was spending an inordinate amount of time on X, for example. I noticed, added it to my Steppin blocklist while writing this, and carried on. Streaks make this workI am motivated heavily by arbitrary personal rewards. My workout streak on Peloton keeps me motivated to hop on my bike every day. My self-care streak on Finch keeps me motivated to log all my daily wins. My listing streak on Poshmark and my purchase streak on the Dunkin' Donuts app even earn me real-world rewards like discounted shipping and free coffee, respectively. It's no surprise the streak feature on Steppin has kept me similarly locked in. You maintain your streak by not removing any apps from your blocklist or overriding the app to get at your blocked apps. I have maintained my streak for 68 days and am quite proud of it. Adding new apps to your blocklist doesn't reset your streak and neither does altering the amount of steps you have to take to earn one minute. My steps aren't necessarily up (but I knew they wouldn't be)My distracting app use is definitely down and I'm feeling the positive effects, but Steppin's whole deal is that it facilitates change by encouraging you to be more active. It's supposed to be a two-for-one benefit. I was already active before downloading this and haven't noticed a significant increase in my daily average steps, but I don't mind. I teach three to four spin classes per week and do the majority of my cardio using my Peloton bike at home—while those activities burn calories and keep me active, they don't count toward "steps." I still take as many steps in an average day as I ever did, walking to the post office, Dunkin', the gym, and the bus—all the places I was already walking before installing Steppin. I have noticed I have not just a willingness, but an eagerness, to walk slightly farther distances than normal, though. Sometimes, instead of taking my Poshmark sales to the post office two blocks from my apartment, I walk up to the one 10 blocks away. I also get off the bus two or so stops early from time to time just to walk a little, although that might have more to do with my excitement that it's finally getting warmer outside. Generally, I know I'm doing this so I can bank some minutes of Instagram time, but I don't really end up using it, anyway. My banked minutes reset every Sunday at midnight and I usually end up with about five to six hours of unclaimed time. (It is very annoying to wake up on Sundays and not be able to even glance at Instagram while I brush my teeth and make my coffee, which results in me kind of shuffling around in a circle in the living room to generate some quick steps, but if I were to reconfigure my settings so that my minutes rolled over week-to-week, I'd lose my streak and I simply can't do that.) All in all, my Apple Health data shows I'm taking the same amount of steps now, on average, as I was this time last year, but I consider it a win that I'm even consciously choosing to walk when I wouldn't normally. Just this week, besides going to the farther post office, I've opted to go golfing for my weekly sports outing, walk around a shopping center instead of order all my summer clothes online, and use Peloton's guided walking workouts instead of doing all my cardio on my bike. This is definitely because of Steppin, which is forcing me to consciously make minor, healthy tweaks to my day. When I first reviewed Steppin, I interviewed its founder, Paul English. He mentioned he and his team are looking into ways to count things beyond steps that could equate to unblocked minutes, like time spent reading on a Kindle. That's a feature I'll be looking forward to. It would be great if the workouts my Apple Health records—like my cycling and my strength training—could somehow reflect in my Steppin time bank, although at this point, I'm not sure I'd use the extra minutes, anyway. I'm just not as interested in social media anymore. View the full article

Greenback falls 1.7% amid concerns over impact of The President’s tax-cutting billView the full article

US president steps up pressure on Apple chief executive Tim Cook View the full article

The former chief executive of the Timpson Group on his plans to modernise the penal system — and how to stop ex-convicts reoffendingView the full article

2026 may still be more than seven months away, but it’s already shaping up as the year of consumer AI hardware. Or at least the year of a flurry of high-stakes attempts to put generative AI at the heart of new kinds of devices—several of which were in the news this week. Let’s review. On Tuesday, at its I/O developer conference keynote, Google demonstrated smart glasses powered by its Android XR platform and announced that eyewear makers Warby Parker and Gentle Monster would be selling products based on it. The next day, OpenAI unveiled its $6.5 billion acquisition of Jony Ive’s startup IO, which will put the Apple design legend at the center of the ChatGPT maker’s quest to build devices around its AI. And on Thursday, Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman reported that Apple hopes to release its own Siri-enhanced smart glasses. In theory, all these players may have products on the market by the end of next year. What I didn’t get from these developments was any new degree of confidence that anyone has figured out how to produce AI gadgets that vast numbers of real people will find indispensable. When and how that could happen remains murky—in certain respects, more than ever. To be fair, none of this week’s news involved products that are ready to be judged in full. Only Google has something ready to demonstrate in public at all: Here’s Janko Roettgers’s report on his I/O experience with prototype Android XR glasses built by Samsung. That the company has already made a fair amount of progress is only fitting given that Android XR scratches the same itch the company has had since it unveiled its ill-fated Google Glass a dozen years ago. It’s just that the available technologies—including Google’s Gemini LLM—have come a long, long way. Unlike the weird, downright alien-looking Glass, Google’s Android XR prototype resembles a slightly chunky pair of conventional glasses. It uses a conversational voice interface and a transparent mini-display that floats on your view of your surroundings. Google says that shipping products will have “all-day” battery life, a claim, vague though it is, that Glass could never make. But some of the usage scenarios that the company is showing off, such as real-time translation and mapping directions, are the same ones it once envisioned Glass enabling. The market’s rejection of Glass was so resounding that one of the few things people remember about the product is that its fans were seen as creepy, privacy-invading glassholes. Enough has happened since then—including the success of Meta’s smart Ray-Bans—that Android XR eyewear surely has a far better shot at acceptance. But as demoed at I/O, the floating screen came off as a roadblock between the user and the real world. Worst case, it might simply be a new, frictionless form of screen addiction that further distracts us from human contact. Meanwhile, the video announcement of OpenAI and IO’s merger was as polished as a Jony Ive-designed product—San Francisco has rarely looked so invitingly lustrous—but didn’t even try to offer details about their work in progress. Altman and Ive smothered each other in praise and talked about reinventing computing. Absent any specifics, Altman’s assessment of one of Ive’s prototypes (“The coolest piece of technology that the world will have ever seen”) sounded like runaway enthusiasm at best and Barnumesque puffery at worst. Reporting on an OpenAI staff meeting regarding the news, The Wall Street Journal’s Berber Jin provided some additional tidbits about the OpenAI device. Mostly, they involved what it isn’t—such as a phone or glasses. It might not even be a wearable, at least on a full-time basis: According to Jin, the product will be “able to rest in one’s pocket or on one’s desk” and complement an iPhone and MacBook Pro without supplanting them. Whatever this thing is, Jin cites Altman predicting that it will sell 100 million units faster than any product before it. In 2007, by contrast, Apple forecast selling a more modest 10 million iPhones in the phone’s first full year on the market—a challenging goal at the time, though the company surpassed it. Now, discounting the possibility of something transformative emerging from OpenAI-IO would be foolish. Ive, after all, may have played a leading role in creating more landmark tech products than anyone else alive. Altman runs the company that gave us the most significant one of the past decade. But Ive rhapsodizing over their working relationship in the video isn’t any more promising a sign than him rhapsodizing over the $10,000 solid gold Apple Watch was in 2015. And Altman, the biggest investor in Humane’s doomed AI Pin, doesn’t seem to have learned one of the most obvious lessons of that fiasco: Until you have a product in the market, it’s better to tamp down expectations than stoke them. You can’t accuse Apple of hyping any smart glasses it might release in 2026. It hasn’t publicly acknowledged their existence, and won’t until their arrival is much closer. If anything, the company may be hypersensitive to the downsides of premature promotion. Almost a year ago, it began The Presidenteting a new AI-infused version of Siri—one it clearly didn’t have working at the time, and still hasn’t released. After that embarrassing mishap, silencing the skeptics will require shipping stuff, not previewing what might be ahead. Even companies that aren’t presently trying to earn back their AI cred should take note and avoid repeating Apple’s mistake. I do believe AI demands that we rethink how computers work from the ground up. I also hope the smartphone doesn’t turn out to be the last must-have device, because if it were, that would be awfully boring. Maybe the best metric of success is hitting Apple’s 10-million-units-per-year goal for the original iPhone—which, perhaps coincidentally, is the same one set by EssilorLuxottica, the manufacturer of Meta’s smart Ray-Bans. If anything released next year gets there, it might be the landmark AI gizmo we haven’t yet seen. And if nothing does, we can safely declare that 2026 wasn’t the year of consumer AI hardware after all. You’ve been reading Plugged In, Fast Company’s weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to you—or if you’re reading it on FastCompany.com—you can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard. More top tech stories from Fast Company How Google is rethinking search in an AI-filled world Google execs Liz Reid and Nick Fox explain how the company is rethinking everything from search results to advertising and personalization. Read More → Roku is doing more than ever, but focus is still its secret ingredient The company that set out to make streaming simple has come a long way since 2008. Yet its current business all connects back to the original mission, says CEO Anthony Wood. Read More → Gen Z is willing to sell their personal data—for just $50 a month A new app, Verb.AI, wants to pay the generation that’s most laissez-faire on digital privacy for their scrolling time. Read More → Forget return-to-office. Hybrid now means human plus AI As AI evolves, businesses should use the technology to complement, not replace, human workers. Read More → It turns out TikTok’s viral clear phone is just plastic. Meet the ‘Methaphone’ Millions were fooled by a clip of a see-through phone. Its creator says it’s not tech—it’s a tool to break phone addiction. Read More → 4 free Coursera courses to jump-start your AI journey See what all the AI fuss is about without spending a dime. Read More → View the full article

