ResidentialBusiness

It’s official: Skype is dead. The long-lived (by internet standards) voice-over-internet app has been put out to pasture by parent company Microsoft. Though Skype was once considered the way to call someone online, it's now going the way of Google Hangouts and dozens of other trendsetting apps before it. Come May 5, it’ll officially be replaced by Microsoft Teams. It’s truly the end of an era. Launched in 2003, Skype quickly became synonymous with video calls online, with “skype-ing” entering the lexicon as its own verb. It has supported countless long distance relationships, podcasts recording sessions, and remote D&D games, but after being supplanted by apps like Zoom during the pandemic, it seems Microsoft has decided it’s finally time to go. Users will be prompted to transition to Microsoft TeamsMicrosoft is doing its best to make the transition seamless, and “over the coming days,” will roll out the ability for Skype users to sign into a Microsoft Teams account and immediately import their Skype chats, contacts, photos, and call history. Users who wish to move on from Skype will also be able to export their data to download locally, and Microsoft tells The Verge that it’s also made a tool that will allow users to view their Skype chat history after the shutdown. The company also says that Skype and Teams will be interoperable from now until the shutdown, so if you migrate to Teams and then message one of your old Skype contacts, they’ll still see your message on Skype. No more Skype callsHowever, one big part of Skype will go away once Teams officially supplants it—phone calls. While Microsoft says it will honor existing Skype credits and subscriptions, it’s not going to support paid Skype features beyond that—and existing subscribers won’t be able to renew once their plans run out. To help customers as they use up their paid benefits, the Skype dial pad will be available within the Skype web portal and within Teams after the shutdown. The choice to sunset Skype follows a move in December that saw Microsoft phasing out new Skype Credit sales as well as the Skype Number feature, which allowed users to use Skype to answer calls and send texts from a standard phone number. In retrospect, it seems the writing has been on the wall for a while. “We hope we’ll migrate most Skype users,” Microsoft’s Jeff Tepper told The Verge, “...but we want to make sure the users know they’re in control.” To that end, while Teams is definitely a viable choice for personal use despite its more business-oriented name, you might find yourself preferring one of its competitors. From our friends at PCMag, here are some of best free video calling apps to consider migrating to once the Skype shutdown arrives. View the full article

Throughout February, a measles outbreak has been growing in West Texas. The potentially deadly disease, once eliminated from the United States in terms of its continuous transmission, has been making a comeback in recent years as vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaccine movements rise. Unfortunately, this outbreak has now had deadly consequences. Earlier this week, it was reported that one unvaccinated Texas child has died as a result of the outbreak. The unfortunate event, along with the continued spread of the disease, has left many asking whether they need a measles vaccine booster shot. Here’s what you need to know. About the measles vaccine The good news is that there is an effective vaccine against measles, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That vaccine is generally packaged with vaccines for other diseases, giving you protection from a variety of illnesses. A measles vaccine is part of an MMR shot, which stands for “measles, mumps, and rubella.” The measles vaccine is also part of the MMRV shot, which stands for “measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox).” The vaccines help protect against all three or four diseases, respectively. To receive maximum protection from measles, you’ll need two doses of either the MMR shot or the MMRV shot. The dosing schedule depends on the age of the person. In children, the CDC says the recommended schedule for the MMR vaccine is to have the first dose between 12-15 months of age and the second dose between 4-6 years of age. If children are getting the MMRV shot instead, the CDC says the first dose should also be given between 12-15 months of age and the second dose between 4-6 years of age. However, the agency notes that the second dose of MMRV “can also be given 3 months after 1st dose.” As for older children, adolescents, and adults, the CDC says those who do not have evidence of immunity “need 1 or 2 doses of MMR vaccine.” Should I get a measles booster shot if I’ve already been fully vaccinated? It’s important to note that before making any medical decisions, you should always check with a doctor who is familiar with your unique medical history. As noted by CBS, most people who have had two doses of the recommended vaccine will be protected as much as possible throughout their lives. However, one group of people would likely benefit from another course of the vaccine. This group includes those who were first vaccinated against measles before 1968 and do not know which vaccine they received. As the CDC explains, this is because, before 1968, some people received measles vaccines that contained an inactive (killed) strain of the virus, which was ineffective. Modern measles vaccines use a live strain of the virus to produce maximum protection in the body. “People who were vaccinated prior to 1968 with either inactivated (killed) measles vaccine or measles vaccine of unknown type should be revaccinated with at least one dose of live attenuated measles vaccine,” the CDC states. “This recommendation is intended to protect those who may have received killed measles vaccine, which was available in 1963-1967 and was not effective” Is the measles vaccine safe and effective? Health authorities including the CDC say the measles vaccine is both safe and effective. When it comes to the efficacy rate of the MMR vaccine, the numbers are very good. The CDC says one dose of the MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles. The efficacy increases to 97% after the second shot. Furthermore, the health authorities say the MMR vaccine is safe for those who are breastfeeding and that there is no connection between autism and the vaccine. “There is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism,” the CDC notes. “Scientists in the United States and other countries have carefully studied the MMR vaccine. None has found a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.” While getting the vaccine does not fully protect you from measles, vaccinated individuals who do contract the disease generally experience milder symptoms and are also less likely to spread measles to others, according to the agency. In a February 27 memo addressing the Texas outbreak that has killed one so far, the CDC says, “Vaccination remains the best defense against measles infection.” View the full article

Servicers—Citadel, NewRez and Selene Finance—will not advance any delinquent principal and interest. Eventually, that should reduce loss severities to the deal. View the full article

