ResidentialBusiness

From changing the boards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to nixing DEI programs, the Federal Housing Finance Agency's Pulte era has been busy. View the full article

From infamous tyrants to modern media monsters, these podcasts explore the most messy, menacing, and sometimes misunderstood figures throughout history. Whether you’re into true crime, pop culture, philosophy, or political intrigue, here are 10 standout podcasts that dive deep into the dark side. Behind the Bastards Credit: 'Behind the Bastards' Hosted by Robert Evans (not the film guy, the journalist and former war correspondent,) Behind the Bastards is a deep dive into some of the worst people in history, from brutal dictators to modern-day grifters and cult leaders. Episodes are long and go extremely in depth. Evans will often take several episodes to cover a single subject. (Like his Vince McMahon series, which is incredible and a good place to start.) With every episode, he and a guest blend sharp historical research with biting humor and a little righteous rage. It’s dark, funny, and educational. Behind the Insurrections Credit: 'Behind the Insurrections' A spin-off of Behind the Bastards (and also hosted by Robert Evans), Behind the Insurrections is a limited series that looks at the history of attempted (and successful) insurrections around the world. (There’s a fun sprinkling about history’s antifascists, too.) Along with his friend and co-host Propaganda (from Hood Politics), Evans uses his signature wit and insight to draw chilling parallels between past uprisings and modern-day threats to democracy that feel both clarifying and terrifying. It’s shocking how familiar it all sounds. Start at the very beginning with "Mussolini's March on Rome: The First Fascist Insurrection." Weird Little Guys Credit: 'Weird Little Guys' On Weird Little Guys, Molly Conger leans into her niche expertise: terrible people who, deep down inside, are actually just messed up weirdos. In each episode, she profiles questionable characters from history, media, and myth whom you may or may not have heard of. I love that even if the subject matter is heavy or depressing, listening to this show feels like getting gossip from your smart, well-read friend. If you can’t do anything about skinheads, the least you can do is figure out how they got to be such huge losers. It’s cathartic. This Guy Sucked Credit: 'This Guy Sucked' Historian Claire Aubin is the host of This Guy Sucked, an academic takedown of awful men throughout history, culture, and current events, from Voltaire to mid-century liberals. Claire ups the ante with historians and professors for conversations that are equal parts funny and smart. This a history podcast with a great host who is doing more than just reading Wikipedia entries—she’s sparking engaging conversations and teaching you about some of the stuff you learned wrong the first time around. Bad Gays Credit: 'Bad Gays' Bad Gays, hosted by Huw Lemmey and Ben Miller, shines a light on villainous figures, but only the queer ones. Each episode is full of great storytelling, lots of jokes, and academic rigor. It challenges simplistic narratives and asks important questions about power, identity, and complicity, something that anyone on the gender spectrum can fall prey to. Start with “J. Edgar Hoover,” an episode about an iconic bad gay, dissected with nuance and wit. Real Dictators Credit: 'Real Dictators' Real Dictators is a gripping narrative history podcast that dives into the lives of some of the world’s most infamous authoritarian rulers. Hosted by Paul McGann (with a dramatic, cinematic tone), the show blends historical facts with the kind of immersive storytelling, dramatic narration, beautiful sound design, and compelling pacing that will make you feel like you’re at the movies. Each season or multi-part episode focuses on a different dictator—think Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein—tracing their rise to power, ideologies, and brutal regimes. The Villain Was Right Credit: 'The Villain Was Right' The Villain Was Right is a hilarious rewatch podcast that defends famous movie villains and asks, “Were they really that wrong?” Comedians Craig Fay and Rebecca Reeds bring episodes that are clever, irreverent, and surprisingly persuasive. You’ll never look at The Devil Wears Prada the same way again. We’re not talking about Stalin and Hitler, we’re talking about The Wet Bandits in Home Alone. (In fact, that’s a fun place to start.) Disgraceland Credit: 'Disgraceland' On Disgraceland, Jake Brennan combines true crime stories and the music world, to tell the stories of musicians who have gotten away with murder, if not literally then figuratively. The production level is high, Jake has an unforgettable voice that brings drama to every story, and the show is endlessly bingeable. Think Behind the Music behind bars. Evil Genius with Russell Kane Credit: 'Evil Genius' You’ll love the debates on Evil Genius, where host and comedian Russell Kane (and his guests) argue whether controversial historical figures were truly evil—or just complicated. It’s both history and game! Russell is a comedian, so this is for people who like their history with a dash of comedy. Episodes are fast-paced and dig into moral gray areas without getting preachy. Start with Walt Disney, a guy we all love but who also really needs a few minutes under the microscope. Very Bad Wizards Credit: 'Very Bad Wizards' On Very Bad Wizards, a philosopher (Tamler Sommers) and a psychologist (David Pizarro) talk about the morality of bad behavior in pop culture, film, and real life. It’s both entertaining and will send you down philosophical rabbit holes. You’ll love it because it’s both academic and insightful while still being casual and fun. Sommers brings the fiery, contrarian philosopher energy and Pizarro offers thoughtful, data-informed perspectives. They have great chemistry, and they’re not afraid to roast each other. View the full article

The image in the tweet may have been blurry, but its message was unmistakable. On Sunday afternoon, the official X account for the Democrats responded to news that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly had a second Signal group chat about missile strikes in Yemen by demanding that Hegseth be removed from his role. Hegseth, who has not admitted wrongdoing, replied to the tweet with a pugilistic dispatch attacking the Dems’ agenda. So far, so 2025—that’s when things took a turn. Instead of disputing the specifics of Hegseth’s reply, whoever controls the Dems’ social media escalated to DEFCON 3-level shitposting. The account tweeted a bleary, double-vision image of an iPhone home screen, with the caption: “Pete’s POV.” It was clearly a nod to the many allegations of alcohol abuse that Hegseth faced on his rocky path to confirmation back in January. Pete's POV: pic.twitter.com/xJo81xCcaP — Democrats (@TheDemocrats) April 21, 2025 It was also way spicier than the party of they-go-low-we-go-high tends to get. But this is just the latest sign that the Dems are ready to fight back against the GOP—both on and off social media. It’s about time. Since Donald The President resumed his presidency earlier this year, the official White House social media account has been markedly aggressive and joyfully cruel. Rather than merely echo The President’s enthusiasm for deporting undocumented immigrants, for example, the WH account on X has made a series of joking tweets about it. The account recently posted a mock-ASMR video about deporting immigrants, deportation-themed Valentine’s Day cards, and even a Studio Ghibli-style AI rendering of a woman sobbing after her capture by ICE. In many ways, this account has mirrored the IDGAF antagonism of this administration’s constant chaos—all the DOGE firings and budget cuts, tariff recklessness, executive orders, academic shakeups, and anti-DEI initiatives that have proved so destabilizing. The White House’s X account also adds its own special dimension to that onslaught, though, by giving Dems yet another thing they must officially comment on. While Democrats struggle to get their arms around the flurry of MAGA activity on any given day, the WH account might tweet, say, an AI image of The President as a literal king. High-profile Democrats like Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and New York Governor Kathy Hochul then have to take time and attention away from whatever messaging they had in mind that day and respond to The President—thereby ceding the day’s agenda to him. This game of attention and power unfolds online 24/7, with the deck stacked in The President’s favor. For too long this year, Dems didn’t seem to know how to score an advantage. The message is the medium Although VP candidate Tim Walz’s pugnacious “They’re just weird” messaging about GOP politicians last August energized young voters, the results of the 2024 presidential election seemed to scare Democrats into playing it safe. Even as a February 2025 Harvard CAPS/Harris poll revealed that 64% of registered Dems believe their party should “oppose everything” The President does, many Dem leaders complied instead. Perhaps convinced that the JD Vance couch memes cost them some swing voters, prominent Democrats like Governor Gavin Newsom of California kicked off the second The President era with misguided appeals toward bipartisanship. The tendency toward acquiescence hit a nadir in mid-March, when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer agreed to help The President avert a government shutdown of his own making, without getting any real concessions in return. At that point, Dems didn’t need the White House to mock Schumer online—their own base did plenty of that on their own. Fight or flight Something has changed since then, however. Somewhere between the tens of thousands of people showing up to individual stops on Bernie Sanders and AOC’s “Fight Oligarchy” tour and the hundreds of thousands who came out for the recent Hands Off protests, more and more elected Democrats seem to have internalized that their people want to see them fight back. Starting with Senator Cory Booker’s bladder-bruising 25-hour filibuster speech on April 1, Dems have commanded attention with bold action. The next day, Senator Richard Blumenthal held a “shadow hearing” to highlight The President’s slashing cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Senators Jamie Raskin and Adam Schiff then joined forces a week later for a similar event, this one about The President’s alleged abuses of the law. Newsom has since sued The President over his spate of tariffs, while Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador last week to meet with a constituent who was wrongly deported to a terrorist prison. That wrongly deported man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, has lately become a flashpoint in The President’s presidency—especially since first federal courts and then the Supreme Court ruled that he should be returned to the U.S. The President’s team was likely counting on Dems to back off from the topic, to avoid being tarred as defending the rights of an alleged terrorist, no matter how flimsy the allegations. They almost certainly did not expect Garcia to become synonymous with the need for due process, inspiring no less than Joe Rogan to defend him. Trolling with the punches All the attention that Dems are now putting on Garcia has placed The President’s team on the backfoot. When the White House’s X account sent out a trolling tweet about Garcia the other day, it was addressed directly to Van Hollen. Much like what the White House has done with its social media activity all year, Van Hollen forced the other side to respond. He successfully seized control of the conversation. Now, as the Dems continue fighting back, their social media presence seems ready to take off its gloves in lockstep. Hours after the tweet nodding toward Hegseth’s reputation for alcohol abuse, the account trolled a White House post about Easter with a headline about egg shortages, and started a cheeky countdown for Hegseth’s seemingly imminent firing. Not all negative messaging at this moment may be a net positive for Dems. House Rep Jasmine Crockett, whose inventive insults are often internet gold, was nearly censured in March for referring to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who uses a wheelchair, as “Governor Hot Wheels.” Although that insult was not well received on either side of the aisle, it shows Crockett’s willingness to push the envelope and test how much tolerance go-high Democrats have for go-low tactics. The Democrats’ reply to Hegseth on X suggests that the party is finally loosening its strict adherence to norms, in an era when their opponents are veering ever further from normalcy. It’s a sign that Democrats in 2025 may just be ready to fight fire with fire—rather than pointing at the flames and declaring them too hot. View the full article