Want more housing market stories from Lance Lambert’s ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter. National home prices rose 0.7% year over year between April 2024 and April 2025, according to the Zillow Home Value Index—a decelerated rate from the 4.4% year-over-year rate between April 2023 and April 2024. And more metro-area housing markets are seeing declines. For example, 31 of the nation’s 300 largest housing markets (10% of markets) had a falling year-over-year reading in the January 2024 to January 2025 window. In the February 2024 to February 2025 window, 42 of them (14% of markets) had a falling year-over-year reading. In the March 2024 to March 2025 window, that was up to 60 housing markets (20% of markets). And in the most recent reading—the April 2024 to April 2025 window—80 of the nation’s 300 largest housing markets (27% of markets) had a falling year-over-year reading. While 27% of the 300 largest housing markets are currently experiencing year-over-year home price declines, that share is gradually increasing as the supply-demand balance continues to shift directionally toward buyers in this affordability-constrained environment. Home prices are still climbing in many regions where active inventory remains well below pre-pandemic levels, such as pockets of the Northeast and Midwest. In contrast, some pockets in states like Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas—where active inventory exceeds pre-pandemic 2019 levels—are seeing modest home price corrections. These year-over-year declines, using the Zillow Home Value Index, are evident in major metros such as Austin (-5.1%); Tampa, Florida (-5.0%); San Antonio (-3.2%); Dallas (-3.0%); Phoenix (-2.8%); Orlando, Florida (-2.8%); Jacksonville, Florida (-2.7%); New Orleans (-2.4); Atlanta (-2.3%); Miami (-2.3%), Denver (-1.8%), and Houston (-1.4%). The markets seeing the most softness—where homebuyers have gained the most leverage—are primarily located in Sun Belt regions, particularly the Gulf Coast and Mountain West. Many of these areas saw major price surges during the pandemic housing boom, with home price growth outpacing local income levels. As pandemic-driven migration slowed and mortgage rates rose, markets like Tampa and Austin faced challenges, relying on local income levels to support frothy home prices. This softening trend is further compounded by an abundance of new home supply in the Sun Belt. Builders are often willing to lower prices or offer affordability incentives to maintain sales, which also has a cooling effect on the resale market. Some buyers, who would have previously considered existing homes, are now opting for new homes with more favorable deals. Given the shift in active housing inventory and months of supply, along with the soft level of appreciation in more markets this spring, ResiClub expects the number of metro areas with year-over-year home price declines in the Zillow Home Value Index to continue ticking up in the coming months. View the full article

Right now, America is facing a traffic safety crisis unlike anything we’ve seen in decades. And it’s only accelerating: 2023 was the deadliest year for pedestrians and cyclists in 45 years. Crashes are rising in nearly every state. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration just warned that traffic deaths are staying at “persistently high levels,” despite fewer people commuting post-pandemic. Meanwhile, distracted driving deaths jumped nearly 12% last year alone, according to the latest federal data. Everywhere you look, it’s getting more dangerous to move through your own neighborhood, whether you’re walking your dog, riding your bike, or just driving home from work. It is a daily, growing threat to your family, your friends, and your community. A common nightmare Twenty-one months ago, my 17-year-old son Magnus was out on a training ride. He was on the U.S. National Cycling Team and was a U.S. National Cycling Champion. It was a Saturday at 12:30 pm. He was doing everything right. He was riding on a designated bike route, on the far right of a wide, 10-foot shoulder, wearing his Team USA cycling kit. A driver stayed up all night, drank whiskey and took prescription drugs, then got behind the wheel of her car. The driver passed out, crossed the white line into the shoulder at 60 mph, and drove straight through Magnus, never touching the brakes. Since Magnus’s death, I’ve met countless other families living the same nightmare. Families who lost children, parents, siblings, good people who were doing everything right as a pedestrian or cyclist, but paid the ultimate price for someone else’s reckless choices. This isn’t rare. It’s happening every day, all over America. Technology can move faster The brutal truth is that humans are flawed. We choose to speed. We choose to look at our phones. We choose to drive drunk. Our infrastructure is flawed too, especially here in the U.S. Streets designed for speed, not safety. Crosswalks painted on four-lane highways. Stop signs placed where they don’t slow anyone down. And rebuilding all of it would take decades and dollars that we don’t have. But technology can move faster. Technology can sometimes even compensate for human mistakes. It can spot dangers our eyes miss, respond faster than our reflexes, and protect lives even when people choose to drive recklessly. The technology exists today to save lives. It’s real, it’s proven, and it’s ready. Safety features like lane-keep assist, automatic emergency braking (AEB), and blind-spot detection aren’t luxury add-ons. They’re lifesaving necessities. AEB alone cuts rear-end crashes by up to 50% and blind-spot monitoring reduces lane-change crash injuries by 23%. And yet, carmakers still sell models without them. Insurers still treat them as optional. Buyers still skip them to save a few hundred dollars at the dealership. If we want to stop the daily slaughter on our roads, the bare minimum must be mandating that all cars in the U.S. have this technology that corrects for human error. Immediately. Smart infrastructure powered by AI is already saving lives too. Cities like Bellevue, Washington, have seen serious crash reductions of over 20% after installing AI-powered traffic systems that predict and prevent accidents. Impaired driving is also solvable. On-demand breathalyzers, smartphone saliva tests, and eye-tracking sensors are all tools that already exist to stop drunk and high drivers before they even start the ignition. Uber is already testing real-time driver sobriety verification. Why aren’t carmakers racing to put similar tech in every new vehicle? Better data Most importantly, we critically need better access to traffic incident data. Today, vital data on where, when, and how these vulnerable road user deaths and incidents happen is scattered, outdated, and buried behind bureaucratic walls. Advocates fighting for reform can’t build a case without it. Companies trying to engineer safer roads and smarter vehicles can’t act fast enough without it either. Technology and data companies must come together to unlock real-time, public access to nationwide safety data. Lives depend on it. Evidence fuels change. Right now, we are starving for it. Heightened urgency The tools are here, and they work. What’s missing is urgency. Here’s what must happen: Lawmakers must make safety tech standard in the U.S., not optional. Insurers must reward drivers and companies that use lifesaving technology. Consumers must refuse to buy vehicles without proven safety features. Technology companies must push harder, louder, and faster for adoption. Magnus’s death was preventable. Hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved if we stop dragging our feet and demand better. Private industry and technology have handed us the tools to make death and injury on our roads obsolete. It’s up to tech, business, and political leaders here in the U.S. to make them mandatory. The future we need is within reach. Now we have to have the will to make it happen. View the full article