Even as paid family leave has stalled at the federal level, a growing number of states have taken up the issue in recent years. Thirteen states and Washington, D.C., have now passed legislation that makes paid leave mandatory, while a handful of other states have also introduced voluntary systems that leave it to private insurance companies and employers to opt into the benefit. Despite those legislative wins, however, a new report by the nonprofit Moms First and McKinsey indicates that many eligible workers in states with mandatory paid leave are not taking advantage of their access to the benefit. The analysis focused on the paid-leave programs in New York, New Jersey, and California—which were among the first states to offer the benefit—and also surveyed over 2,000 parents in those states. Who is eligible for paid leave The vast majority of working parents were eligible for paid leave, in spite of the variation in state-specific requirements for wages or time worked. But the report found that only 40% of eligible parents actually used their paid-leave benefits in 2022, which were worth an estimated $6,000 to $10,000 per person. The families that did take advantage of those policies reported being nearly twice as satisfied with paid leave than they were with other state benefits; at the same time, parents were less likely to take paid leave when compared to similar government offerings like unemployment benefits. Even as more states have adopted laws mandating paid leave, most workers across the country still lack access to it: As of 2024, only 31% of full-time employees in the U.S. had paid leave. There are a number of reasons why utilization of paid leave may be lower than expected, given how critical the benefit can be for families. First is a lack of awareness, which might explain why parents are more likely to use unemployment benefits; of the respondents who did not use paid leave, 60% said they did not know it was available. Why workers don’t take paid leave Other parents were aware of the benefit but didn’t feel comfortable using it, either due to concerns over job security or career progression. “I would have taken [paid family leave] if I could afford it and wouldn’t lose my job,” one New York-based mother told Moms First. Low-wage workers were especially likely to worry about whether they could afford to take leave—even in New York, where the paid leave law explicitly promises job protection. In some cases, there were concerns over wage replacement, since paid leave laws typically only cover part of an employee’s salary (anywhere from 60% to 90%, depending on how much they earn). But the report also indicates that the very disparities that make paid leave so important play a role in why many parents are not fully utilizing the benefit. Since women are more likely to shoulder a greater share of childcare responsibilities, there are fewer women who are eligible for paid leave. In some cases, they may not meet the wage or time worked criteria mandated by state law. (Overall labor participation is also higher for men than it is for women.) In many cases, the cost of childcare can lead one parent to drop out of the workforce and stay home with their children—a burden that disproportionately falls on women. On the other hand, while more men are eligible for paid leave benefits, they are less inclined to use them—half as likely, in fact. (The unused parental leave captured by the report came to a total of six million weeks, with men accounting for four million.) A number of male respondents actually noted that they didn’t think it was necessary to take leave if their partner was already doing so. Race, too, seems to play a role in how widely paid leave is utilized: On the whole, Latino and Black parents are less likely to be eligible for the benefit than white and Asian parents. When they do have access to it, however, Black parents are the most likely to use paid leave. Administrative challenges Another significant hurdle is the administrative burden of applying for paid leave. While many parents who used paid leave expressed satisfaction with the benefit after the fact, almost 60% who opted out said they were frustrated by the application process. Even when paid leave is provided by the state, the vast majority of parents relied on their employer to help guide them through a complicated process, which is likely easier to navigate at large companies that are better positioned to assist their workers. In the absence of a federal law—which lost traction after the pandemic—advocates for paid leave have pushed for legislation at the state level, leading many progressive states to adopt mandatory policies over the past decade. But the Moms First report makes clear that without increasing utilization of paid leave, countless parents are not reaping the benefits, from offsetting the steep cost of childcare to improving health outcomes for mothers and children. View the full article

Tech giant to retire service it acquired for $8.5bn after being overtaken by upstarts such as WhatsApp, Telegram and ZoomView the full article

Bodies representing big funds unleash lobbying offensive against global regulators’ plansView the full article

Last Energy, a nuclear upstart backed by an Elon Musk-linked venture capital fund, says it plans to construct 30 microreactors on a site in Texas to supply electricity to data centers across the state. The initiative, which it says could provide about 600 megawatts of electricity, would be the company’s largest project to date and help it develop a commercial pipeline in the U.S. Set on a 200-acre site Last Energy has obtained in Haskell County, in northwest Texas, the project still faces likely years of regulatory and public scrutiny. The Washington, D.C.-based company hasn’t yet disclosed customers or the details of its financing, or announced a timeline for the effort. But once construction starts, the firm says it could deliver the plants within 24 months, using its modular, factory-built design. “Texas is America’s undisputed energy leader, but skyrocketing population growth and data center development is forcing policymakers, customers, and energy providers to embrace new technologies,” said Bret Kugelmass, founder and CEO of Last Energy. Nuclear energy is “the most effective way to meet Texas’ demand, but our solution—plug-and-play microreactors, designed for scalability and siting flexibility—is the best way to meet it quickly.” The plans are a response to overwhelming demand from data center developers in the state and elsewhere. U.S. tech giants are increasingly turning to nuclear to meet the growing energy demands of artificial intelligence and the data center boom, investing billions in traditional nuclear projects and an array of new ones, including fusion. Of Last Energy’s existing commercial agreements, which entail deploying over 80 microreactors across Europe, half are set to serve data centers. By powering data centers on-site, “behind the meter,” in addition to linking to the electrical utility, the plants could help sidestep the restraints and price volatility of a grid that’s already stretched thin. They could also be a proving ground for an unprecedented legal gambit: in December, the company joined Texas and Utah in filing suit against the U.S. government over its nuclear regulations. The outcome of that case could speed up this and future projects in the US. Until now, Last Energy’s focus has been on signing up customers in Europe, where lighter regulations and an aversion to Russian natural gas have helped accelerate a push toward nuclear power. The company says it has development agreements for more than 50 nuclear reactor facilities in Europe, including a $400 million project at a former coal power plant in Wales that could come online in 2027. In December, the firm received a tentative offer of $103.7 million in debt financing from the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) to build the first of those four SMRs. The Texas project would be the company’s first in the U.S. In Texas, surging energy demand has prompted officials to step up efforts to court the nuclear industry. Already the nation’s leader in fossil fuel production, as well as renewables and battery storage, the Lone Star State currently gets only 10% of its electricity form nuclear power. But a November study by the public utility commission, done at the behest of Gov. Greg Abbott, urged the state to deploy “a coordinated nuclear power strategy to enhance energy security and grid reliability,” and identified 61 sites suitable for small modular reactors. “Texas is the energy capital of America, and we are working to be No. 1 in advanced nuclear power,” said Abbott in a statement. “Last Energy’s microreactor project in Haskell County will help fulfill the state’s growing data center demand. Texas must become a national leader in advanced nuclear energy. By working together with industry leaders like Last Energy, we will usher in a nuclear power renaissance in the United States.” With 30 of the company’s shipping-container-sized microreactors each producing 20 megawatts, the site would generate about 600 megawatts, enough electricity for about 150,000 homes on the hottest summer days. A Last Energy spokesperson said the company had initiated the process of grid connection with the state utility, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), and begun pre-application engagement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to obtain an Early Site Permit for the site. The first reactor is estimated to cost approximately $100 million, the company says, with costs expected to drop as it iterates. Last has already built two full-scale prototypes in Texas with local manufacturing partners, and says it has secured its first full core load of low-enriched uranium fuel, scheduled to arrive in September 2026. In January it became a founding member of the Texas Nuclear Alliance, which aims to make “Texas the nuclear capital of the world.” the company says it’s also exploring projects in Utah. With the deal, the microreactor firm joins a number of companies that have announced plans to fuel their data centers’ voracious electricity demands with nuclear power. Earlier last year, Amazon said it would build a hyperscale data center next to a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania. In September, Microsoft said it would pay Constellation Energy to restart a reactor at Three Mile Island that was closed in 2019. And in October, Google and Kairos Power inked a deal for 500 megawatts of nuclear power. Meta is also going nuclear. In December, the Facebook parent said it was asking developers to submit proposals to deliver 1 gigawatt to 4 gigawatts of reactor capacity, starting in the early 2030s, as it looks for a reliable energy source for its data centers. In January, Meta also signed four purchase agreements with Spanish renewable energy developer Zelestra to build four solar projects that can help power Meta’s data centers in the region, currently located in Temple and Fort Worth. The projects, with a combined capacity of 595 megawatts, will deliver electricity to the ERCOT grid, which will then power the data centers. In Texas, even four years after a deadly, storm-linked blackout, the state utility has continued to struggle to add enough capacity and flexibility to meet a surge in demand. That already includes over 340 data centers which consume nearly 8 GW of power and make up about 9% of all Texas electricity demand; those in the Dallas area alone are expected to need an additional 43 gigawatts of power in the coming years. As with much of the state’s energy consumption, much of the electricity in those data centers is needed just to keep all those hot chips and servers cool. Smaller, ‘less scary’ reactors Last is one of a new class of nuclear firms building small-modular reactors (SMR) in ways intended to lower the cost and speed of constructing new plants while enhancing simplicity and safety features. Traditional nuclear plants are hulking installations, providing 1,000 megawatts or more but often beset by cost overruns and construction delays that can stretch to many years. The U.S.’s newest fission reactors, commissioned in 2023 and 2024 in Georgia, were seven years late and more than $17 billion over budget. SMR startups like Last are attempting to use mass production techniques to bring down costs and speed construction, with reactors that are small enough to be transported by truck. Last tries to advance the technology of the conventional pressurized water reactor with a modular design, factory-built parts, and tools and expertise borrowed from the oil-and-gas industry. The company also hopes to overcome nuclear skepticism with a number of passive safety features, an underground containment system, and a futuristic design meant to look “less scary.” By using the pre-arranged price contracts typical to renewable projects, Last Energy also seeks to reduce financial risk and unlock private financing, avoiding the uncertainties that come with typical utility-scale nuclear plants. Under its model, the company owns and operates the reactors and sells the power to the customer under long-term contracts. “Technology from the nuclear industry, the business model from renewables, and the constructability from oil and gas—that was the founding idea behind Last Energy,” Kugelmass told Fast Company in 2023. The company has raised a total of $64 million since its 2019 founding, including a $40 million Series B round last year led by the Austin-based VC Gigafund. The heavyweight fund was the first investor in Elon Musk’s SpaceX and its founder, Luke Nosek, now sits on both companies’ boards. Venture capital has shown interest in other microreactor designs, too. Last year, Aalo Atomics raised $27 million to scale up a 85-kilowatt design from a Department of Energy program, and Deep Fission, which aims to bury microreactors a mile underground, raised $4 million led by 8VC, a venture firm founded by Joe Lonsdale. Why Last Energy, Texas, and Utah sued the U.S. Before Texas, Last Energy had avoided the NRC’s pre-application process, which the agency says can help expedite NRC review. But the pre-application process itself can last years, ahead of a formal application process that can take two years or longer. More than a dozen next-gen nuclear developers have begun pre-application work for NRC review, but since December 2023, the agency has approved only three reactors: two low-power, grid-connected test reactor facilities in Tennessee, built by Kairos, and a 1-megawatt research microreactor built by Natura Resources at Abilene Christian University. The regulator approved its first SMR design in January 2023, from NuScale Power, but determined further review was needed, a process it expects to complete in June. Last Energy is also working on accelerating its regulatory journey. In December. it joined the states of Utah and Texas in suing the NRC over the 69-year-old rule that underpins nuclear reactor licensing in the U.S. The rule, the suit argues, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority and creates an unreasonable burden for microreactor developers. The plaintiffs asked the Eastern District of Texas court to exempt Last Energy’s 20-megawatt reactor design and research reactors located in the plaintiff states from the agency’s definition of nuclear “utilization facilities.” That designation subjects all U.S. commercial and research reactors to strict regulatory scrutiny. The suit asks the court to order NRC to develop a more flexible definition for use in future licensing. Until now, Last Energy has focused on projects abroad, “in order to access alternative regulatory frameworks that incorporate a de minimis standard for nuclear power permitting,” the company said in its lawsuit. Patrick White, research director at the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, told Utility Dive last month that, regardless of its merits, the lawsuit underscores the need for “continued discussion around proportional regulatory requirements . . . that align with the hazards of the reactor and correspond to a safety case.” View the full article