The many contradictions of the vice-president should not distract from his ambitionView the full article

From the first time I saw Blade Runner and heard Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty describe “C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate,” I’ve wondered what it would be like to see beyond the limits of human vision. What would it feel like to have eyes that could see what we can’t normally see? I envied animals who can see light frequencies in the infrared and superheroes with X-ray vision that let them see like a NASA telescope. And today, I envy five regular human beings who, after having their eye cones temporarily rewired with a laser, were able to perceive a new color outside the typical range of the human eye. They called this color “olo”—a name derived from the binary code 010, representing the cones in the eye that are activated during its perception thanks to that rewiring. It defies any comparison to anything humans have seen because, well, nobody has seen it except these five lucky individuals. As described in new research published in the scientific journal Science Advances, the subjects of this wild experiment agreed to describe it as a “blue-green of unprecedented saturation.” How our eyes work Most humans see the world through three types of light-sensitive cells in the retina, called cones. These detect red, green, and blue light, allowing us to distinguish roughly one million to 10 million colors. That’s enough to spot the difference between a ripe strawberry and a bruised one, or to admire a sunset’s gradient. But a rare few—almost always women—are born with a fourth cone type. These tetrachromats can see up to 100 million colors, spotting nuances invisible to the rest of us. For example, where a trichromat sees a single shade of green grass, a tetrachromat might perceive dozens of subtle variations. Yet even among those with the genetic mutation, true tetrachromacy is rare. The brain must adapt to process this extra input, and most screens can’t display these additional hues. The people in the experiment didn’t gain the ability to see millions of new colors. Instead, they glimpsed one artificial hue, like a single note added to a familiar song. The effect lasted only as long as the lasers fired, requiring subjects to stare unblinkingly at a fixed point. A twitch or glance away shattered the illusion. Researchers were able to bypass biology limitations using a system called “Oz”—a nod to the emerald goggles in The Wizard of Oz. First, they mapped individual cones in participants’ retinas using high-resolution scans, labeling each as red, green, or blue. Then, they fired precise laser pulses—100,000 times per second—at specific green-sensitive cones, while tracking minuscule eye movements 960 times per second to keep the aim steady. Normally, activating green cones also triggers neighboring red or blue ones, muddling the signal. But Oz’s precision isolated the green cones, sending the brain a code it had never decoded before. The result was “olo.” What Olo means for humans The implications stretch far beyond novelty. By selectively activating or disabling cones, researchers could simulate eye diseases, such as macular degeneration, and test therapies in real time. For color-blind individuals, Oz might trick the brain into perceiving missing colors by rerouting signals from surviving cones. James Fong, a UC Berkeley researcher who was one of the first coauthors in the study, told LiveScience that it could even probe whether humans can learn to interpret entirely synthetic colors: “It may be possible for someone to adapt to a new dimension of color.” Right now, however, Oz remains a lab curiosity. The system relies on million-dollar lasers, supercomputers, and participants willing to sit motionless for hours. The experiments targeted only peripheral vision—a speck the size of a fingernail at arm’s length—because the retina’s central zone, where vision is sharpest, has cones too tightly packed for current lasers to hit accurately. Scaling this to full sight would require mapping millions of cells and tracking eye movements with zero lag, which is a target quite far from what our current technology can achieve. “Our method depends on specialized lasers and optics that aren’t coming to smartphones anytime soon,” Fong told LiveScience. For now, olo exists only in flashes—a fleeting crack in the door to a stranger universe. View the full article

The fate of Google’s vast empire is now in the hands of a federal judge in Washington, D.C., as hearings begin to determine whether the tech giant should be broken up for maintaining an illegal monopoly in search. If the court rules against Google, the outcome could send shockwaves through the tech industry. The company might be forced to divest major assets—potentially including its Chrome browser or even the Android operating system. While the government has taken similar antitrust actions in the past, it’s been more than 25 years since a household name faced a breakup of this scale. So, what happened to the companies that were split up—or nearly split up—under government pressure? Let’s take a look back. Microsoft In 2000, Microsoft came dangerously close to being forced to separate its Windows operating system from its Office suite after a court found it had illegally stifled competition in the personal computer market. However, the breakup order was overturned by an appeals court the following year. Still, the monopoly ruling left a lasting mark on Microsoft. The company could no longer block PC makers from distributing software from competitors, paving the way for Google and others to grow. As web browsers became increasingly central to the computing experience, that shift proved critical. AT&T The government made multiple attempts to break up AT&T, starting in 1913, but didn’t succeed until 1984. The result was the dissolution of “Ma Bell” into several smaller regional companies—known as the Baby Bells—including US West, Ameritech, Nynex, and BellSouth, which handled local calling. AT&T retained control of its long-distance network but soon faced competition, driving prices down. To put it in perspective: A three-minute coast-to-coast call in 1987 cost $3.08 (about $8.45 today). Now, long-distance calls are typically unlimited and included in your monthly plan. Those Baby Bells grew up and became a strong competitor for AT&T, too: Nynex, GTE, and Bell Atlantic merged to become Verizon, whose market cap is now roughly equal to that of AT&T. Standard Oil The John Rockefeller energy company was broken up in 1911, one of the first dissolutions of a giant monopoly. It was split into 34 different companies, including Exxon Mobile, Chevron, and BP. That breakup changed the oil industry, sparking competition that has continued through today. It also changed the landscape for antitrust, introducing the “rule of reason,” which says businesses are anticompetitive only if they work against the public interest. That’s the rule judges are considering today as they weigh whether to break up Big Tech companies. IBM IBM could have been an early cautionary tale for today’s Big Tech giants. In 1969, facing a looming antitrust suit, the company chose to preemptively unbundle its hardware and software businesses—effectively treating them as separate entities. At the time, IBM commanded 70% of the computer market. This voluntary separation helped the company avoid an antitrust judgment, though it still spent years in court and tens of millions of dollars in legal battles. Missteps with subsequent product launches further eroded its market share and leadership. But the rise in competition ultimately lowered costs and helped spark the personal computer revolution. As legal scholar Tim Wu noted in 2018, Apple as we know it might never have existed without the government’s prosecution of IBM. “If IBM had been completely unwatched by regulators, by enforcement, doing whatever they wanted, I think IBM would have held on and maybe we’d still be using mainframes, or something—a very different situation,” he said in an interview with Vox. American Tobacco Before Big Tobacco became a catchphrase, there was American Tobacco—a company deemed so dominant that in 1911 it was found in violation of antitrust laws. Unlike other breakups, however, the dissolution of American Tobacco had little real impact on market dynamics. The newly formed companies—such as R.J. Reynolds and Liggett & Myers—continued to dominate, forming an oligopoly. With just a few players controlling the industry, prices remained largely unaffected by competition. Instead, increased marketing budgets drove a rise in consumer use. View the full article