Branded is a weekly column devoted to the intersection of marketing, business, design, and culture. Earnings season has an important new element this quarter: President Donald The President. Wall Street is hungry for clarity from big consumer brands about the impact tariffs may have on prices—and thus inflation. But The President has been making it clear what his administration believes companies should do to the prices they charge shoppers: nothing. “EAT THE TARIFFS,” he berated Walmart recently, after the big-box giant indicated during an earnings call that price increases might be in the offing. “Given the magnitude of the tariffs,” CEO Doug McMillon said, “we aren’t able to absorb all the pressure, given the reality of narrow retail margins.” The President’s blunt rejoinder on social media waved that away, insisting Walmart need “not charge valued customers ANYTHING” extra in response to the tariffs, adding: “I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!” (Walmart reported quarterly revenue of about $165 billion, up 2.5% over the same quarter last year.) The President has also attacked toymaker Mattel for suggesting it could move production to dodge tariff costs, as well as Amazon for reportedly considering a plan to spell out tariff cost increases to consumers. The message seems to be getting through. This week another big-box giant, Home Depot, reported earnings—and made it clear that it claims to have no tariff-driven price increases planned. “We don’t see broad-based price increases for our customers at all going forward,” CEO Billy Bastek said in an earnings call. Target also reported earnings, and while its CEO acknowledged tariff pressure, he called price hikes “the very last resort.” Even Walmart has since sounded a somewhat conciliatory note: “We have always worked to keep our prices as low as possible and we won’t stop,” the company said in a statement this week. “We’ll keep prices as low as we can for as long as we can, given the reality of small retail margins.” It’s unclear how long presidential jawboning can stave off retail price increases, but the apparent effort is remarkable. In the last election, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris was slammed by critics who dubiously characterized her proposal to crack down on “price gouging” as essentially government price control. Attempting to publicly micromanage companies considering tariff-related price rises doesn’t have the force of law, but it certainly seems like government marketplace meddling, aimed squarely at controlling prices. Public companies in particular are left to thread the needle of serving shareholders by maximizing earnings and keeping investors informed of risks—while avoiding hostile publicity from the White House. Polling data suggests consumers expect further inflation, so maybe at this point of The President’s pressure campaign, it is just about who (companies or government policy) gets blamed for the trade war’s inevitable impact on costs. That said, any attempt at actually staving off tariff-sparked price increases with loud rhetoric seems doomed: A poll from insurer Allianz found that 54% of U.S. companies say they will have to raise prices to cope with tariffs. Not even The President can bully a majority of American businesses to “eat the tariffs.” And in fact, Home Depot’s high-profile distancing from tariff price increases had some caveats. Some toolmakers have already raised prices, and Home Depot’s CEO noted that one way it might avoid hikes is with less inventory: “There are items that we have that could potentially be impacted from a tariff that, candidly, we won’t have going forward.” Of course, there is nothing surprising or unexpected about tariffs driving up prices or narrowing consumer choice. It’s exactly what most economic assessments said would happen, what companies large and small have anticipated—and indeed what many of the big-box giants’ leaders reportedly warned The President would happen earlier this year. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent now admits that prices are going to rise. Ultimately, these businesses will take the steps they need to, and consumers will muddle through the consequences. But perhaps, if the The President administration’s pressure campaign works, all that will happen with as little talk of tariffs as possible. View the full article