What are you doing this weekend? Don't know? Now you do: You're going to organize and declutter your home with the "out in the open" method. This technique is helpful whether you have a cluttered space, live in a relatively tidy home, or even are hyper-organized. Here's what you need to do. What is the "out in the open" method?This decluttering and organizing technique, like a lot of others, comes from tidy-home gurus The Minimalists. Essentially, you pull everything out of the space you're trying to organize, whether it's your closet, a cupboard, or a junk drawer. Truly, pull it all out and pile it up. The Minimalists say this approach is the opposite of one of their other methods, the "packing party," which involves putting everything from a certain room or location into categorized boxes, as if you were moving, then live out of those boxes for three weeks, pulling out only what you actually need. Three weeks after your packing party, you get rid of what you didn't use and put the rest away. With "out in the open," you don't have the luxury of living normally for three weeks, though; all your stuff is in a big pile, and cleaning and organizing it becomes an immediate necessity if you'd like to move freely around your space again. So, that's what you do. Once everything is pulled out of its usual spot, you get a real sense of the volume of what you have. You have to organize it, because it's in your way. This creates some urgency while helping you get a handle on all that clutter that has been stored away. From there, you just have to follow your preferred decluttering technique, sorting, as usual, into piles of keep, throw, donate, and sell, before putting away what you're keeping and getting rid of the rest as you see fit. Why the "out in the open" rule works so wellThis is actually one of the best techniques out there because it works well for everyone, even—hell, especially—people who are already pretty organized. I often recommend following the rules of the Organizational Triangle to keep your home in order, particularly the rules that say to store similar items together and that everything needs a designated space. All of my favorite organizing techniques require you to use containers, smell shelves, boxes, and other specific storage tools to keep everything in order while it's stashed away in cupboards or closets. That's why I'm always going on about the best storage boxes and divided shelving units. The goal here is to keep everything organized and out of sight—but that can become its own kind of problem. Even if you adhere to all the storage and organizing rules strictly, once everything is out of sight and mind and your home looks presentable, you can still be accumulating way too much unnecessary stuff in those closets, cupboards, and boxes. You may not even think it's an issue since, hey, at least it's all organized. By periodically pulling it all out and creating the very kind of mess you usually try to avoid, you have to confront all that stuff. I do this with my closets and dressers pretty regularly, every two or three months, so I can pare down clothes I no longer wear, need, or fit. It's also a great idea for junk drawers, spice and medicine cabinets (or anything full of products that might expire), garages or sheds, shoe storage, and even your living room shelving. As annoying as it is to temporarily have a giant mess on your hands, it will be worth it to only hold onto what is still serving you and let go of the things that were taking up too much organizational space. View the full article