Last week, news broke that the The President administration intends to propose zeroing out Head Start in the upcoming budget. While many people’s immediate concern is rightfully for the hundreds of thousands of children and families whose lives would be upended, attacks on programs that exclusively serve low-income Americans are a popular tactic because that population votes at low rates. In this case, however, the administration has picked an atrocious target: Even setting the immorality of causing so much harm aside, you benefit from Head Start programs whether or not you or anyone you know has ever stepped foot in one. Head Start (and Early Head Start, its companion program for children younger than 3) has enjoyed bipartisan support for almost 60 years and serves multiple functions: Sites provide important opportunities for child development, offer medical screenings for kids, connect families with local resources, and can serve as community hubs. They are also a critical source of free childcare for more than 700,000 families. Who are the 700,000 Head Start families? Who are Head Start families? They consist of many of the people we called “essential” just five years ago: grocery store stockers, home healthcare aides, hospital custodians, even staff in the childcare programs that serve middle- and high-income families. They are rural families; in many rural counties, Head Start is literally the only childcare program around. They are military families; there is even an on-base Head Start at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs. They are agricultural workers who pick the produce that appears in your supermarket; in fact, more than 26,000 children of seasonal farm workers attend a Head Start. Imagine for a moment that Congress goes along with the administration’s proposal. All of these families’ lives will be thrown into chaos. As anyone who has a child can tell you, there’s no abundance of alternative affordable childcare options out there. Instead, people will do what they need to do, sacrificing their well-being along the way: They’ll cut back hours, work laddered shifts, find care of questionable quality that leaves them anxious and distracted. They may even drop out of the labor force altogether. Crippling system already in crisis Indeed, it may be helpful to reframe the headline here as “The President administration seeks to shutter more than 3,000 childcare programs,” and then to consider just how absurd such an action would be. After all, the childcare shortage in the U.S. is already harming the stability of family life and the economy. President Donald The President himself declared in 2019, “In more than 60% of American homes, both parents work. Yet many struggle to afford childcare, which often costs more than $10,000 per year. And it’s devastating to families, frankly.” Fewer choices and longer waits What’s more, the 700,000 families who will lose their childcare if Head Start goes away will not simply disappear. Instead, they will be thrust into the failed market for private childcare services, introducing yet more competition for scarce slots and scarce aid dollars. All Head Start families qualify for, but generally do not utilize, childcare subsidies available through a federal block grant program intended to serve both low- and moderate-income families (i.e., those making up to 85% of state median income—around $82,000 for a state like Michigan—or below, though states can and do set their limits lower). That subsidy program is already so underfunded it can reach only one in six eligible households. Take away Head Start, and existing waitlists and enrollment freezes will only get worse. The administration’s ostensible logic for squashing Head Start requires entirely eliding the childcare role Head Start plays. The budget document states, “This elimination is consistent with the Administration’s goal of returning education to the States and increasing parental choice. The Federal government should not be in the business of mandating curriculum, locations, and performance standards for any form of education.” Ignoring for a moment the glaring factual inaccuracies (Head Start merely requires sites to adopt some form of reasonable curriculum, not a specific one, and local agencies or groups apply to get funding for locations where they wish to host Head Start classrooms), this is a feint. There is no commensurate increase of early care and education grants to states being proposed to offset Head Start elimination, so parents will simply have fewer choices. In this respect, the educational content of Head Start is immaterial, and getting drawn into a debate over Head Start’s effectiveness is a distraction. Hypothetically, the administration could apply this exact same reasoning to shutting down the hundreds of schools and child development centers that are run by the Department of Defense, all of which come with curricula and performance standards. But of course they won’t propose that, because while some military families are struggling due to administration policies, such a large-scale cut would leave tens of thousands of service members with no access to care. Head Start is not a perfect program. There is a worthwhile conversation to be had about how Head Start may need to evolve if and when the nation moves toward a more comprehensive family policy that includes universal childcare and early learning alongside structural reforms that break down barriers keeping families in poverty. But this is not, in the end, really about Head Start itself. If America is to be strong and prosperous in an uncertain era, the well-being of American families must be placed front and center. There is no American family—and therefore no American business—that would be untouched by the ripple effects of abruptly gutting Head Start, and doing so would set the country on course for a future marked by yet more scarcity. The administration must turn back. View the full article

The top five banks had a combined second-lien loan volume of more than $95 billion at the end of December 2024. View the full article

Tory leader attempts to manage expectations of party’s performance ahead of council elections on May 1View the full article

Electric vehicles have seen a lot of success in recent years, but there are still some concerns—from range anxiety to insufficient charging infrastructure—that limit their overall adoption. Hybrids don’t have those same worries, and hybrid sales have been gaining momentum as the growth of EV sales has slowed. That’s caused some carmakers to pull back on EV offerings and prioritize hybrids instead. But now a company called Horse Powertrain is offering an alternative to carmakers who are hesitant to go fully electric while still allowing them to develop EVs—and keep their EV production lines. Called the Future Hybrid Concept, it’s essentially a way for automakers to retrofit a battery electric vehicle into a plug-in hybrid. That means automakers could have one production line that makes a variety of powertrains, both developing EVs and also offering hybrid versions. Horse Powertrain is a joint venture by French auto manufacturer Renault and Chinese conglomerate Geely (Geely subsidiaries include Volvo and Polestar) created to develop “low-emission” hybrid and combustion systems. Horse Powertrain is unveiling its Future Hybrid Concept at the Shanghai auto show this week. The Future Hybrid Concept is one compact unit that includes an internal combustion engine, an electric motor, and a transmission. This allows automakers to “hybridize” their existing battery electric vehicles, the company says, to meet fluctuating customer demands while also “eliminating the need for multiple platforms and production lines.” The Future Hybrid Concept can bolt directly onto an EV’s subframe with “minor” modifications, per Horse. This means that carmakers could manufacture both EVs and hybrids on one assembly line, reducing complexity. Currently, hybrids are often assembled on the same production lines as internal combustion vehicles, and EVs on another, because of the distinct components they need. Some manufacturers have found ways around this: Honda, for instance, upgraded its Ohio factories so that gas vehicles, hybrids, and EVs can be manufactured on the same lines. But for other automakers that have yet to make those upgrades, or that have prioritized EV innovation but now want to diversify their offerings, Horse Powertrain says its retrofit concept can fit into existing operations. It would also eliminate “most of the tooling and unique assembly steps” hybrids need, the company says, so that manufacturing lines can be simplified. “Through our innovation, we can deliver a full hybrid powertrain system that seamlessly integrates onto a battery electric vehicle platform,” Matias Giannini, CEO at Horse Powertrain, said in a statement. The Future Hybrid Concept system includes an onboard charger, and could work with a variety of fuels, including gas, ethanol, methanol, and other synthetic fuels. The first vehicles using Horse Powertrain’s Future Hybrid Concept are expected to be on the road as early as 2028. Horse Powertrain already has 17 production plants and five R&D centers across Europe, Asia, and South America, and expects to produce 5 million powertrain engines annually. View the full article