The first time I met with a financial adviser who wasn’t my dad, I told him that I wanted to avoid fossil fuels, weapons manufacturers, and health insurance companies in my retirement investment portfolio. The adviser paused, sighed, and said, “I’ve got some bad news for you.” He explained that since I was unwilling to pick individual stocks, it was virtually impossible to avoid investing my money in those industries. And even if I had the time and temperament to trade individual stocks to keep my investments from oil, weapons, and health insurance, my money might not keep pace with the market, or even inflation. In short, my adviser believed I could either grow my money or feel good about my investments, but not both. This conversation took place more than 15 years ago. In the intervening time, socially responsible investing became mainstream. These days, every brokerage and retirement plan offers at least one ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) investing option for concerned investors. But just how much have things changed since my adviser poured cold water on my investing idealism? Does the existence of ESG funds truly give you the option of investing responsibly? And considering the way The President has declared war on the very idea of corporate responsibility, will ESG investing be around much longer? In a financial world that thinks morals are paintings on walls, here’s what you need to know about investing your values. Rating companies on ESG performance The ESG rating system measures the performance of a fund, security, or company in environmental, social, or corporate governance issues. Specifically, analysts look at how the company fares in terms of its environmental sustainability, its social impact, and how its internal governance promotes equity. The goal of the ESG rating system is to provide an objective analysis and rating of the company’s relative performance compared to other companies in the market. The rating is no more than a snapshot in time, since industry changes, market conditions, social and environmental shifts, policy adjustments within the company, and other situational changes can affect a score. ESG doesn’t mean what you think it means If ESG investing specifically highlights companies for their environmental or social impact, or for their commitment to equitable corporate governance, then investing in highly rated ESG funds means you are not only doing right by your money but also helping the planet and your fellow humans. At least that’s what you’d assume ESG investing was all about. Unfortunately, that’s not necessarily what highly rated ESG investments are doing. According to Kenneth P. Pucker and Andrew King, writing for Harvard Business Review in 2022, “the ESG ratings which underlie ESG fund selection are based on single materiality—the impact of the changing world on a company profit and loss.” This is in contrast to companies considering double materiality, which looks at environmental impact in both directions: How do the organization’s decisions affect the environment and climate, and what potential effect will the climate and environment have on the company’s bottom line? By looking only at single materiality, highly rated ESG funds are only interested in providing value to shareholders. The underlying companies may pay lip service to sustainability or social responsibility, but their business practices don’t accept responsibility for actually making any changes that will help the environment or social issues. Paying more for less Even if highly rated ESG companies aren’t necessarily playing fast and loose with the definition of “socially responsible,” it’s likely that you’re going to pay more to invest your money with an ESG fund—and get less for your investment. That’s because ESG funds typically charge higher management fees than passive index funds while providing worse returns. This means ESG investing is an emotional decision rather than a sound investment in improving the planet, society, or your nest egg. Gaming the system The ESG rating system isn’t set up to reward companies that are doing the hard work of mitigating negative environmental and social impacts. This doesn’t necessarily mean that all highly rated ESG funds are full of companies headed by Gordon Gekko types. But there are certainly a number of companies that are happy to use the ESG rating system to their advantage. For instance, in 2023, presidential pal and hat weirdo Elon Musk decried the ESG rating system for ranking Tesla below Philip Morris (of cancer stick fame). Although Tesla’s business model is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Philip Morris earned a significantly higher ESG score for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion policies within its C-suite. Musk claimed that Phillip Morris gamed the rating system to garner its 84/100 ESG score, compared to Tesla’s measly 37/100. And as much as it pains me to admit it, Musk was probably right. There’s not much a cigarette company can do to improve its environmental or social impact, so if it wants to improve its ESG score, it has to focus on corporate governance. Despite having an eco-friendly product, Tesla was dinged for the lack of diversity within its corporate governance. Instead of ESG spurring environmentally friendly companies like Tesla to embrace DEI initiatives in the boardroom—which is what most idealistic investors probably would have preferred to see—the rating system created a way for companies like Philip Morris to greenwash their image. Navigating the ESG landscape in the The President era It may come as no surprise that the current president is no fan of ESG investing. Between rolling back environmental regulations, disproportionately affecting women and people of color in his mass layoffs, and axing all diversity, equity, and inclusion within his line of sight, The President has made it abundantly clear that he does not share any of the ESG values. His distaste for these values is shared by many within the Republican party. Even before The President returned to D.C. for his second term, multiple Republican-led states had adopted anti-ESG legislation generally aimed at keeping ESG investing out of state pension funds. While the backlash against ESG is going strong, it’s unlikely that investors interested in putting their money in ESG funds will be shut out. Not only is ESG a good marketing strategy for businesses (see Philip Morris, above) but it is also popular globally, with 68% of global retail investors stating that their ethical views are an important consideration when choosing an investment, according to AXA Investment Managers. The ESG rating system isn’t going anywhere. There are too many forces keeping it in place, even though high-profile tantrum throwers would prefer it to be gone. Invest like a cynical optimist I felt pretty low after my meeting with my financial adviser 15 years ago. Other than trading individual stocks—which will never be my investment style—my only option was putting my retirement money into companies I hated. When ESG investing first gained traction a few years later, my cynicism kept me from becoming too enthusiastic about the new socially responsible investing options. It was no longer my first rodeo, and I knew that there was no easy answer to values investing. And that is the trick to investing your values: recognizing that there are no easy answers. It is possible to invest your money only in companies and organizations that you truly believe in, but you will have to handpick your investments and live with the risk of low returns or potentially losing principal. You can accept the flawed ESG rating system as the best option among a bad lot, but you will have to accept higher management fees and lower returns compared to index funds. Or you can invest passively in index funds, pay lower fees, and expect average returns—but you have to accept that your money is flowing to companies you do not support. None of these options can relieve you of your ethical guilt, provide you with the investment returns you need, and require little-to-no active management on your part—because no investment can do all of that at the same time. Accepting that the perfect investment doesn’t exist is the fastest way to finding an investment strategy you can live with. As for me, I’ve chosen to stick with the passive investing strategy that best fits my skills and temperament while committing to donating a percentage of my returns to organizations working to make the world a better place. It’s an imperfect solution, but it works for me. View the full article

What does it really cost to manufacturer products in America? And will high tariffs on Chinese goods bring those jobs back to the U.S.? These are questions that have been swirling since The President announced a 145% tariff on Chinese products last month, since reduced to 30%. But rather than debate or speculate, the pleasure jewelry company Crave has decided to do something else: It’s opening its books, sharing the full figures, and letting consumers choose what version they’d like to buy while exploring the global impact. In a Kickstarter campaign for their new Tease Necklace—a vibrator worn around the neck as an accessory—Crave will offer three ways to buy it at three different prices. The first Tease will be made in San Francisco, with (most) of its parts sourced domestically. The second Tease will be assembled in the U.S., with parts acquired from China. And the third Tease will be completely sourced from China. In a quest for full transparency, Crave shared a spreadsheet accounting their costs to produce each model. The takeaways are fascinating. The total build cost is $80.31 sourced in the US, $47.83 assembled in the U.S., and $25.74 made in China. They will retail for $195, $149, and $98 for this Kickstarter promotion on which Crave says it’s not cutting a profit. Even with tariffs currently sitting at ~30% on Chinese components and goods, the difference in the cost of tariff fees for each necklace negligible ($4.16, $5.34, and $5.87 respectively). But the Tease is sill less than ⅓ the cost to create in China than it is in the U.S. “Take China off the map as a global supply chain or factory? That’s not what’s going to happen,” says Crave CEO Michael Topolovac. “If tariffs hold this rate, China will be as strong as ever.” Unpacking transparent pricing Last month, a report from Punchbowl News claimed that Amazon was considering including the tariff costs on product listings. When the White House heard, they called the move “hostile.” Who knows if Amazon was ever actually going to take such a step, but the story struck a nerve with the public because tariffs are an invisible tax that’s typically built directly into a product’s pricing. Nearly every product we buy today has a global footprint, and in an era where we’ve just faced considerable inflation, that’s a scary premise. While digging through Crave’s spreadsheet with Topolovac and co-founder Ti Chang, I began to understand why they believe high tariffs will be devastating to small businesses—and ultimately futile as a strategy to get more goods built in the U.S. For instance, the San Francisco model can have its steel sourced in America for $25. That same metal costs $3.50 if you import it from China (and even after a 30% tariff, it’s only $4.55). That tariff will make the product cost more, but still a whole lot less than if Crave went with American suppliers. When you add labor, the price difference only grows. The core metal cylinder costs $20 in labor to machine it in the U.S., meaning it costs $45 between material and labor in all. That’s $20 more than buying the entire product sourced and assembled from China. Tracing components you simply can’t make in the U.S. But truth be told, a piece of machined metal is a simple case. Let’s consider the electronic components of the system. Batteries and motors can’t be sourced in America, Crave explains, since the factories to make them don’t exist. So even their full U.S.-made Tease has these pieces purchased overseas. Crave can source its microprocessor from the U.S., but the circuit boards are made in China. And the microprocessor needs to be affixed to the board there. So Crave buys a microprocessor, pays a 30% tariff to ship it to China. Then China plants it onto a board, and ships it back, adding another 30% tariff. Theoretically, you can have discussions with the government to have tariffs waved in some of these more complex cases. “If you’re Apple, you’ve probably got a whole division in China that’s managing that,” says Topolovac. “But there’s no way that our factories can deal with the overhead of the Chinese government.” The spreadsheet also reveals the futility of sourcing goods in China and then assembling them in the U.S. You end up paying a tariff cost and a higher labor cost. “It’s the worst of both worlds that way,” says Topolovac, who notes that there’s just nothing to encourage this practice at the scale and cost structure of their product. For most small businesses—and even many large—the math simply doesn’t work out to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. (These issues affect mega corporations too. Logistics are why major performance apparel companies, like Nike, have grown so reliant on Vietnam.) In theory, tariffs could encourage more factories established in the U.S. But new infrastructure of this scale is completely outside the reach of Crave or its peers. They’d need to raise hundreds of millions of dollars and spend years spinning up supportive factories, and even still, they’d need to source rare earth minerals globally. “If your plan was to take out two to three million US manufacturers or brands like us, this is how you would do it, and [a 145% tariff] is how you would kill them,” says Topolovac. Modern small business rely upon mega infrastructures Chang remembers building Incognito, her company before Crave, and relying on the technological cushion of China to do so. “I was able to get that business going because we have free trade. I could go over to China, have an idea, have things made, and bring that inventory into the U.S. And that enabled ideas and innovation to happen,” she says, noting that efficient manufacturing abroad lowers risk. “As an entrepreneur, you can experiment and you can test…now, if you’re a new entrepreneur making products, you have no stability.” And that lack of stability is ultimately the most frustrating point to Crave. They are constructing new products for the market as they follow the news cycle and project their ever-shifting costs. If they hadn’t planned ahead, stocking up on inventory in anticipation of the 145% tariff spike, they would have been sunk. Overall, even when the business works out, the mental overhead and additional planning it’s required has become a distraction for Crave on top of the day-to-day challenges of running any product business. “The world sets up the rules and supply chains, and you play by those rules,” says Topolovac. “But if the rules change every week, or whatever, it’s brutal.” View the full article