White House meeting comes after US and Ukraine agreed terms of deal on jointly exploring resourcesView the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication. The Google Pixel Watch, in either champagne gold with a hazel band or polished silver with a charcoal band, is down to $109.99, $170 off its usual price of $279.99. Google Pixel Watch $109.99 at Walmart $279.99 Save $170.00 Get Deal Get Deal $109.99 at Walmart $279.99 Save $170.00 Launched in 2022 as Google's first smartwatch (the stainless steel build is 80% recycled, so Google gets some sustainability points here), the Pixel Watch blends Wear OS with Fitbit’s health-tracking expertise, and does everything you’d expect from a premium smartwatch—texts, calls, contactless payments, smart home controls, fitness tracking, among others. Plus, it works with any Android 8.0+ device, not just Pixels, so you’re not locked into Google’s ecosystem. Here's everything you need to know about the Google Pixel Watch. The Pixel Watch comes with a 5ATM water resistance rating, allowing for shallow water submersion. However, Google doesn’t provide an official IP rating for dust resistance, which might be something to consider if you plan on taking it into rough environments. Additionally, its AMOLED display is covered by a domed layer of Corning Gorilla Glass for better durability, but there's no raised bezel for extra protection against accidental bumps. That said, the display is smooth and highly responsive, with no noticeable lag, and its visibility is strong both indoors and outdoors. Internally, it runs on an Exynos 9110 chip paired with a Cortex M33 co-processor and 2GB of RAM. Google claims this setup helps improve heart rate tracking without draining the battery too quickly, and in practice, it does last a full day—about 25 hours with the always-on display enabled, notes this PCMag review. On the fitness side, the Pixel Watch leans heavily into Fitbit’s ecosystem, tracking heart rate, sleep, and daily activity while supporting 40 workout modes—CrossFit, HIIT, Pilates, yoga, etc. It also includes an ECG app for detecting atrial fibrillation and Fitbit’s Active Zone Minutes to help you hit recommended activity goals. If you’re into data, the included six-month Fitbit Premium trial unlocks extra insights, guided workouts, and mindfulness sessions. After that, it’s $9.99 a month, so you’ll need to decide if it’s worth the subscription. The latest iteration of Google's wearable, the Pixel Watch 3, will introduce pulse loss detection by March. If that is something you care about, it might be worth waiting for the upgrade. View the full article

After filing for bankruptcy protection and being nearly obliterated in the process, discount retail chain Big Lots is getting closer to determining the timeline for its path forward, the brand’s new owner has confirmed with Fast Company. Variety Wholesalers, the North Carolina-based retail company that is seeking to take control of hundreds of Big Lots locations—mostly in the South and Midwest—now has a tentative plan in place for the “soft openings” of many of those stores, according to a spokesperson. Although a bankruptcy filing earlier this month identified 200 locations that are expected to be transferred to Variety, not all of the stores have been assigned yet by the courts. The locations that do ultimately move forward are likely to be dark for a period of weeks or even months following the transfer of their leases as Variety determines what preparations or alterations are needed for each location. Big Lots, which had more than 800 locations before it filed for bankruptcy, has been in the process of closing stores and holding going-out-of-business sales for months. Openings expected from early April through early June Soft opening dates for the Big Lots stores that go forward under Variety Wholesalers are expected to begin in early April and go through early June, according to Jeff King, Variety’s vice president of sales and marketing, although the timeline could still change. The openings are expected to be completed in four separate “waves,” but Variety is still determining which wave will be assigned to certain stores as the bankruptcy process continues. The company said it will share the full list when it becomes available. The states with the most Big Lots locations that are expected to move forward include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Privately held Variety Wholesalers is the parent company of Roses, Maxway, Super 10, and other discount retail chains. Late last year, it announced plans to take over at least 200 Big Lots locations as part of a last-minute deal with Gordon Brothers, the liquidation firm that has been managing store closures. Big Lots had previously said that it would close every location. View the full article

Some people have fully stocked bars—the rest of us make do with a rotating cast of liquors and ingredients. If that's you, Drinkable is a totally free app that tells you which cocktails you can make with the ingredients you have on hand. Even better: it works offline, perfect if you're stranded in a cabin with a well-stocked bar but no wireless signal (it happens, believe me). This application, available for iOS and Android with no ads or in-app-payments, includes a catalogue of over 150 drinks. This means you could use it to quickly look up the recipe for all of the common cocktails. To get started, install the app from Google Play or the App Store. You can start searching for recipes right away. Honestly, the application is perfectly useful just as a pocket recipe book for all the classic cocktails. To me, though, the real fun happens when you head to the Ingredients tab and start entering which things you have on hand. While browsing recipes, you'll see checkmarks next to the ingredients you have on hand. Or, if you prefer, you can filter the recipes to only see drinks you can make with your current ingredients. Tap any of them and you'll see the recipe. Credit: Justin Pot Scroll down past the list of drinks you can make with current ingredients and you'll see a list of drinks that you're one ingredient away from making. Basically, this app is built around showing you what drinks you can make with what you have on hand while also pointing out things you could make with just a few more things. I like this because it can help inform your next shopping trip without totally overwhelming you. Even if you don't want to bother with inventory management, this app is a handy reference—and it's completely free (with no in app purchases). Whether you're making a quick drink for yourself or a batch of bottled cocktails for a party, you'll have the knowledge you need. View the full article

Even with the resources to chase after all our stolen handsets, let’s not kid ourselves it would solve the problem View the full article

Matt Ries has lived in Florida only three years, but everyone told him last summer was unusually hot. That was followed by three hurricanes in close succession. Then temperatures dropped below freezing for days this winter, and snow blanketed part of the state. To Ries, 29, an Ohio native now in Tampa, the extreme weather—including the bitter cold—bore all the hallmarks of climate change. “To me it’s just kind of obvious,” said Ries, a project manager for an environmental company and self-described conservative-leaning independent. “Things are changing pretty drastically; just extreme weather all across the country and the world. . . . I do think humans are speeding up that process.” About 8 in 10 U.S. adults say they have experienced some kind of extreme weather in recent years, according to a new poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, with about half saying they’ve been personally affected by severe cold weather or severe winter storms. Among those saying severe cold was among the types of extreme weather they experienced, about three-quarters say climate change is at least a partial cause of those events—suggesting that many understand global warming can create an unstable atmosphere that allows cold air from the Arctic to escape farther south more often. Midwesterners are most likely to feel the brunt of the cold weather, with about 7 in 10 adults who live in the Midwest experiencing severe cold in the past five years, compared with about half of residents of the South and the Northeast and about one-third of those in the West, the survey found. “It’s counterintuitive to think, ‘Oh, gee, it’s really cold. That probably has something to do with global warming,'” said Liane Golightly-Kissner, of Delaware, Ohio, north of Columbus, who believes climate change is influencing many weather extremes. Golightly-Kissner, 38, said it was so cold this winter that schools were closed and her family let faucets drip to prevent burst pipes. She remembers one extremely cold day when she was a child in Michigan, but she says now it seems to happen more often and over multiple days. The poll also found that, while only about one-quarter of U.S. adults feel climate change has had a major impact on their lives so far, about 4 in 10 think it will in their lifetimes—including on their health, local air quality, and water availability. About half of adults under age 30 believe climate change will impact them personally. About 7 in 10 U.S. adults believe climate change is occurring, and they are much more likely to think it has had or will have a major impact on them than those who say climate change isn’t happening. Americans are catching on, said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, who credits a combination of media coverage, political leaders speaking up, and public concerns that creates a “symbiotic relationship.” “We have seen growing awareness among the American people that climate change is affecting them here and now,” though many still see it as a distant problem that their grandchildren will have to worry about, he said. Rosiland Lathan, 60, of Minden, Louisiana, said she’s a believer because it seems that summers are getting hotter and winters colder—including a couple years ago, when snow and ice kept her car stuck at work for several days. This winter, she said, there was a stretch of temperatures in the teens and 20s, while a couple of summers ago, it got “real, real hot” with highs in the 100s. “It’s normally hot in Louisiana, but not that hot,” Lathan said. Hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters, like the devastating Southern California fires, also have many concerned that climate change could lead to higher property insurance premiums and household energy costs. About 6 in 10 U.S. adults are “extremely” or “very” concerned about increasing property insurance premiums, and just over half are similarly concerned about climate change’s impact on energy costs, the AP-NORC survey found. About half are “extremely” or “very” concerned that climate change will increase costs for local emergency responders and infrastructure costs for government. Republicans are less worried than Democrats and independents. The survey also found broad support for a range of measures to help people who live in areas becoming more susceptible to extreme weather and natural disasters, with the exception of restricting new construction in these communities. About 6 in 10 U.S. adults said they “somewhat” or “strongly” favor providing money to local residents to help them rebuild in the same community after disasters strike, while similar shares support providing money to make residents’ property more resistant to natural disasters and providing homeowners’ insurance to people who cannot get private insurance. About one-quarter of Americans neither favor nor oppose each of these proposals, while around 1 in 10 are “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed. When it comes to restricting new construction, opinion is more divided. About 4 in 10 “somewhat” or “strongly” favor restricting new construction in areas that are especially vulnerable to natural disasters, about 4 in 10 have a neutral view and about 2 in 10 are “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed. Golightly-Kissner said she believes there should be rebuilding restrictions or tougher building standards in disaster-prone areas. “These extreme weather conditions, they’re not going anywhere, and it would be hubris for us to continue in the same way,” she said. “I think we we have to change. We have to look toward the future and what’s the best way to keep our lives together when this happens again. Because it’s really not a question of if, it’s when.” Webber reported from Fenton, Michigan. _ The AP-NORC poll of 1,112 adults was conducted Feb. 6-10, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. _ The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. —Tammy Webber and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, Associated Press View the full article