I’ve always been a doer. I move fast, I love learning new things, and I don’t sit still for long. Productivity has been a faithful companion throughout my career, and I attribute much of my success to one key trait: the courage to take action—even when things seem uncertain or complex. I trace this mentality back to a moment in my childhood. I was about 11 years old, growing up in the Netherlands, where a bicycle isn’t just a toy—it’s your main mode of transportation. One day, I had my first flat tire and it was raining (as it always is). I felt defeated and immobile. No bike meant no freedom, no way to get from A to B. I walked home, and my dad, calm as ever, looked at me and said, “No problem, let’s fix it.” Fix it? This was 1984. There was no YouTube tutorial. No step-by-step guide. Just a deflated tire, some tools, and a kid who had no idea what he was doing. We sat together with a bucket of water to find the hole, sandpaper, and glue to patch it, and metal tools to remove and reinsert the tire. Step by step, we repaired it. He didn’t do it for me—we did it together. That day changed my mindset. I realized that if I can fix this, I can fix anything. From that moment on, I’ve believed that most problems are solvable, most obstacles are temporary, and most fears are exaggerated. How I honed my growth mindset That mindset was tested often. I wasn’t the strongest student. I worked hard at a demanding public high school, but the grades didn’t come easy. Worse, many of my teachers seemed to doubt me—or at least, didn’t hide it well. Except for one: Mr. Bosman, my physical education teacher. He had an infectious energy and a simple motto. Every time he introduced a new exercise, he’d explain, demonstrate, wait for confirmation, and then shout a single word—his command, his mantra: “Do!” (but in Dutch of course) That word stuck with me. It was the only positive affirmation I got from a teacher in those years, and it became my philosophy. When in doubt? Do. When overwhelmed? Do. When uncertain? Still . . . do. Don’t sit still, action over inaction wins always. Fast-forward to my corporate career at The Baan Corporation (a software company that is now part of Infor Global Solutions), I remember meeting Jan Baan—the company’s visionary founder. I was just 25, eager, and still finding my professional rhythm. I asked him how he managed to get so much done—and so well. He told me, “Michel, I try to make 20 decisions in a day and still leave time to correct two of them. That’s better than making two perfect decisions and missing out on the other 18.” That’s when it clicked for me. Perfection is slow and paralyzing. If I want to move forward, I need to take action while being willing to learn and correct my mistakes in the process. Why action-oriented leaders win In my work as an executive coach, I meet many bright, capable, ambitious leaders who still hold onto the opposite mindset. They’re carrying around the weight of things people said to them years ago. Whether that’s “I’m not ready,” I’m not qualified enough, “ or “Someone else can do it better.” But most of the messages have little merit, and I encourage people to focus on taking action instead. A recent study published in Current Psychology found that leaders who rely on internal trait-based resources—like resilience, self-discipline, and adaptability—are better equipped to manage stress and perform well in complex, high-stakes environments. It’s important to note that those qualities aren’t built by sitting still. Leaders need to sharpen them through movement, iteration, and learning by doing. Another study in the International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal showed that self-leadership and mindfulness training measurably improve a leader’s confidence and decision-making. It’s not perfection that builds capability—it’s repetition, awareness, and the courage to act even when clarity is incomplete. This mindset also aligns with modern neuroscience. The brain rewards progress—even small wins—with dopamine, which motivates us to keep going. Final thought: action drives culture When leaders adopt a bias for action, they don’t just transform themselves—they create a ripple effect. They inspire teams to take initiative. They build cultures where progress The Presidents perfection, where learning is constant, and where speed is a strategic advantage. Momentum, after all, is contagious. Decisive leadership removes bottlenecks, boosts morale, and accelerates performance. But hesitation at the top leads to confusion, disengagement, and organizational drag. And once you lose momentum, it’s hard to rebuild. Action creates clarity. Action builds confidence. Action fuels momentum. So don’t wait for perfection or permission. Just start doing. View the full article

I was strolling up the hill in Greater Boston to a French cooking class. The rich aroma of melting butter and fresh herbs greeted us as it wafted through the chilly fall air. My friend Sylvie and I were eager to learn the art of soufflé-making. The French instructors asked for everyone’s background. When Sylvie said she was from France, they pressed her to be specific: Which part of France? When they learned she hailed from Strasbourg, the Parisiennes exchanged disapproving glances. Sylvie eyed their silent, snooty disdain. It got worse. When Sylvie started asking about techniques, we received curt responses and pronounced sighs. We left feeling as deflated as a collapsed soufflé. The French instructors may have mastered the art of French cooking but failed miserably in practicing humility toward Sylvie. They could have done so by celebrating Sylvie’s hometown as a region with its own culinary specialties. In snubbing Sylvie, the instructors missed an opportunity to demonstrate the rich diversity of soufflés across geographies and to toast the diversity of participants in the cooking class. Humility is based on a common theme: Train your focus on others, not on yourself. The importance of managing your ego Early in my Silicon Valley career, I had the good fortune to work for Bart, a humble leader who left his ego at the door. Bart regularly sought out employees at all levels for their input on new products and improving the company. He collaborated with individuals and other stakeholders, so they could see what made sense for the business. He asked customers crucial questions and listened carefully to their answers. Bart never threw his weight around. Instead, he was a role model for how to be in a position of power while ensuring each employee felt heard, included, and invited to showcase their influence. Humility requires you to check your ego and ensure that you don’t let it dictate your actions. Seek and embrace feedback Later in my career while running my diagnostic equipment business, we hired a head of research and development. This professional came with an impressive pedigree—his PhD and postdoctoral research were from some of the top schools in the world. With his vast knowledge, accomplishments, and experience he easily could have asserted himself. You know, that arrogant person who knows best, never admits he’s wrong, and isn’t open to suggestions. We’ve all met that individual. But our new head of R&D was actively soliciting feedback on products from collaborators, customers, and salespeople across the globe with less education. In the end, he was able to integrate input from a broad mix of stakeholders into our products. He always showed his gratitude for ideas people gave him and considered many of them for possible future use. Listen more than you speak William is a strength and conditioning coach friend of mine who trains professional and amateur athletes. He says that one of the most common phrases he hears from his clients is “You really understand me.” He believes that this is because he allows his clients to do most of the talking. They feel heard and understood, he says, because he signals he’s listening intently. According to him, the following practices are key to being a good listener: Practice active listening without planning your response. If you predict what the other person is about to say, your response could miss the mark. Respond only after the person you’re speaking with is done talking. Show genuine interest in others’ perspectives. Our natural tendency is to blurt out what we think. Resist the urge. Instead, draw the other person out through thoughtful questions. Don’t interrupt or dominate conversations. This is arguably the hardest to do because we want to be heard. Keep your lips together when you feel compelled to interject. Learn to sense when to yield the conversation to another person. You don’t want the reputation of being that person who doesn’t know when to stop talking. Ask thoughtful follow-up questions. Think through your follow-up question before you ask it. If you’ve been listening carefully, a question will come to mind with little effort. Don’t underestimate the impact of curiosity There’s a concept called epistemic humility, which refers to a trait where you seek to learn on a deep level while actively acknowledging how much you don’t know. Approach each interaction with curiosity, an open mind, and an assumption you’ll learn something new. Ask thoughtful questions about other’s experiences, perspectives, and expertise. Then listen and show your genuine interest in their responses. Let them know what you just learned. By consistently being curious, you demonstrate you’re not above learning from others. Juan, a successful entrepreneur in the healthy beverage space, approaches life and grows his business with intellectual humility. He’s a deeply curious professional who seeks feedback and perspectives from customers, employees, advisers, and investors. Juan’s ongoing openness to learning led him to adapt faster to market changes in his beverage category: He quickly identifies shifting customer preferences as well as competitive threats, then rapidly tweaks his product offerings to keep competitors at bay. He has the humility to realize he doesn’t have all the answers and embraces listening to key voices that help make his business even more successful. A final reflection Being humble makes us more approachable and respected. With humility, we value others’ perspectives. The French soufflé instructors lost their class participants’ respect because far from practicing humility, they served up snobbery along with their lessons on creating the perfect soufflé. Humility isn’t about diminishing oneself. It’s about having a balanced perspective about yourself while showing genuine respect and appreciation for others. And if you’re open to the journey, the growth and self-awareness will enrich your life and the lives of those around you. View the full article