Indian IT company investigating whether it was gateway used by criminals to access retailer View the full article

President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) bill was a landmark move for the economy. One year after it was signed into law, it had already created more than 170,600 clean energy jobs and spurred private companies to announce at least 210 major new clean energy and clean vehicle projects across 39 states, representing more than $86 billion in investments. Now the House Republicans’ reconciliation bill is poised to also have a drastic impact on the economy and clean energy landscape, but by gutting the IRA’s gains. Instead of fostering jobs and clean energy development, the bill—which passed the House this week and has now moved to the Senate—could erase those monumental investments and lead to fewer jobs, reduced clean energy capacity, and a drop in the national GDP. The GOP’s “big, beautiful bill” will increase some things, experts say, like Americans’ household expenses; it will also give tax benefits to billionaires. “House Republicans just voted to jack up prices, kill jobs, and rip away basic lifelines from working families by taking a sledgehammer to programs and investments that make life more affordable,” Lena Moffitt, executive director of the nonprofit Evergreen Action, said in a statement. “If passed into law, Americans will wake up to find the GOP quietly reached into their wallets and handed their hard-earned cash to corporate polluters and billionaires like Elon Musk and Donald The President.” Here’s a look at the impact of the Republican reconciliation bill by the numbers, specifically around jobs, clean energy, and household costs. The GOP’s reconciliation bill could cost the U.S. more than 830,000 jobs in 2030, according to an analysis from Energy Innovation. (That includes both direct job cuts from less EV production and clean energy manufacturing, as well as indirect losses from higher fuel costs and other economic impacts.) It would also lead to less new electricity generation, especially at a time when electricity demand is growing. Over the next four years, the bill would decrease additions to new electricity capacity by 302 gigawatts. That’s the same power capacity that the entire U.S. coal fleet had a decade ago. For context, 1 gigawatt can power 100 million LED light bulbs. With less new electricity being generated, wholesale power prices will increase about 50% by 2035, particularly because solar and wind are cheaper energy sources than fossil fuels. Across all American households, consumer energy costs will increase by more than $16 billion in 2030, and by more than $33 billion by 2035. “This increase happens even if oil and gas production rise and help reduce fossil fuel prices, as envisioned by the bill,” Energy Innovation notes. Between 2026 and 2034, the bill would cumulatively reduce the national GDP by nearly $1.1 trillion. For individual households, that could mean a $110 increase to electricity costs per year, beginning in 2026, which could then rise to $290 more in annual energy costs per household by 2035. The GOP bill will drive up household costs for Americans in other ways, too. The price of gasoline will increase between 25 and 37 cents per gallon, which, on the higher end, would mean more than $200 per year for the average gas vehicle. Without the IRA’s EV tax credits, Americans will also essentially see the cost of electric vehicles go up by at least $7,500 (and for used EVs, $4,000). The Republican bill also eliminates a tax credit for energy-efficient home improvements like heat pumps and water heaters. That credit has so far allowed households to save up to $990 each year on their utility bills, but Americans will now miss out on those savings. The bill has broader impacts on emissions and how climate change will worsen. Without tax credits to spur investments in clean energy and efficient appliances, the bill could increase greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 130 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2030—like adding 30 million gas-powered cars to the road for one year. By 2035, that could grow to nearly 260 million metric tons, equivalent to the annual energy use of nearly 35 million homes—or the entire annual CO2 emissions from Spain. With more emissions and air pollution come more deaths. According to Energy Innovation, that could mean nearly 350 additional premature deaths annually by 2030, and nearly 670 more every year by 2035. Many of these impacts will be concentrated in Republican states. The IRA was a huge boon to Republican districts: In just two years, it added nearly 200,000 clean energy jobs and more than $286 billion in clean energy investments to congressional districts represented by Republican House members. Now those districts will likely see job losses and less economic investment because of their Republican representatives’ votes. “In their crusade to rig the system for their fossil fuel backers,” Moffitt said prior to the House bill passing, “it’s people living in The President states—their own voters—who will pay the steepest price: lost jobs, higher energy costs, and missed economic opportunities.” View the full article

Within their first moments of stepping inside Universal’s newly opened Epic Universe theme park in Orlando, Florida, visitors will realize there is something different about the space. Rather than the typical onslaught of gift shops and pavement that can usually be found right inside the gates of most theme parks around the world, Epic Universe’s grounds are unusually bucolic, with a dense canopy of trees, winding pathways, and lush landscaping. This meandering entrance space is named Celestial Park, and it’s a notable counterpoint to the theme park standard of densely packed commercialism. “[It’s] where we’ve put the ‘park’ back in theme park,” says Steve Tatham, Epic Universe’s executive creative director and lead designer. As Universal’s first major theme park in more than 20 years, it’s an attempt to reset expectations of the brand—and of the amusement park experience. Epic Universe’s design ditches at least some of the conventional theme park model. “We focus on our guests and their experience, and we didn’t want it to have as much hardscape as some other parks. We wanted to have a lot more greenery,” Tatham says. There are 400,000 plants in Celestial Park, which serves as the connecting central space between four “worlds” of attractions in the theme park, including Super Nintendo World and The Wizarding World of Harry Potter—Ministry of Magic. Rather than a space people simply pass through on their way to a ride, Tatham sees Celestial Park as an attraction in and of itself. “Some people want to come and just absorb the environment, so we wanted to create something for everybody,” he says. Celestial Park was envisioned as both a connective spine and a calmer respite from the rides and experiences in the rest of the theme park. The design of that space, and the design of Epic Universe as a whole, was inspired by the world’s fairs and world expos of the past, Tatham says. Citing examples like the architectural cornucopia of the 1893 World’s Columbian Exhibition in Chicago and the futurism-heavy 1939 New York World’s Fair, Tatham says Epic Universe’s design aspired to a grandness not often seen in typical theme parks. World’s fairs, he says, “had this really optimistic tone, a lot of Art Nouveau and Art Deco architecture—which to me represents the optimism and the coming together of a community. We really wanted to capture that essence.” Of course, this is still a theme park, and part of an increasingly massive complex of Universal-owned attractions and accommodations in Orlando. Universal, which is owned by Comcast, is betting heavily on the future of theme parks by spending an estimated $7 billion on Epic Universe. It could feed into ongoing momentum; on a recent earnings call, Comcast president Mike Cavanagh noted that revenue from theme parks has tripled in the past decade, to roughly $3 billion in 2024. Celestial Park has many of the hallmarks of the theme park genre, including a roller coaster, a carousel, an interactive water feature, 11 dining options, and six retail outlets. But they’re more artfully integrated into the space than most of Epic Universe’s competitors, building on the theme park’s backstory of visitors transporting to new worlds through entrance “portals,” each of which is accessed by exploring through Celestial Park. “My focus always is on the story,” Tatham says. “That’s the foundation of any kind of design that we will do here, whether it’s architecture or rides or any of the elements that are in the park.” Offering some open-ended elements in Celestial Park builds on what customers have called for in new theme parks, according to Tatham. Universal’s guest research shows that while people like the increasingly tech-influenced ride-and-experience design happening in new attractions, they’re also clamoring for more parts of parks that they can actively engage with, not just passively ride or watch. “They really wanted us to be even more immersive and do things with physical sets and animated figures, and we’ve really responded to that in force,” he says. “When the guests come here, they’re going to see the kind of experiences they’ve been really itching to see.” View the full article