When it comes to managing your finances and taxes, consider advice from TikTok with a hefty grain of salt. Certain tax "loopholes" may go viral, but that doesn't mean they're good for your specific tax situation. TikTok's bite-sized videos have a habit of distilling nuanced tax strategies into just a few sentences—a recipe for misinformation. This advice is lightly misleading at best, and totally inaccurate at worst. Blindly following this advice could cost you in penalties, back taxes owed, and a tremendous hassle. Let's take a look at the questionable TikTok tax advice I've seen and how you can make sure it doesn't lead you and your money astray. Hiring your kids Some videos suggest that business owners should hire and pay their children as employees. The claim is that this allows the child to contribute to a Roth IRA using their "earned income." While it's true that only earned income can be contributed to a Roth IRA, hiring your kids has very specific requirements. The work they do must be legitimate and age-appropriate, and the pay must be reasonable for the job performed. Simply putting your children on payroll as a tax workaround could be considered fraud. Hiring your dogI've seen videos like this one garner hundreds of thousands of likes for the claim that you can write off your pet as a guard dog who protects your business. It's true that guard dog expenses are deductible if the dog is trained and of a breed fit for the job. Unfortunately, trying to deduct your corgi for occasionally barking at the door isn't going to get your very far with the IRS. Writing off your Range RoverAnother viral claim about a legal "tax loophole" advises people to write off the cost of a luxury vehicle like a Range Rover or Mercedes-Benz G-Wagon on their taxes. The truth is, according to the IRS Section 179 tax code, businesses may be able to write off a G-Wagon if it’s used for business purposes at least half of the time. Section 179 does allow businesses to deduct the full cost of certain assets like vehicles in the year they are placed into service, rather than depreciating the expense over several years. But there are very strict requirements. Additionally, there are limits on the deductible amount for luxury vehicles that exceed $19,800 for cars and $20,500 for trucks and vans in 2023. Forming an LLC to deduct personal expensesLuckily, this faulty advice seems to falling out of fashion, but sometimes old videos like this one make the rounds. Creators claim you can form a limited liability company (LLC) to deduct personal expenses like your mortgage, car payments, and even grocery bills as business expenses to reduce your taxes. While LLCs can provide some tax benefits, simply forming one doesn't magically allow you to write off all your personal costs. There are strict rules about what qualifies as a legitimate business expense. Deducting personal expenses improperly could land you in hot water with the IRS. The bottom lineWhen it comes to complex topics like these (and really all things tax-related), don't rely on brief videos from non-professionals. Improper tax strategies could inadvertently cost you much more in penalties, interest, and fees down the road. Unless a TikTok video is from a credentialed tax expert giving a general overview of tax concepts, take it with a hefty scoop of skepticism. It's best to consult a qualified tax professional who can look at your specific situation and give you legitimate, tailored advice. What makes for a good viral video rarely translates to good tax planning. View the full article

Pop culture subreddit r/Fauxmoi is facing accusations of defamation from YouTuber and podcaster Ethan Klein. Klein first rose to internet fame through his YouTube channel, h3h3Productions, which he co-created with his wife, Hila Klein. The channel now boasts 5.71 million subscribers. The Kleins caught the attention of r/Fauxmoi—a subreddit inspired by the popular Instagram story page Deuxmoi—after Hila shared an Instagram story claiming that a potential collaboration fell apart due to antisemitism. In response, the subreddit was flooded with posts resurfacing alleged problematic behavior and controversial language used by the Kleins on camera. Ethan fired back at r/Fauxmoi, sharing the subreddit post with his two million Instagram followers, comparing the subreddit to a “neo-Nazi” forum. According to a follow-up post on r/Fauxmoi, Klein then escalated the situation further by going live on YouTube, where he launched into a tirade against multiple subreddits—including r/Fauxmoi—claiming he was being “mass gaslighted” and declaring, “I’ve never seen anyone in the history of the internet be harassed like this.” Klein went on to say that the criticism against him was so extreme that “Russian propagandists would blush at the hate campaign going against us.” During the livestream, Klein also issued veiled threats, saying, “A lot of these people think they’re safe, but they will soon find out they’re not,” while hinting that he’s “preparing stuff and working behind the scenes.” He urged his followers to “stand back and stand by because there’s something in the works that I just can’t wait for.” In an interview with Kate Lindsay, who writes the Embedded Substack and co-hosts Slate’s podcast ICYMI, one of the lead moderators of r/Fauxmoi, an anonymous college student from Canada, describes how the situation has escalated to the point where two moderators were forced to delete their accounts due to the harassment and doxxing threats they were receiving. “Most people discussed on the subreddit have meaningful public reputations to maintain, and this means that pursuing petty claims against social media users and engaging in conspiracy theories is perceived as being beneath their station,” the mod told Lindsay. “When it comes to influencers (particularly those whose content is based largely on engagement and feuds rather than substance), they are often more sensitive regarding their reputations, and have less PR and business savvy.” (Neither Klein nor Reddit responded to Fast Company‘s request for comment.) But can a subreddit even be sued for defamation? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states that online service providers cannot be held liable for content posted by users. This means that platforms like Reddit are not considered publishers of user-generated content. However, it’s still possible to sue for unfair content moderation. What this saga means for free speech on the internet, and the right to gossip and share information online, remains to be seen. View the full article