It’s easy to get swept up in headlines predicting the end of the design industry as we know it. It’s true: AI tools can now generate in seconds what once took days for teams of designers. So it’s no longer a question of whether these tools will be used—but how, why, and by whom. If design as we know it is being automated, what remains? And what becomes more valuable? In the 1930s, cultural critic Walter Benjamin argued that mechanical reproduction—photography, film, the printing press—was transforming not just how art was made, but how it was perceived. His concern wasn’t just about losing originality or craft; it was about losing aura—the sense of presence that comes from a work’s connection to time, place, and purpose. When something can be reproduced endlessly, that connection starts to dissolve. And in the post-internet world, it’s all but collapsed—context has become slippery, distributed, and flattened. The role of creative direction, then, is to restore that lost dimensionality—to place things, to anchor them in context. The craft of execution is no longer a differentiator. For surface-level visuals, speed and quantity now rule. But this shift reveals something deeper: When production is automated, the designer’s role becomes less about making and more about meaning. I’ve felt this shift firsthand. At the outset of my career, I spent hours—days—in Photoshop extending backgrounds, removing objects, and meticulously cutting out product images for e-commerce sites. It was repetitive, yes—but also meditative. There was a quiet satisfaction in working with images by hand, pixel by pixel. That kind of technical work is now (thankfully) almost entirely automated. Although I miss blocking off an afternoon to push pixels, the ability to delegate those tasks means I no longer need to dedicate time to erasing shadows—I spend that time deciding what the image should say in the first place. Not all design disciplines are equally affected by AI. Those who work with material, scale, and space—book designers, muralists, sign painters, mosaicists—continue to operate through tacit knowledge and touch. Their work still resists automation because it’s rooted in place and presence—it has “aura.” But even in brand design, something similar holds true: The more a designer’s value is bound to personal taste, knowledge of context, and aesthetic judgment, the more durable it becomes. It’s tempting to hold onto the idea of the designer as auteur, untouched by context. But that belief overlooks how meaning is actually made: not by the author alone, but in conversation with culture, with tools, with audience. Mistaking authorship for authority leads to stagnation. If you’re a designer today, your ability to thrive depends on shifting your creative identity from executor to editor, and from technician to translator. The cost of not adapting isn’t just irrelevance. It’s being indistinguishable from the tools themselves. As Chris Braden, my former CCO at Public Address, has said: “In nature, things that don’t move are dead.” Which is why creative direction matters more now than ever. If designers are no longer the makers, they must become the orchestrators. This isn’t without precedent. Rick Rubin doesn’t read music or play instruments. Virgil Abloh was more interested in recontextualizing than inventing. Their value lies not in original execution but in framing, curation, and translation. The same is true now for brand designers. Creative direction is about synthesizing abstract ideas into aesthetic systems—shaping meaning through how things feel, not just how they look. This opens up a new kind of opportunity for ideas to come from more rigorous places—critical theory, art history, cultural analysis—without being stripped of their richness. AI can absolutely help translate complex ideas into accessible ones. But it’s the designer who chooses which ideas to bring forward, how to apply them, and why they matter in a given moment. That’s not just a function of intelligence—it’s a function of intuition, authorship, and taste. Taste isn’t just personal preference. It’s an evolving, often unstable framework—shaped by experience, exposure, and the cultural moment—that informs how we make aesthetic judgments. It’s not fixed, nor is it singular. What feels resonant in one context may fall flat in another. Taste is less about knowing what’s right and more about understanding what’s relevant—what aligns, what disrupts, what works now. In a world of infinite possibilities, taste becomes less of a crown and more of a compass. ThorloArtworld It’s no longer enough to know what’s trending from scrolling your various feeds. As Abloh understood, when originality becomes obsolete, novelty comes from recombination, from juxtaposition: from having a point of view. If your value lies in how you see—and how you help others see—that’s not just algorithm-resistant. It’s literally irreplaceable. AI is a tool—but like all technologies, it’s not neutral. It reflects the choices of its makers and transforms every system it touches. It influences markets, media, and belief. It expands what’s possible while quietly reshaping how meaning is made. And its impact on creative work is especially complex. It’s a medium, a system, a collaborator. It can generate, iterate, and surprise. But it can’t decide what matters. It can’t assign meaning. It can’t make a choice. AI responds to input. Creative direction is that input. This shift raises real questions for the future of design education and hiring. What does a portfolio look like when visuals are no longer enough? Increasingly, it might look less like a finished book and more like a screenplay: a series of prompts, iterations, references, and decisions that show how a designer directed a process, not just executed an outcome. The goal isn’t to hide the machine but to show how it’s been used with intention. We’re moving into an era where synthesis and judgment—not just execution—are the creative differentiators. AI will continue to evolve, and yes—it will replace certain tasks and even entire roles. But it won’t replace curiosity. It won’t replace intuition. And it won’t replace the ability to decide what matters. View the full article

Take a look at your to-do list. Does it seem never-ending? The thing about task lists is that they are filled with specific things you need to accomplish. Combine that with an ever-expanding inbox, and you have a recipe for busy work days. While you may get many things done, you may not feel like they are adding up to a more significant contribution to the mission of your workplace or your own big-picture goals. To ensure that the specific things you’re doing lead to important outcomes, you need some time in your schedule to reflect on the big-picture goals you have and their relationship to the actions you’re taking day-to-day. Here are a few things you can do to clear the mental space to make sure your days are not just busy, but productive. The value of unstructured time Ensuring that your daily activities lead up to something more substantial will not happen by magic. Instead, you need to regularly save some time that is not devoted to the particular tasks that are already on your task list. There are several purposes for this time. You want to reflect on whether the things that take up most of your time are related to the most important goals both for you and the organization. Chances are, there are many things you have to do each day that do not contribute significantly to that mission. Identify some of the activities that soak up your time that are not that productive. Are they necessary? Are there things you’re doing that you can put further down the list of priorities? Do you need to talk to your supervisor about some of the things that clutter your calendar? Are there things you should be doing to make your contribution that are not happening? You also want to have a list of activities you’re not doing that you need to be doing. You’ll need to figure out how to add more of those into your daily and weekly schedule. Finding a space to make space One problem with trying to take a big-picture view of things is that you are likely to be surrounded by reminders to take care of the next task. You probably have documents on your desk and your computer desktop that need to be completed. You have an email inbox with a constant drip of new messages crying out to be answered. You have DMs from team members asking for information. That can make it difficult to disconnect enough to create the mindset you need to think about strategic issues. It can be helpful to use physical distance from your most pressing tasks to think strategically. Consider taking a walk or going to a conference room at your workplace that has a whiteboard. The distance has two benefits: First, it separates you from the specific reminders of the tasks at hand; second, psychology research suggests that physical distance can actually help you think more abstractly about your work. When you think more abstractly, you’re better able to ignore the specific tasks and focus on the primary accomplishments you’d like to achieve as well as the general barriers that may stand in the way of success. Drawing your big-picture goals When talking about strategic goals, we often use phrases like achieving a vision or seeing the future. Yet we also tend to lay out our goals in written documents. Sometimes, it can be helpful to take the language of envisioning more literally. Sketches and diagrams may be helpful for changing the way you think about your desired contribution. So many of our workplace tools involve writing (like email, instant messages, and meeting agendas) that we get locked into needing the right words to describe what we want to bring about. Grab a big sheet of paper or use a whiteboard. Leave the words behind at first and just sketch out processes, concepts, or prototypes. Don’t worry if you don’t think you’re good at capturing likenesses. The power of sketches and diagrams comes from being able to use space as an element of your thinking to engage the massive amount of brain real estate devoted to vision more deeply. View the full article

Anthropic, Menlo Ventures, and other AI industry players are betting $50 million on a company called Goodfire, which aims to understand how AI models think and steer them toward better, safer answers. Even as AI becomes more embedded in business systems and personal lives, researchers still lack a clear understanding of how AI models generate their output. So far, the go-to method for improving AI behavior has focused on shaping training data and refining prompting methods, rather than addressing the models’ internal “thought” processes. Goodfire is tackling the latter—and showing real promise. The company boasts a kind of dream team of mechanistic interpretability pioneers. Cofounder Tom McGrath helped create the interpretability team at DeepMind. Cofounder Lee Sharkey pioneered the use of sparse autoencoders in language models. Nick Cammarata started the interpretability team at OpenAI alongside Chris Olah, who later cofounded Anthropic. Collectively, these researchers have delivered some of the field’s biggest breakthroughs. Goodfire founder and CEO Eric Ho, who left a successful AI app company in 2022 to focus on interpretability, tells Fast Company that the new funding will be used to expand the research team and enhance its “Ember” interpretability platform. In addition to its core research efforts, Goodfire also generates revenue by deploying field teams to help client organizations understand and control the outputs of their AI models. Goodfire is developing the knowledge and tools needed to perform “brain surgery” on AI models. Its researchers have found ways to isolate modules within neural networks to reveal the AI’s “thoughts.” Using a technique they call neural programming, they can intervene and redirect a model’s cognition toward higher-quality, more aligned outputs. “We envision a future where you can bring a little bit of the engineering back to neural networks,” Ho says. The company has also been collaborating with other AI labs to solve interpretability challenges. For example, Goodfire has helped the Arc Institute interpret the inner workings of its Evo 2 DNA foundation model, which analyzes nucleotide sequences and predicts what comes next. By understanding how the model makes its predictions, researchers have uncovered unique biological concepts—potentially valuable for new scientific discoveries. Anthropic, too, may benefit from Goodfire’s insights. “Our investment in Goodfire reflects our belief that mechanistic interpretability is among the best bets to help us transform black-box neural networks into understandable, steerable systems—a critical foundation for the responsible development of powerful AI,” Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said in a statement. According to Ho, Goodfire has also been fielding requests from Fortune 500 companies that want to better understand how the large language models they use for business are “thinking”—and how to change faulty reasoning into sound decision-making. He notes that many within businesses still see AI models as another kind of software, something that can be reprogrammed when it produces incorrect outputs. But AI works differently: It generates responses based on probabilities and a degree of randomness. Improving those outputs requires intervention within the models’ cognitive processes, steering them in more productive directions. This kind of intervention is still a new and imprecise science. “It remains crude and at a high level and not precise,” Ho says. Still, Goodfire offers an initial tool kit that gives enterprises a level of control more familiar from traditional deterministic software. As companies increasingly rely on AI for decisions that affect real lives, Ho believes the ability to understand and redirect AI models will become essential. For instance, if a developer equips a model with ethical or safety guardrails, an organization should be able to locate the layer or parameter in the neural network where the model chose to bypass the rules—or tried to appear compliant while it wasn’t. This would mean turning the AI black box into a glass box, with tools to reach inside and make necessary adjustments. Ho is optimistic that interpretability research can rise to the challenge. “This is a solvable, tractable, technical problem, but it’s going to take our smartest researchers and engineers to solve the really hard problem of understanding and aligning models to human goals and morals.” As AI systems begin to surpass human intelligence, concerns are growing about their alignment with human values and interests. A major part of the challenge lies in simply understanding what’s happening inside AI models, which often “think” in alien, opaque ways. Whether the big AI labs are investing enough in interpretability remains an open question—one with serious implications for our readiness for an AI-driven future. That’s why it’s encouraging to see major industry players putting real funding behind an interpretability research lab. Lightspeed Venture Partners, B Capital, Work-Bench, Wing, and South Park Commons also participated in the funding round. Menlo Ventures partner Deedy Das will join Goodfire’s board of directors. While most of the tech world now rushes ahead with the development and application of generative AI models, concerns about the inscrutable nature of the models often get brushed aside as afterthoughts. But that wasn’t always the case. Google hesitated to put generative models into production because it feared being sued over unexpected and unexplainable model outputs. In some industries, however, such concerns remain very relevant, Das points out. “There are extremely sensitive use cases in law, finance, and so on, where trying to deploy AI models as we know them today is just not feasible because you’re relying on a black box to make decisions that you don’t understand why it’s making those decisions,” Das says. “A good part of [Goodfire’s] mission is just to be able to do that.” View the full article