For decades, corporate leadership has been dominated by analytical prowess. Ascending the corporate ladder often meant demonstrating value through meticulous spreadsheets, precise forecasts, and detailed execution plans. Vision was acknowledged, but only when accompanied by a comprehensive road map. This paradigm, however, is shifting. In today’s era of rapid change, emotional complexity, and cultural fragmentation, linear strategies are insufficient. The most impactful leaders can envision new futures, cultivate emotional connections, and distill complexity into relatable narratives. The next generation of C-suite executives won’t just be adept operators; they will be architects of meaning. In short: They won’t just be strategists, but creatives. Rethinking Leadership: From Logic to Imagination Historically, businesses have prioritized logic over creativity, resulting in leadership cultures rich in data but deficient in imagination. But creativity is now paramount. A recent Gallup study revealed that only 30% of employees feel connected to their company’s mission or purpose, marking a record low in 2024. Notably, fully remote workers struggle even more with this connection, as physical distance often translates to a mental disconnect from their employer. Moreover, a Deloitte report found that only 26% of workers strongly agree that their employer treats them as whole individuals, recognizing their unique contributions and skills. These findings underscore a critical issue: The emotional infrastructure of leadership is faltering. Efficiency alone is no longer the answer; resonance is essential. This is where creatives come into play, not as peripheral marketers or consultants, but as integral members of executive leadership. Imagine a CEO who leads with storytelling, not just statements; a chief human resources officer (CHRO) who designs employee experiences with the finesse of an artist; a boardroom that embraces visuals, metaphors, and even moments of silent contemplation to navigate complexity. What Creative Leaders Do Differently Creative leaders transcend problem-solving; they reframe challenges, anticipate tensions, and design interactions with intentionality. They consider the emotional ripple effects of decisions and understand that before individuals commit to a plan, they must resonate with its underlying story. They recognize that logic informs, but emotion compels. In uncertain times, strategy provides direction, but storytelling fosters alignment. Data offers explanations, but design inspires action. These leaders treat organizational culture as a canvas, viewing each initiative as an opportunity for meaning-making. They might commence a product launch with a narrative circle instead of a sales chart, or conclude a quarterly review with a thought-provoking question rather than a performance dashboard. These practices aren’t gimmicks—they’re essential tools for leadership in an age where facts alone are insufficient. If Creatives Led the Boardroom Envision a leadership meeting that begins not with status updates but with the question: “What story are we living right now—and is it the one we want to be telling?” Instead of diving into objectives and key results (OKRs), the team members reflect on the narrative shaping their organization and assesses its alignment with their goals. Imagine strategy sessions resembling creative studios more than command centers. Whiteboards adorned with sketches, not just key performance indicators (KPIs); ambient music setting the tone; and silence embraced as a space for contemplation. In times of crisis, the initial inquiry isn’t “How do we manage this?” but “What does this moment ask of us as humans?” If this approach seems radical, it’s only because we’ve long separated creativity from leadership—a separation that’s contributed to misaligned teams, ineffective strategies, and stagnant organizations. A Real-World Example: Airbnb’s Creative Leadership Airbnb’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a tangible example of creative leadership. Facing unprecedented challenges, CEO Brian Chesky didn’t rely solely on traditional strategies. Instead, he embraced storytelling and design thinking to navigate the crisis. Chesky penned heartfelt letters to employees and hosts, transparently communicating the company’s challenges and decisions as the travel industry cratered. He prioritized the community’s well-being, supporting hosts, and implementing flexible guest policies. This empathetic approach reinforced Airbnb’s brand values and maintained trust during turbulent times. On top of that, Airbnb reimagined its platform, introducing online experiences to adapt to the new normal. This innovative pivot showcased the company’s ability to blend creativity with strategic foresight, ensuring resilience and continued engagement with its user base. A Framework for Expanding Creative Leadership in the C-Suite Integrating creative intelligence into the C-suite doesn’t require a complete organizational overhaul. It starts with a mindset shift—an openness to design as a way of leading, not just a way of presenting. These practices are not soft skills; they’re strategic competencies that help leaders unlock deeper engagement, innovation, and trust. Here are four ways to begin. 1. Sense before you solve. Initiate major discussions by exploring the emotional landscape. Ask “What are we feeling?” to surface insights beyond data. This practice creates space for intuition, unspoken dynamics, and early signals that often get overlooked in performance reviews or planning decks. When leaders learn to read the room, not just the metrics, they make decisions that resonate more deeply and stick longer. 2. Design the experience, not just the strategy. Recognize that every policy, product, and meeting shapes the employee experience. Deliberately craft these moments to align with the emotions and values you want people to carry forward. Whether it’s a town hall, onboarding journey, or performance conversation, the “how” matters as much as the “what.” Design-thinking principles—empathy, prototyping, and iteration—aren’t just for products; they belong in leadership, too. 3. Use storytelling as a strategic tool. Move beyond declarations. Weave in narratives that encapsulate vision, challenges, and aspirations, fostering deeper connection and shared identity. A well-told story doesn’t just inform—it invites participation. It helps teams locate themselves inside a larger arc of meaning and progress. Leaders who communicate in narrative terms create alignment not just through direction, but through emotional coherence. 4. Invite diverse perspectives. Incorporate voices from artists, designers, facilitators, and other creative thinkers to challenge assumptions and expand the lens. These perspectives introduce new metaphors, fresh language, and alternative ways of making sense of complexity. When we bring in people who see the world differently, we don’t dilute business thinking—we deepen it. Innovation thrives at the intersection of difference. The Future of Leadership: A Studio, Not Just a War Room We’ve reached the limits of what linear thinking can achieve. Addressing challenges like cultural fragmentation, technological disruption, and global crises requires not just intellect but imagination. Future leaders won’t merely ask “How do we grow?” but “What are we growing toward, and who do we aspire to become?” They will: Design rather than direct. Curate experiences instead of solely managing outcomes. Imagine possibilities beyond analyzing current realities. Because the future of business isn’t something to be managed into existence—it needs to be imagined, crafted, and brought to life through creative leadership. This isn’t about replacing strategy with art. It’s about integrating the two so that organizations can lead not only with precision, but with vision. The companies that thrive in the coming years will be the ones bold enough to create what doesn’t yet exist, and human enough to make it matter. View the full article