Back in the day, philosophers weren’t just deep thinkers—they were the ones shaping society, questioning the status quo, and pushing humanity forward. They didn’t just sit around pondering big ideas; they were the architects of real change. Fast forward to today, and while we celebrate speed, innovation, and getting things done, we often forget to pause and ask the bigger questions: Why? What if? In a world that’s more complex than ever—where technology is evolving at breakneck speed, society feels increasingly divided, and global challenges loom large—we need to bring back deep thinking. The future depends on bold, unconventional minds willing to challenge the norm, embrace nuance, and seek real transformation instead of just quick fixes. The case for a renaissance of thought In 2023, a World Economic Forum survey found that 50% of global leaders felt “overwhelmed” by the pace of change, while only 23% believed their organizations were prepared to handle future challenges. Simultaneously, a Gallup study revealed that only 33% of employees feel engaged at work, signaling a lack of meaningful connection in professional environments. These statistics underline a truth that feels almost countercultural in an age of immediate gratification: we are collectively running fast, but toward what? We have more data than ever before, yet we struggle to interpret it meaningfully. We are more connected digitally, yet we feel increasingly isolated. It’s not just technology we need to master but the thinking required to shape its purpose and impact. Reflection on my own experience I learned the power of reflection the hard way. Early in my career, I was driven by achievement—always focused on the next milestone, the next goal, the next thing that needed to be done. I equated movement with progress. But at one point, despite all the success, I felt unfulfilled. It wasn’t burnout exactly—it was a realization that I was optimizing for speed rather than impact. I decided to do something radical: I deliberately slowed down. I took time to step back from the work itself and deeply reflect on what truly mattered to me. What kind of leader did I want to be? What legacy was I building? What problems was I solving, and were they the ones that really needed solving? The insights that emerged from that reflective period didn’t just change the trajectory of my work—they changed how I approached everything. I started asking better questions. Instead of just striving for efficiency, I focused on significance. Instead of merely executing, I became intentional about impact. That shift unlocked a level of innovation I hadn’t accessed before—not because I was doing more, but because I was thinking differently. What happens when deep thinking is lost Think about how social media started out. It was supposed to bring people together, connect the world, and make communication easier. And in many ways, it did. But along the way, it’s also fueled polarization, spread misinformation, and taken a toll on mental health. The focus was all about growing fast and scaling up—without much time spent questioning the bigger picture. What if, from the start, we had asked tougher questions about how these platforms might shape society? What if deep thinkers and contrarians had been part of the conversation—not to slow things down, but to make sure innovation actually worked for the greater good? Outlier thinkers in action Big shifts in history have often come from people willing to challenge the norm. Consider Rachel Carson—when she wrote Silent Spring in 1962, she wasn’t just questioning pesticides; she was sparking an entire environmental movement. Or Bertrand Russell, who didn’t just study philosophy and math—his ideas shaped everything from education to politics to science. More recently, there’s Tristan Harris, a former Google design ethicist who started calling out the addictive nature of tech platforms long before most people realized the impact. These kinds of thinkers remind us that progress isn’t just about what we build—it’s about how and why we build it. A framework for outlier thinking To foster a culture of deep thinking and contrarian innovation, individuals and organizations can adopt the following framework: Question the Obvious: Encourage an environment where it’s not only acceptable but expected to challenge assumptions. For example, instead of asking, “How do we grow faster?” ask, “Should we be growing in this direction at all?” Shift the focus from optimization to purpose. Embrace Intellectual Humility: Outlier thinkers are not afraid to admit what they don’t know. This humility creates space for exploration and allows leaders to approach problems with curiosity rather than preconceptions. Studies from Harvard Business School show that intellectual humility is correlated with better decision-making and more collaborative teams. Slow Down to Think Deeply: Allocate time for what philosopher Blaise Pascal called “sitting quietly in a room.” This doesn’t mean abandoning productivity but recognizing that reflection is an investment in clearer, more impactful actions. Diversify Perspectives: Surround yourself with people who challenge your thinking rather than reinforce it. Philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that encountering opposing views sharpens understanding and fosters better solutions. Create opportunities for debate and collaboration with diverse thinkers. Focus on Long-Term Impact: Resist the allure of short-term wins. Ask questions about legacy and unintended consequences, such as “What ripple effects could this decision have in 10 years?” This lens can help avoid the pitfalls of reactive thinking and promote sustainable innovation. Bringing back deep thinking doesn’t mean hitting pause on action—it just means making sure that action actually matters. It’s not about making more decisions; it’s about making better ones. It’s not about getting answers faster; it’s about asking the right questions. For leaders, entrepreneurs, and anyone trying to create real change, thinking differently isn’t just a personal challenge—it’s a shared responsibility. We need the courage to ask the questions others avoid, to look beyond the obvious, and to inspire others to do the same. As Nietzsche put it, “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.” In a world full of complexity, finding our collective why might be the most important thing we do. View the full article

The Federal Reserve's preferred inflation index showed little progress toward its target of 2%, increasing the likelihood of a prolonged rate pause. View the full article

Autodesk forecast annual revenue and profit above Wall Street estimates on Thursday, boosted by strong demand for its design and engineering software across industries such as construction and manufacturing. The company also said it would reduce its workforce by about 9%, representing roughly 1,350 employees, and laid out plans to invest more heavily in cloud and artificial intelligence, adding that it would reallocate resources towards those areas. Companies across sectors such as architecture, engineering, construction, and product design are making extensive use of Autodesk’s 3D design solutions, with the software maker’s artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities further driving spending on its products. Autodesk saw a 23% jump in total billings to $2.11 billion in the fourth quarter ended January 31. The company’s international operations have particularly shown strength, while analysts have also noted that the company was outpacing peers in the manufacturing sector, driven by the performance of its “Fusion” design software. Shares of the San Francisco, California-based company were up about 2% in extended trading. Autodesk expects full-year revenue between $6.90 billion and $6.97 billion, largely above analysts’ average estimate of $6.90 billion, according to data compiled by LSEG. It projected an adjusted profit between $9.34 and $9.67 per share for its fiscal year 2026, also above the $9.24 per share estimated by analysts. The company reported total revenue of $1.64 billion in the fourth quarter, up 12% from last year and above analysts’ average estimate of $1.63 billion. It posted an adjusted profit of $2.29 per share, beating estimates of $2.14 per share. —Deborah Sophia, Reuters View the full article

Resignation of Anneliese Dodds shows challenges for prime minister as he pursues tough choices View the full article