For decades, huge swaths of Brazil’s Cerrado ecosystem have been used to support the global demand for burgers. Forests and grasslands were replaced by pastures along with farms growing soy to feed cattle. But a major restoration project is now underway on an area nearly twice as large as Manhattan. If you fly over one part of southwestern Brazil, you’ll see a patchwork of dozens of square plots where a local university is studying different methods of helping native plants regrow on former cattle pastures. On more than 25,000 acres, along rivers and the edge of remaining pieces of forest, new vegetation has been growing quickly over the past two years. Wildlife cameras track the native species that are returning, from puma to an endangered species of rabbit. The environmental group Conservation International is working on the project with an unlikely set of partners: a forestry company and the tech giant Apple. Why Apple is investing in forests The project is one piece of Apple’s climate strategy. “When we look at the global climate science, it’s clear that we have to cut emissions as quickly as possible, but we also have to end deforestation and rapidly scale up carbon removal in order to stay within 1.5 degrees [of global temperature rise],” says Chris Busch, director of environmental initiatives at Apple. The company’s first priority is reducing its own emissions. Through tactics like using recycled rare earth elements in iPhones and helping suppliers shift to renewable energy at factories, it has already cut its emissions by 60% compared to 2015. By 2030, it’s aiming to hit 75%. But for the remaining 25%, Busch says, “We just don’t have a clear line of sight to how to avoid those emissions at scale today within our value chain. So that is where nature comes in to play a role for us.” There are several ways to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, including nascent technology like direct air capture. But Apple knew that in order to reach its short-term goals for 2030, it would need to lean on nature’s ability to capture carbon because no other approach was ready to scale up quickly enough. At the same time, the company recognized that there weren’t enough nature-based carbon credits available to buy—and restoration and preservation projects often struggle to prove that they actually have as much benefit as they claim. In 2021, Apple committed $200 million to the Restore Fund, a new fund established with Conservational International and Goldman Sachs, to help carbon removal grow more quickly and to focus on creating quality projects. (In 2023, it pledged an additional $200 million for a second fund within the program.) One of the first investments, in 2022, was Project Alpha in Brazil. Restoration and planting started in 2023. It’s the first step in a larger effort that will eventually restore 741,000 acres of degraded land across Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile. A biodiversity hot spot The Cerrado ecosystem, which originally sprawled over more than a million square miles in Brazil with a mix of dense forests, grasslands, and wetlands, is a biodiversity hot spot. Many of its 1,600-plus species of animals, and 10,000 species of plants, can’t be found anywhere else. It’s also quickly disappearing. “It’s faced a rate of loss that’s fairly extreme,” says Will Turner, senior vice president at Conservation International’s Center for Natural Climate Solutions. “Well over half of the native Cerrado vegetation has been destroyed, predominantly due to agriculture.” The restoration project is focusing on an area that was converted for grazing in the 1990s, and bought the land from cattle farmers. As grasslands were replaced by pasture, they were planted with invasive grasses to feed cattle. The grass chokes off the growth of native plants. Because it’s spread so much, the non-native grass makes restoration expensive and challenging. That’s why the project took a new approach: Instead of focusing solely on restoration, it’s happening in combination with carefully managed forestry. Why an environmental group wanted to partner with a forestry company BTG Pactual Timberland Investment Group (TIG), the forestry partner on the project, is planting tree farms on half of the former grazing land, and managing restoration on the other half. In some ways, the solution seems counterintuitive: The tree farms will grow eucalyptus, a non-native species from Australia. In other parts of Brazil, environmental groups have derided eucalyptus plantations, arguing that they’re destructive. But the trees can thrive in degraded soil where other species struggle to grow. They also grow quickly, taking up large amounts of CO2. Since deforestation reduces rainfall, planting new trees can also help with the hydrological cycle. And as global demand for wood continues to grow, the new plantations—which are FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified—can potentially help avoid deforestation of native trees in places like the Amazon rainforest. Some critics argue that eucalyptus overuses groundwater, but Conservation International says that’s often caused by poor management. If a eucalyptus plantation is managed well, the nonprofit says, recent research suggests it will use the same amount of water as a native forest. (The forestry company is also screening out locations that have insufficient water availability and monitoring water security for others in the area.) When TIG bought grazing land from farmers, it carefully tracked where the cattle were moved, making sure that the process didn’t lead to new land being cleared elsewhere. (The company agreed to this, along with other sustainability critera, as part of the project.) Then, with guidance from Conservation International, it began “assisted natural regeneration,” taking steps to help native vegetation regrow. In some areas, it’s also planting seeds or seedlings. Having the forestry company on the site also means that its crew can protect the restored areas from encroachment from other farmers or fight wildfires if needed. The forestry company will earn carbon credits both as its trees capture CO2 and as native vegetation is being restored. Apple also has a stake in the project. “What we’re aiming to do is generate a financial return as an investor in those projects, but also a carbon return,” says Busch. “Part of the return that we get on that investment is carbon credits.” Third-party auditors will monitor the project before the carbon credits are issued. Apple is also helping with some of the monitoring technology, including testing ways to use the iPhone’s lidar scanner to measure the diameter of trees. Without the forestry part of the project in place, Conservation International says it’s unlikely that any restoration would have happened in the area at all. Including forestry makes the restoration financially viable. And it helped it happen at a large scale: The project will increase the restoration across the entire Cerrado region by 50%. “At the end of the day, what we think is really important is figuring out how to get to scale in terms of restoration and carbon sequestration quickly,” says Apple’s Busch. “That needs to be funded somehow. The conservation side of the operation is truly [financially] sustainable because it can be funded by the business side.” View the full article