Four years ago, GM set an audacious goal: By 2035, the automaker planned to go all-electric. The company says it’s still aiming for that target. But it simultaneously lobbied the Senate to end California’s ban on new gas car sales—which was also supposed to go fully into effect in 2035. In theory, California’s policy should have supported GM’s transition. GM even recruited employees in the lobbying effort. “We need your help!” the company wrote in an email to staff, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. “Emissions standards that are not aligned with market realities pose a serious threat to our business by undermining consumer choice and vehicle affordability.” The lobbying worked. Yesterday, the Senate voted to revoke an Environmental Protection Agency waiver that allowed California to set clean air rules that are stricter than national standards. (Congress arguably didn’t have the legal right to revoke the waiver; more on that later.) In a statement, the company said, “GM appreciates Congress’ action to align emissions standards with today’s market realities. We have long advocated for one national standard that will allow us to stay competitive, continue to invest in U.S. innovation, and offer customer choice across the broadest lineup of gas-powered and electric vehicles.” GM CEO Mary Barra has said that the company believes in an all-electric future. The company, which began seriously investing in battery design in 2018, spent $11 billion on EV infrastructure between 2020 and 2024. It has a massive battery factory, co-owned with LG Energy, near Nashville, and another in Ohio, making thousands of battery cells per minute. It’s racing to bring down the cost of batteries, the biggest factor in the overall cost of EVs. In the first quarter of this year, GM sold 31,887 EVs in the U.S., a 94% increase over its electric vehicle sales in the same period last year. It’s now the second-largest seller of EVs in the U.S., quickly gaining on Tesla. The company plans to nearly double the number of EVs it makes this year compared to last. It has 11 models on the market, including the Chevy Equinox EV, currently the most affordable EV in the country. The popular Chevy Bolt, another affordable EV, will come back later this year. But the company argues that California’s clean car rule is moving faster than market demand. The rule sets targets that automakers have to hit each year. For model year 2026 cars, 35% of a manufacturer’s car sales in the state have to be zero-emission, or the manufacturer has to pay a fine. The target jumps up to 43% in 2027, 51% in 2028, and keeps going until new cars are 100% zero-emission by 2035. Last year, in California, around 25% of new cars registered in the state were electric. This year, as many buyers have veered away from Tesla, the percentage of EV sales could drop. GM declined to comment on whether it expects to hit the 35% target for model year 2026 cars in the state. Other states have followed California’s regulation, with the same annual targets: Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Those states have even lower percentages of EV sales now. Car companies say it would be unrealistic for them to immediately meet the targets for model year 2026 that those states require. Critics argue that if demand is lower than expected, automakers themselves bear some responsibility. “That’s like the kid who says, ‘Look, I didn’t study for the test, and it’s unfair that you’re giving me a bad grade,'” says Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, noting that GM has “the best engineers in the world. They know how to make vehicles that meet standards and that are attractive to consumers. And they’ve chosen not to market their electric vehicles. . . . The auto industry in the United States spends $14 billion a year on advertising and other marketing. Very little of that goes to advertising electric vehicles.” EVs are facing other major challenges. The House just voted to phase out the $7,500 tax credits to buy or lease new EVs (companies that have not yet sold 200,000 EVs will be able to continue to qualify for the credits until the end of 2026; GM has already passed that limit). The House bill also ends a $4,000 tax credit for used cars that was introduced in the Inflation Reduction Act, and another tax credit for home chargers. Since EVs haven’t quite reached price parity with gas cars, the tax credits are crucial. Car companies are also facing steep costs from tariffs. A GM spokesperson said on background that the California rules could cost the company billions at a time when profits are already being squeezed by tariffs—and that’s money that the company needs to continue to be able to invest in EV development to bring costs down. GM is still losing money making EVs, though costs are decreasing as production scales up and the technology continues to advance. The Senate vote on California isn’t definitive. The Senate parliamentarian ruled that Congress didn’t have the authority to overturn the waiver that allows California to make its own clean air rules. Waivers aren’t included in the Congressional Review Act, the law that the Senate used to revoke the waiver. (The CRA allows Congress to overturn recent laws with a simple majority vote; the waiver was also granted in 2022 and arguably would also not be considered recent.) “Congress doesn’t get to amend [laws] along the way by saying, ‘Oh, well, we really meant it to be this,” says Becker. “It’s a Pandora’s box that they’re opening. If the CRA isn’t limited to rules, then you’ve opened the door as to what can be undone by the congressional action—corporate mergers that are allowed by the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission], cost-of-living adjustments by different agencies, offshore drilling permits—who knows how this will ultimately be used. And the Republicans will not always be in charge.” California could potentially sue. “That will result in uncertainty for the industry,” Becker says. “They keep saying they want certainty. And they’re getting rid of it by demanding that Congress use an illegal mechanism to undo protections for people with lungs.” Meanwhile, EVs are growing faster outside the United States. Globally, more than one in four cars sold this year is likely to be an EV. In China, more than half of new car sales last year were all-electric. In Norway, 97% of all cars sold last month were electric. As federal support reverses in the U.S., American automakers will fall behind. View the full article