Recently, I overheard a conversation at a local coffee shop: “Thank god for the new administration and finally taking a stand against DEI,” said one of the men to another, as they sipped their coffee. “It’s ridiculous and unfair, completely ruining work. We can finally get back to business.” I leaned in a bit further to try and listen in as I paid for my Earl Gray tea. “Well . . . I’m not sure that’s entirely true,” the other man said hesitating. “I think that . . . ” “Finally, we can get back to raising standards,” the other individual interrupted. “It’s about time! By the way, are you going to the game next week?” The other individual looked uncomfortable as the conversation swiftly shifted in a completely different direction. While I was done paying, and also done eavesdropping, I left knowing that what I heard in this local coffee shop was not an isolated conversation. The backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion is playing out on the national and world stage almost every single day. And the backlash is also taking place on much smaller stages, in conversations in our conference rooms and in our hallways, amongst colleagues loudly and in whispers in our workplaces. And in these conversations, there’s an opportunity to talk and educate each other about what diversity, equity, and inclusion is and what diversity, equity, and inclusion is not. Here are three of the most common statements I am hearing from individuals for the case against diversity, equity, and inclusion, and here’s how we can debunk these statements and continue to help educate each other on what is true and what is not. False argument against DEI: We lower our standards when it comes to talent Diversity, equity, and inclusion is not about lowering our standards; diversity, equity, and inclusion is about setting fair and equitable standards on how we evaluate all talent. The term “DEI hire” is being used to make us believe that we have lowered standards by hiring individuals from different backgrounds and different lived experiences. In reality, “DEI hire” is a harmful and a hurtful phrase that leads many to believe that someone was handed a job simply because they may “look different” or “be different” or are a “quota hire.” And it is increasingly becoming an acceptable way to discredit, demoralize, and disrespect leaders of color. One of the key outcomes of diversity, equity, and inclusion is creating standardized processes on how we hire talent, and also on who we choose to develop and promote. This includes using software tools like Greenhouse, which helps you ensure that every candidate for a role meets with the same set of interviewers, that interview questions are aligned in advance, and that there’s a way to evaluate and score the interviews and debrief together as an interview team. Otherwise, we fall prey to our biases and may hire people who look like us, think like us, and act like us, or simply hire them because we really just like them. When it comes to how we develop and promote talent, software tools like Lattice help us ensure we set clear and reasonable goals for all, and not just some employees. We can then track progress in weekly meetings, we can give and receive coaching and feedback, and we can have a consistent framework when we evaluate talent during performance review time. And how we evaluate talent is also then connected to how we compensate individuals, and ultimately who we chose to promote. Without these standardized processes, we may end up giving better performance reviews and more money to those who are the most vocal, who spend the most time managing up to us, and who we just find ourselves having more in common with. Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts help us raise standards and make sure we are getting the best out of our talent. False argument against DEI: It distracts ourselves from driving revenue Diversity, equity, and inclusion does not distract us from leading our businesses; in fact, diversity, equity, and inclusion is a driver of the business. It’s not a separate initiative that sits apart from the business; it should be integrated into everything we do in our workplaces. These efforts not only help us ensure that we get the best out of our talent, but it also ensures we are able to best serve our customers. According to Procter & Gamble, the buying power of the multicultural consumer is more than $5 trillion. Procter & Gamble reminds us that it’s no longer multicultural marketing; it’s in fact mainstream marketing. There is growth to be had when we ensure we connect and authentically serve not just the multicultural consumer, but also veterans, individuals with disabilities, the LGBTQ+ community, and many more communities. Understanding their consumer needs and how your businesses’ products and services can surprise and delight them, and enhance the quality of their lives, is an untapped competitive advantage. Companies like E.L.F. understand this, with a strong focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts that have paid off: It has posted 23 consecutive quarters of sales growth. Over the past five years, the company has also seen its stock increased by more 700%. In contrast, since Target announced a roll back on its diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, it’s experienced a decline in sales. Black church leaders are now calling on their congregations to participate in a 40 day boycott of Target. Black consumers have $2 trillion in buying power, setting digital trends and engagement. “We’ve got to tell corporate America that there’s a consequence for turning their back on diversity,” said Bishop Reginald T. Jackson, to USA Today. “So let us send the message that if corporate America can’t stand with us, we’re not going to stand with corporate America.” False argument against DEI: An inclusive work environment only benefits a few Diversity, equity, and inclusion is not about creating an inclusive environment for a select few. Diversity, equity, and inclusion is about creating workplaces where we all have an opportunity to reach our potential and help our companies reach their potential. In my book, Reimagine Inclusion: Debunking 13 Myths to Transform Your Workplace, I tackle the myth that diversity, equity, and inclusion processes and policies only have a positive effect on a certain group of individuals. I share “The Curb-Cut Effect” which is a prime example of this. In 1972, faced with pressure from activists advocating for individuals with disabilities, the city of Berkeley, California, installed its first official “curb cut” at an intersection on Telegraph Avenue. In the words of a Berkeley advocate, “the slab of concrete heard ‘round the world.” This not only helped people in wheelchairs. It also helped parents pushing strollers, elderly with walkers, travelers wheeling luggage, workers pushing heavy carts, and the curb cut helped skateboarders and runners. People went out of their way and continued to do so, to use a curb cut. “The Curb-Cut Effect” shows us that one action targeted to help a community ended up helping many more people than anticipated. So, in our workplaces, policies like flexible work hours and remote work options, parental leave and caregiver assistance, time off for holidays and observances, adaptive technologies, mental health support, accommodations for individuals with disabilities, and more have a ripple effect and create workplaces where everyone has an opportunity to thrive. Don’t fall for the rhetoric against “DEI” being exclusive, unfair, or a distraction. The goal of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts has always been about leveling the playing field and ensuring we are creating workplaces where each and everyone of us have an opportunity to succeed. View the full article

The ‘sceptical environmentalist’ used cost-benefit analysis to argue against emissions cuts. Now he has turned his attention to overseas aidView the full article

Move by Anneliese Dodds comes after prime minister announces plan to shift resources to defenceView the full article

Average cost of £270,493 is 3.9% higher year on year as buyers try to get ahead of stamp duty changes in AprilView the full article