These days, when you head to a shop to buy clothes, most brands package your purchases in a recyclable paper bag, which looks more eco-friendly than plastic. But behind the scenes—in back rooms that most customers never see—every single clothing retailer has enormous piles of flimsy plastic bags (sometimes called poly bags). These bags keep clothes clean as they travel across the complex global supply chain before arriving at the store. “We need to keep clothes in good condition as they move from factories to shipping containers to trucks,” says Candan Erenguc, chief operations officer at Anthropologie. Most local recycling facilities don’t have the equipment to recycle poly bags, which are more complicated to break down than more solid plastics like water bottles. So most retailers simply send them in the regular waste stream where they will end up in a landfill. Since plastic does not biodegrade, these bags will break down into tiny fragments of microplastic that will end up in our waterways and food. Anthropologie has been on a mission to find a way to recycle the poly bags it collects across its 215 retail stores. Over the past 18 months, it has partnered with Waste Management (WM), the largest recycling company in the United States, to develop a solution. Now, store associates collect these bags and send them to special facilities that are equipped to recycle them into other plastic products, extending their life. Anthropologie has already recycled more than 60,000 tons of poly bags, which have been transformed into pellets that will be used to create other plastic items, including trash bags. “It has been a very seamless process, and we want to make sure other retailers know they can do it as well,” says Erenguc. That said, things like trash bags cannot be further recycled, so they will eventually end up in a landfill. So it is still incumbent on brands to find ways to reduce the amount of plastic they consume and discard. For decades, flimsy plastic bags have been a challenge for municipal recycling facilities that collect household waste. If you accidentally put them in your curbside recycling bin, they can clog up the recycling equipment, shutting the system down. As a result, people have been encouraged to simply dispose of these bags in the regular waste stream, where they will be landfilled or incinerated. However, recycling technology is quickly improving, according to Tara Hemmer, chief sustainability officer at WM. For one thing, WM is now investing in robotics and computer vision technology that can better catch plastic bags that end up in the waste stream and separate them from the rest of the trash, so they don’t cause a major disturbance. And perhaps more impressively, there are now several industrial recycling facilities across the U.S. that are specifically designed to recycle poly bags. Some of these plants are owned by WM. But there are also independent recyclers that partner with WM. “We work with our customers to make sure they can direct their waste to the right facility in our third-party network,” says Hemmer. Erenguc wanted to find a way to collect poly bags and ship them to these locations. However, as a major retailer, this presented a logistical challenge. It was also important for the process to be easy for employees to understand and follow. Each of Anthropologie’s 215 stores is staffed with dozens of employees who must be trained on best practices when it comes to waste disposal. Moreover, it was unclear where the nearest recycling facility would be for each store. “We didn’t want to be transporting poly bags back and forth across the country, because that isn’t good for the environment either,” Erenguc says. But this is where WM could help. Anthropologie brought in members of the WM team to study the situation and come up with a solution that would be easy for retail employees to adopt. WM identified the address of the closest recycling facility for each store. Retail associates now collect plastic bags and when they have achieved a certain volume, they ship them out to a designated facility. The recycling plants turn poly bags into pellets that can than be used to create other products. “It’s such a streamlined solution,” Erenguc says. “It was so easy to execute, but we’ve already managed to divert 60,000 pounds of plastic from landfills.” Hemmer says that many retailers are eager to divert waste from landfill. While there’s been a narrative that companies have abandoned their sustainability goals, that hasn’t been her experience. “We’ve found that companies still have goals and are marching towards them,” she says. “And consumer product companies are trying to increase the amount of recycled content that goes into their products.” Hemmer says that recycling technology is improving every year. WM is currently working to make it possible to recycle plastic bags in residential areas, beginning with a plant in Chicago that will reach about 3,500 households. But often the obstacle to bringing about change at scale isn’t technological—it’s logistical. People, as well as companies, are more likely to adopt new processes if they’re simple. “Part of our job is to help troubleshoot,” says Hemmer. “But diverting waste from landfill is actually a lot easier than you’d imagine.” View the full article

Elon Musk’s foray into government has proven disastrous for his business life. Since taking up work for President Donald The Presidents’ so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk’s electric car company Tesla has seen sales slide and has become a target for protests. Now some believe that damage could be terminal and that Musk poses a risk to companies outside of his own. The Reputation Risk Index looks at reputational threats facing companies and organizations. It recently found that being associated with Musk posed the second biggest threat to companies, between the harmful or deceptive use of artificial intelligence and backtracking on DEI. The index, which is based on a survey with 117 public affairs leaders and former heads of state, found it’s not just being associated with Musk that’s risky, but being singled out and publicly criticized by him. “With his controversial omnipresence in the media landscape, 28% of the council identified this association as a top reputational risk, highlighting Musk’s impact on businesses that extend well past his own,” Global Risk Advisory Council chair Isabel Casillas Guzman said in the report. Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives predicted in a note Sunday that even if Musk were to quit DOGE and get back to his car company “there will be permanent brand damage.” And if Musk stays in government, brand damage could grow for Tesla, calling it a “code red situation” for the company. Musk “needs to leave the government, take a major step back on DOGE, and get back to being CEO of Tesla full-time,” Ives wrote. Musk’s hard turn to DOGE has shown that mixing business with politics can backfire, especially for a public CEO of a company that relies on customers who in large part don’t share his views. If Musk wasn’t planning on leaving his post as a “special government employee” after the 130-day limit comes up, he might find a more persuasive business reason that it’s time to get back to his day job. View the full article

As a particularly cold winter sputters to an end, Pennsylvania’s Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps residents pay their heating bills, closed on Friday—several weeks earlier than expected. Funding for LIHEAP has dried up because federal workers who administer the program were recently laid off by the The President administration, said Elizabeth Marx, the executive director at the Pennsylvania Utility Law Project, a legal advocacy group that assists people struggling to pay their utility costs. About $19 million has yet to be sent to the state. The state Public Utility Commission sent a letter to Congess this week about the shortfall and called the fund a “lifeline for Pennsylvania’s most vulnerable households.” Marx said the delay in federal funds couldn’t happen at a worse time. April is known as the start of “termination season,” she said, when her organization sees an uptick in the number of households whose electricity or gas is turned off. State regulations prohibit winter disconnections before April 1. “Every year we have a spike in calls to our emergency hotline because, all at the same time, people are receiving termination notices,” Marx said. “This is a time when the demand for LIHEAP increases dramatically.” LIHEAP is among dozens of aid programs caught short by mass firings in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Part of broad budget cuts by the The President administration, the entire staff that allocates funds for LIHEAP was eliminated two weeks ago. HHS did not respond to a request for comment. Administered largely by states, LIHEAP distributes more than $4 billion a year to 6.2 million low-income households nationwide to help with heating and cooling costs. Last year, LIHEAP provided assistance to 346,000 Pennsylvanians, including 55,000 people who were in danger of having their heating cut. About $400 million in LIHEAP funding has yet to be sent to the states. In 2025, Pennsylvania had so far received $71 million by early April. Marx said that no one has explained the delay. “The funding hasn’t yet been cut. We just haven’t gotten it,” Marx said. “We have no idea when the remaining amount of funds are going to come to Pennsylvania.” Sanya Carley, the faculty director at the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, said the gutting of the staff is behind the funding interruption. “With the layoffs at HHS, that means that nobody is there to allocate the remainder during the more extreme, excessive heat months,” she said. LIHEAP is “one of our cornerstone social assistance programs,” said Juanita Constible, a senior advocate for environmental health at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). It can mean the difference between a family being able to afford to stay in their home or not, or to feed themselves or not, she said. Even if funds were sent this week, the program wouldn’t be able to reopen immediately. “You can’t just turn a program like that on a dime,” Marx said. The delay could also mean bad news this summer and beyond. Without help from LIHEAP to pay debts to utility companies that accumulated over the winter, thousands of households could lose power, leaving them with limited access to electricity this summer. The pause in payments will likely drive up demand for aid in the fall, advocates said. LIHEAP also covers maintenance and repair to home furnaces. Utility disconnections can lead to other losses for families scrambling to make ends meet. (Think of a refrigerator full of spoiled groceries.) They can spur evictions and, in some cases, cause children to be removed from homes deemed unsafe. And as Pennsylvania and the rest of the country face increasingly hot summers because of climate change, air-conditioning is no longer a convenience but a life-saving necessity. Prolonged heat exposure exacerbates chronic conditions including asthma, diabetes, and hypertension and can endanger pregnant women, children, and the elderly. LIHEAP was among the programs seen as most critical for helping families in Philadelphia at a climate justice event hosted by Drexel University last week. “The federal government is disinvesting in data to understand health disparities, data to understand climate risk, funding for energy solutions. The LIHEAP program is now at risk,” said Mathy Stanislaus, the executive director of Drexel’s Environmental Collaboratory. “Now more than ever, we really need to figure out how we can link up community-based leadership and priorities for state and local solutions,” Stanislaus said. The event brought together four community groups, called the Philadelphia Climate Justice Collective, to present recommendations for a “just climate transition plan” for the city. Finding solutions for neighborhoods with an atypically high heat index were part of the collective’s report. “The government’s disinvestment and dismantling casts a long shadow,” Stanislaus said in an interview, referring to the fallout from federal cuts led by DOGE, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. For example, the North Philadelphia-based nonprofit Esperanza lost a $500,000 grant for Hunting Park that would have covered the cost of weatherizing homes and planting trees. Hunting Park is a neighborhood where summer temperatures routinely register 10 to 15 degrees higher than wealthier and greener areas of the city. Despite the funding cuts, the collective’s leadership said they will continue working to help Philadelphia’s most underserved residents. “The federal government is completely erasing the history of environmental justice. The EPA administrator issued a memo two weeks ago that says we’re not going to consider the burdens of communities of color and low-income neighborhoods,” Stanislaus said. “We need to push back.” One of the participating organizations, the Overbrook Environmental Education Center, lost a promised $700,000 federal grant. “We’re disappointed, but we’re not devastated,” said Jerome Shabazz, its executive director. “Are we going to rely on these folks to define for us what our dignity should look like, who we should protect and who we should love and who we should give consideration to? How are we going to have an attitude where the most vulnerable amongst us are not the people we want to serve?” he asked. “That’s not acceptable. If we’re talking about climate and environmental justice, then we must be just.” More than 70% of LIHEAP recipients come from households with at least one senior citizen, person with disabilities, or child under the age of 6. Constible, of the NRDC, said if LIHEAP disappeared there would be “a lot more evictions.” “We’d see a lot more potential deaths or serious physical harm. I think we’d see a lot more families trying to make a decision between heating and eating, or stalling medical care that they need,” she said. Marx said the disruption to LIHEAP funding is occurring as more people are losing access to consistent electricity, water, and gas service. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, last year one in four Pennsylvania households said they had trouble paying their energy bills. Even before this winter, LIHEAP funding had fallen since the 2021-2022 fiscal year, when Pennsylvania received more than $480 million. This year, the state was allocated around $200 million. Now, experts say the situation is dire. “People will die,” Carley said. “People will die this summer if they cannot cool their homes and they cannot pay their bills.” This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News. It is republished with permission. Sign up for their newsletter here. View the full article