In December 2022, Matthew Boyer hopped on an Argentine military plane to one of the more remote habitations on Earth: Marambio Station at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, where the icy continent stretches toward South America. Months before that, Boyer had to ship expensive, delicate instruments that might get busted by the time he landed. “When you arrive, you have boxes that have been sometimes sitting outside in Antarctica for a month or two in a cold warehouse,” said Boyer, a PhD student in atmospheric science at the University of Helsinki. “And we’re talking about sensitive instrumentation.” But the effort paid off, because Boyer and his colleagues found something peculiar about penguin guano. In a paper published on Thursday in the journal Communications Earth and Environment, they describe how ammonia wafting off the droppings of 60,000 birds contributed to the formation of clouds that might be insulating Antarctica, helping cool down an otherwise rapidly warming continent. Some penguin populations, however, are under serious threat because of climate change. Losing them and their guano could mean fewer clouds and more heating in an already fragile ecosystem, one so full of ice that it will significantly raise sea levels worldwide as it melts. A better understanding of this dynamic could help scientists hone their models of how Antarctica will transform as the world warms. They can now investigate, for instance, if some penguin species produce more ammonia and, therefore, more of a cooling effect. “That’s the impact of this paper,” said Tamara Russell, a marine ornithologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who studies penguins but wasn’t involved in the research. “That will inform the models better, because we know that some species are decreasing, some are increasing, and that’s going to change a lot down there in many different ways.” With their expensive instruments, Boyer and his research team measured atmospheric ammonia between January and March 2023, summertime in the southern hemisphere. They found that when the wind was blowing from an Adelie penguin colony 5 miles away from the detectors, concentrations of the gas shot up to 1,000 times higher than the baseline. Even when the penguins had moved out of the colony after breeding, ammonia concentrations remained elevated for at least a month, as the guano continued emitting the gas. That atmospheric ammonia could have been helping cool the area. The researchers further demonstrated that the ammonia kicks off an atmospheric chain reaction. Out at sea, tiny plantlike organisms known as phytoplankton release the gas dimethyl sulfide, which transforms into sulphuric acid in the atmosphere. Because ammonia is a base, it reacts readily with this acid. This coupling results in the rapid formation of aerosol particles. Clouds form when water vapor gloms onto any number of different aerosols, like soot and pollen, floating around in the atmosphere. In populated places, these particles are more abundant, because industries and vehicles emit so many of them as pollutants. Trees and other vegetation spew aerosols, too. But because Antarctica lacks trees and doesn’t have much vegetation at all, the aerosols from penguin guano and phytoplankton can make quite an impact. In February 2023, Boyer and the other researchers measured a particularly strong burst of particles associated with guano, sampled a resulting fog a few hours later, and found particles created by the interaction of ammonia from the guano and sulphuric acid from the plankton. “There is a deep connection between these ecosystem processes, between penguins and phytoplankton at the ocean surface,” Boyer said. “Their gas is all interacting to form these particles and clouds.” But here’s where the climate impacts get a bit trickier. Scientists know that in general, clouds cool Earth’s climate by reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space. Although Boyer and his team hypothesize that clouds enhanced with penguin ammonia are probably helping cool this part of Antarctica, they note that they didn’t quantify that climate effect, which would require further research. That’s a critical bit of information because of the potential for the warming climate to create a feedback loop. As oceans heat up, penguins are losing access to some of their prey, and colonies are shrinking or disappearing as a result. Fewer penguins producing guano means less ammonia and fewer clouds, which means more warming and more disruptions to the animals, and on and on in a self-reinforcing cycle. “If this paper is correct—and it really seems to be a nice piece of work to me—[there’s going to be] a feedback effect, where it’s going to accelerate the changes that are already pushing change in the penguins,” said Peter Roopnarine, curator of geology at the California Academy of Sciences. Scientists might now look elsewhere, Roopnarine adds, to find other bird colonies that could also be providing cloud cover. Protecting those species from pollution and hunting would be a natural way to engineer Earth systems to offset some planetary warming. “We think it’s for the sake of the birds,” Roopnarine said. “Well, obviously it goes well beyond that.” —By Matt Simon, Grist This article was originally published by Grist, a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Sign up for its newsletter here. View the full article

Business leaders love to talk about innovation. But for all the energy poured into frameworks and strategy decks, most teams rarely experience what innovation actually feels like. Real innovation is uncertain, emotional, iterative, and profoundly human. That’s why Cliff has spent the past several years guiding organizations through songwriting experiences—yes, literal songwriting—to unlock the emotional and relational capacities that innovation demands. And as someone who works at the intersection of story, leadership, and transformational design, Tony sees this as more than a clever workshop: it’s a reorientation. The same skills it takes to write a compelling song—lateral thinking, storytelling, empathy, collaboration, and creative risk-taking—are the ones we need to build bold, resilient cultures. Songwriting teaches us more than how to think differently; it teaches us how to be different together. Innovation Is an Emotional Skill Innovation is often framed as a technical challenge. But research suggests the opposite: it’s emotional first. According to McKinsey & Company, organizations with the highest innovation scores also rank highest on soft skills like trust, emotional intelligence, and psychological safety. Meanwhile, Gallup data shows only 29% of employees say they’re expected to be creative at work, and just three in ten feel they have the chance to do what they do best every day. The problem isn’t a lack of ideas. It’s a lack of environments where risk, play, and expression are welcomed, let alone expected. This is where songwriting changes the game. In the space of a single facilitated session, teams cocreate something meaningful from nothing. They navigate ambiguity, listen closely, reframe messages—and yes, make something that sings. Not because they’re professional musicians, but because they’re immersed in a process that demands trust, presence, and creative momentum. The Seven Innovation Skills, As Told by Songwriting Too often, we treat creativity as a side activity. But songwriting isn’t an extra. It’s a mirror for the innovation journey itself. Here’s how it maps directly to seven essential innovation skills and why it works: 1. Lateral Thinking → The Metaphor. Innovation means getting out of the obvious. Writing metaphors trains the brain to think sideways, to turn literal ideas into poetic ones. It’s not just a creativity hack—it’s a neurological shift. Stuck thinking begins to loosen. 2. Creativity → The Verse. Creativity isn’t magic; it’s a method. Writing verses requires sequencing, voice, and structure. It’s storytelling in rhythm. For teams, this becomes practice in shaping ideas with intention and clarity, something we should emphasize in narrative strategy sessions. 3. Communication → The Chorus. A chorus carries the emotional center of the song. It must resonate, repeat, and land. Similarly, every great innovation needs a core message that sticks. The chorus teaches teams to distill complexity into coherence and find the line people will remember. 4. Empathy → Observation. To write lyrics that land, you need to observe deeply. What’s unsaid? What’s felt? Songwriting strengthens the skill of attunement—the ability to read emotional subtext, a fundamental asset for human-centered innovation. 5. Collaboration → Cowriting. Cowriting is the innovation lab in miniature. There’s friction, refinement, and co-ownership. Innovation isn’t about consensus. It’s about staying in creative tension long enough to find something better than anyone could create alone. 6. Risk-Taking → Vulnerability. Sharing lyrics out loud is deeply vulnerable. Singing them? Even more so. But when teams experience structured creative risk in a psychologically safe space, their tolerance for ambiguity expands, and their courage grows. 7. Diffusion → Performance. A song doesn’t live until it’s shared. Performing it completes the arc. Like any innovation, it’s not enough to build something—you have to deliver it. Performance transforms creativity into connection. It makes the work matter. One Team’s Transformation When Cliff leads a songwriting program, participants are never told beforehand they’ll be writing and performing a song. Why? Two reasons. First, it avoids the anticipatory resistance that creative work can trigger. Second, the moment they discover what’s coming, it unlocks a kind of flow state—one where fear and distraction give way to full presence. At a recent offsite for a Fortune 500 company, one participant, a former prison warden, started out stone-faced and silent. But when the group chose “80s metal ballad” as the genre for their song, he lit up. Not only did he contribute lyrics, but he also sang lead vocals at the end. His transformation from skeptic to center-stage performer reframed how his team saw him and how he saw himself. Culture as a Creative Practice In our work, we both see this truth: innovation isn’t just a process to manage. It’s a culture to curate. And culture doesn’t change through mandates. It changes through meaning. It changes when teams gather around a campfire, share a personal story, or sketch the opening lyrics of something no one’s ever made before. That’s why we design offsites around nature walks and story circles—not because they’re trendy, but because they’re necessary. Creativity needs conditions. Songwriting creates them. When leaders make space for art, ritual, and emotion, they’re not just encouraging creativity. They’re building the emotional infrastructure innovation requires. Your next strategy session doesn’t need more slides; it might just need a chorus. We don’t teach songwriting to turn executives into musicians. We teach it because songwriting is a shortcut to the human skills of innovation. It’s experiential, connective, and brings people back to what it feels like to make something that matters. And more than anything, it reminds teams that creativity isn’t far away. It’s already in the room—waiting to be invited in. View the full article