The notion of authenticity in the movies has moved a step beyond the merely realistic. More and more, expensive and time-consuming fixes to minor issues of screen realism have become the work of statistical data renderings—the visual or aural products of generative artificial intelligence. Deployed for effects that actors used to have to create themselves, with their own faces, bodies, and voices, filmmakers now deem these fixes necessary because they are more authentic than what actors can do with just their imaginations, wardrobe, makeup, and lighting. The paradox is that in this scenario, “authentic” means inhuman: The further from actual humanity these efforts have moved, the more we see them described by filmmakers as “perfect.” Is perfect the enemy of good? It doesn’t seem to matter to many filmmakers working today. These fixes are designed to be imperceptible to humans, anyway. Director Brady Corbet’s obsession with “perfect” Hungarian accents in his Oscar-nominated architecture epic, The Brutalist, is a case in point. Corbet hired the Ukraine-based software company Respeecher to enhance accents by using AI to smooth out vowel sounds when actors Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones (American and British, respectively) speak Hungarian in the film. Corbet said it was necessary to do that because, as he told the Los Angeles Times, “this was the only way for us to achieve something completely authentic.” Authenticity here meant integrating the voice of the film’s editor, Dávid Jánsco, who accurately articulated the correct vowel sounds. Jánsco’s pronunciation was then combined with the audio track featuring Brody and Jones, merging them into a purportedly flawless rendition of Hungarian that would, in Corbet’s words in an interview with GQ, “honor the nation of Hungary by making all of their off-screen Hungarian dialogue absolutely perfect.” The issue of accents in movies has come to the fore in recent years. Adam Driver and Shailene Woodley were, for instance, criticized for their uncertain Italian accents in 2023’s Ferrari. Corbet evidently wanted to make sure that would not happen if any native Hungarian speakers were watching The Brutalist (few others would notice the difference). At times, Brody and Jones speak in Hungarian in the film, but mostly they speak in Hungarian-accented English. According to Corbet, Respeecher was not used for that dialogue. Let’s say that for Corbet this will to perfection, with the time and expense it entailed, was necessary to his process, and that having the voice-overs in translated Hungarian-accented English might have been insultingly inauthentic to the people of Hungary, making it essential that the movie sound, at all times, 100% correct when Hungarian was spoken. Still, whether the Hungarian we hear in The Brutalist is “absolutely perfect” is not the same as it being “completely authentic,” since it was never uttered as we hear it by any human being. And, as it turns out, it was partially created in reaction to something that doesn’t exist. In his interview with the Los Angeles Times, Corbet said that he “would never have done it any other way,” recounting when he and his daughter “were watching North by Northwest and there’s a sequence at the U.N., and my daughter is half-Norwegian, and two characters are speaking to each other in [air quotes] Norwegian. My daughter said: ‘They’re speaking gibberish.’ And I think that’s how we used to paint people brown, right? And, I think that for me, that’s a lot more offensive than using innovative technology and really brilliant engineers to help us make something perfect.” But there is no scene in Alfred Hitchcock’s 1959 film North by Northwest set at the United Nations or anywhere else in which two characters speak fake Norwegian or any other faked language. Furthermore, when Corbet brings in the racist practice of brownface makeup that marred movies like 1961’s West Side Story, he is doing a further disservice to Hitchcock’s film. The U.N. scene in North by Northwest features Cary Grant speaking with a South Asian receptionist played by Doris Singh, not an Anglo in brownface. Corbet’s use of AI, then, is based on something that AI itself is prone to, and criticized for: a “hallucination” in which previously stored data is incorrectly combined to fabricate details and generate false information that tends toward gibberish. While the beginning of Hitchcock’s Torn Curtain (1966) is set on a ship in a Norwegian fjord and briefly shows two ship’s officers conversing in a faked, partial Norwegian, Corbet’s justification was based on a false memory. His argument against inauthenticity is inauthentic itself. AI was used last year in other films besides The Brutalist. Respeecher also “corrected” the pitch of trans actress Karla Sofía Gascón’s singing voice in Emilia Pérez. It was used for blue eye color in Dune: Part Two. It was used to blend the face of Anya Taylor-Joy with the actress playing a younger version of her, Alyla Browne, in Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga. Robert Zemeckis’s Here, with Tom Hanks and Robin Wright playing a married couple over a many-decade span, deployed a complicated “youth mirror system” that used AI in the extensive de-agings of the two stars. Alien: Romulus brought the late actor Ian Holm back to on-screen life, reviving him from the original 1979 Alien in a move derided not only as ethically dubious but, in its execution, cheesy and inadequate. It is when AI is used in documentaries to re-create the speech of people who have died that is especially susceptible to accusations of both cheesiness and moral irresponsibility. The 2021 documentary Roadrunner: A Film About Anthony Bourdain used an AI version of the late chef and author’s voice for certain lines spoken in the film, which “provoked a striking degree of anger and unease among Bourdain’s fans,” according to The New Yorker. These fans called resurrecting Bourdain that way “ghoulish” and “awful.” Dune: Part Two [Photo: Warner Bros. Pictures] Audience reactions like these, though frequent, do little to dissuade filmmakers from using complicated AI technology where it isn’t needed. In last year’s documentary Endurance, about explorer Ernest Shackleton’s ill-fated expedition to the South Pole from 1914 to 1916, filmmakers used Respeecher to exhume Shackleton from the only known recording of his voice, a noise-ridden four-minute Edison wax cylinder on which the explorer is yelling into a megaphone. Respeecher extracted from this something “authentic” which is said to have duplicated Shackleton’s voice for use in the documentary. This ghostly, not to say creepy, version of Shackleton became a selling point for the film, and answered the question, “What might Ernest Shackleton have sounded like if he were not shouting into a cone and recorded on wax that has deteriorated over a period of 110 years?” Surely an actor could have done as well as Respeecher with that question. Similarly, a new three-part Netflix documentary series, American Murder: Gabby Petito, has elicited discomfort from viewers for using an AI-generated voice-over of Petito as its narration. The 22-year-old was murdered by her fiancé in 2021, and X users have called exploiting a homicide victim this way “unsettling,” “deeply uncomfortable,” and perhaps just as accurately, “wholly unnecessary.” The dead have no say in how their actual voices are used. It is hard to see resurrecting Petito that way as anything but a macabre selling point—carnival exploitation for the streaming era. Beside the reanimation of Petito and the creation of other spectral voices from beyond the grave, there is a core belief that the proponents of AI enact but never state, one particularly apropos in a boomer gerontocracy in which the aged refuse to relinquish power. That belief is that older is actually younger. When an actor has to be de-aged for a role, such as Harrison Ford in 2023’s Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, AI is enlisted to scan all of Ford’s old films to make him young in the present, dialing back time to overwrite reality with an image of the past. Making a present-day version of someone young involves resuscitating a record of a younger version of them, like in The Substance but without a syringe filled with yellow serum. When it comes to voices, therefore, it is not just the dead who need to be revived. Ford’s Star Wars compatriot Mark Hamill had a similar process done, but only to his voice. For an episode of The Mandalorian, Hamill’s voice had to be resynthesized by Respeecher to sound like it did in 1977. Respeecher did the same with British singer Robbie Williams for his recent biopic, Better Man, using versions of Williams’s songs from his heyday and combining his voice with that of another singer to make him sound like he did in the 1990s. Here [Photo: Sony Pictures] While Zemeckis was shooting Here, the “youth mirror system” he and his AI team devised consisted of two monitors that showed scenes as they were shot, one the real footage of the actors un-aged, as they appear in real life, and the other using AI to show the actors to themselves at the age they were supposed to be playing. Zemeckis told The New York Times that this was “crucial.” Tom Hanks, the director explained, could see this and say to himself, “I’ve got to make sure I’m moving like I was when I was 17 years old.” “No one had to imagine it,” Zemeckis said. “They got the chance to see it in real time.” No one had to imagine it is not a phrase heretofore associated with actors or the direction of actors. Nicolas Cage is a good counter example to this kind of work, which as we see goes far beyond perfecting Hungarian accents. Throughout 2024, Cage spoke against AI every chance he got. At an acceptance speech at the recent Saturn Awards, he mentioned that he is “a big believer in not letting robots dream for us. Robots cannot reflect the human condition for us. That is a dead end. If an actor lets one AI robot manipulate his or her performance even a little bit, an inch will eventually become a mile and all integrity, purity, and truth of art will be replaced by financial interests only.” In a speech to young actors last year, Cage said, “The studios want this so that they can change your face after you’ve already shot it. They can change your face, they can change your voice, they can change your line deliveries, they can change your body language, they can change your performance.” And he said in a New Yorker interview last year, speaking about the way the studios are using AI, “What are you going to do with my body and my face when I’m dead? I don’t want you to do anything with it!” All this from a man who swapped faces with John Travolta in 1997’s Face/Off with no AI required—and “face replacement” is now one of the main things AI is used for. In an interview with Yahoo Entertainment, Cage shared an anecdote about his recent cameo appearance as a version of Superman in the much-reviled 2023 superhero movie The Flash. “What I was supposed to do was literally just be standing in an alternate dimension, if you will, and witnessing the destruction of the universe. . . . And you can imagine with that short amount of time that I had, what that would mean in terms of what I could convey—I had no dialogue—what I could convey with my eyes, the emotion. . . . When I went to the picture, it was me fighting a giant spider. . . . They de-aged me and I’m fighting a spider.” Now that’s authenticity. View the full article