The steeple of Boston’s Old North Church has a historic claim to fame. In 1775, Paul Revere arranged for lanterns to be displayed as a signal to colonists that communicated British troop movements, and the route of an impending invasion: one lantern if by land, two if by sea. Now, 250 years later, the church is once again a messenger for a dire moment in American history. April 18 marked 250 years since Revere’s ride the night before the Battles of Lexington and Concord outside Boston that set off the Revolutionary War. To mark the occasion, a Boston art collective called Silence Dogood (its name a tip of the hat to one of Benjamin Franklin’s pseudonyms) used the occasion to project far less veiled messages in vintage-style typefaces onto the Old North Church’s steeple. “The Revolution Started Here and It Never Left,” “Let the Warning Ride Forth Once More: Tyranny Is at Our Door,” and “One if by Land, Two if by D.C.” were digs at President Donald The President and statements of identity about Boston as the birthplace of the American Revolution. “Two-hundred fifty years later, tyranny has returned,” the group said in a statement. “Let Boston once more be the beacon in the country’s hour of darkness and relight the rallying signal to protect our liberty.” Silence Dogood started last month with a projection at the Old State House responding to border czar Tom Homan’s comments about “bringing hell” to the city. The visual protests have grown “in a very organic way” since, an organizer tells Fast Company. The group is finding ways to both react to events as they unfold in real time and mark the anniversary of the Revolutionary War with messages about the The President administration’s abuses of power. Projections were a staple of protest against The President in his first term; activists and artists projected critical messages onto The President’s hotels in cities like Washington, D.C., and Chicago. Silence Dogood has taken that concept and adopted it for Boston, and for the nation’s semiquincentennial, with thoughtful font and location choices. That the White House touted The President a king only bolsters the group’s message. The projections were written in a handful of fonts, including some the group has customized. One was chosen as an homage to colonial-era pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s 1776 “Common Sense,” which gives their projections a sense of historic context, paired with a more blocky font used in all-caps. As a medium, projection allows the collective to make large statements directly on the places where history happened, and messages can be quickly designed and executed. Since launching, they’ve projected onto the facades of other historic buildings, including Faneuil Hall and Old South Meeting House. The group uses a Reon solar-powered mobile electric generator, 1,600-lumen Epson projectors, and a computer using the projection mapping software MadMapper. By bringing their projections to historic sites and using fonts and anniversaries to tie history to the modern day, Silence Dogood has tapped into a potent medium that brings timely messages to timeless locations with only the power of type and light. View the full article

Popular language learning app Duolingo is giving its bite-size lesson treatment to one of the oldest games in the world: chess. Duolingo’s chess course will take users, who can range from complete novices to those with a solid understanding of how to play, through its gamified exercises to become better game players. The focus is mostly on attracting new players, including those who have felt chess is too difficult to learn or otherwise inaccessible. “For the most part, a lot of chess products out there are usually built by an advanced user for more advanced-use cases—someone who already is familiar with chess and is kind of trying to elevate their abilities even further,” Edwin Bodge, Duolingo senior product manager, tells Fast Company. “So we are more targeting beginners and think that we’re addressing a part of the market that hasn’t previously been addressed.” Users can learn how each piece moves, spot tactical patterns, and build a strategy. They can then apply those lessons in “mini matches,” which are just a few minutes long, to full games against its character Oscar. The bot will track how many matches the user has won and lost and can scale up or down the difficulty based on past performance. “This is a game that’s been played for so long, and essentially Duolingo is now carrying the torch of [getting] more people interested in this game that has been around for so long and put our unique spin on it,” Bodge said. Chess is the company’s first new subject since it branched beyond languages and introduced math and music classes in 2022 and 2023, respectively. The company launched in 2012 and has amassed more than 37 million daily active users as it brought language learning to the iPhone age and leaned heavily into attracting a young user base. The company said that chess is the fastest course its developed to date thanks to advancements in AI. The product team pitched CEO Luis von Ahn on the course in late August and its first engineer started on the job in November. Duolingo is testing chess with a limited number of learners starting Tuesday. It’ll roll out to all learners on iOS in English in the coming weeks, it said, with plans to eventually extend to additional operating systems and other languages in the coming months. View the full article

Haven assets in demand as criticism of US Fed unnerves investors View the full article

And he probably knows itView the full article

While Zoom is unquestionably the biggest name in videoconferencing, its free tier has some limitations—particularly the 40-minute time cap on group meetings. The good news is that several excellent platforms offer generous free plans capable of handling everything from brief check-ins to extended sessions. Ready to explore other options? Check out these free Zoom alternatives. Google Meet If you’re already embedded in the Google ecosystem, Google Meet is about as convenient as it gets. Joining meetings is straightforward, accessible via a web browser without needing software downloads, or through dedicated mobile apps. Its free tier supports up to 100 participants in a meeting and group sessions up to an hour in length. For one-on-one meetings, the time limit is 24 hours—though, if you’re holding 24-hour meetings . . . seek help. Microsoft Teams Microsoft Teams is more than just a meeting tool, and while its full suite of features might seem overwhelming if you only require video calls, the free tier offers a nice set of meeting capabilities. Access is provided through web, desktop, and mobile applications, and you can host meetings with up to 100 participants for an hour. Beyond meetings, the free plan includes unlimited chat and file sharing integrated within the Teams environment, making it a good option for groups looking for a legit collaborative platform. Features like screen sharing, customizable backgrounds, and the unique Together Mode, which places participants in a shared virtual setting, are available. And for some reason, Teams lets you hold 30-hour one-on-one meetings—outdoing Google by an extra six hours. Again: Don’t be crazy. Jitsi Meet As a truly free option, Jitsi Meet is a compelling alternative to providers with both free and paid tiers. This platform offers encrypted communication and notably does not require user accounts for hosting or joining meetings. While there’s no set user limit, Jitsi matches the 100 participants that the other freebies offer. There are no arbitrary time limits on meeting duration. Standard features like screen sharing, chat, virtual backgrounds, and polling are included, while an option for end-to-end encryption adds another layer of security. And if you’re looking for even more control, Jitsi Meet can also be self-hosted. Zoho Meeting Finally, consider Zoho Meeting, which allows meetings with up to 100 participants for up to an hour, putting it on par with Google Meet and Microsoft Teams in terms of basic capacity. The service includes essential meeting features like screen sharing, chat functionalities, virtual backgrounds, and whiteboarding. While Zoho Meeting is particularly attractive if you’re already using other Zoho products, it also stands alone as a capable option for anyone seeking a reliable free meeting platform outside of the Google or Microsoft spheres. View the full article

Once famed for daring deals and exploration success, the oil group now trails its main rivalsView the full article