ResidentialBusiness

It’s a good day to be an American quantum computing company—well, as long as you’re willing to give up some equity. Nine major firms are splitting $2 billion in grants from the The President administration, the Wall Street Journal reports. In return, the government will take varying equity stakes in each of the companies. IBM will receive half the award, putting it toward a new IBM company called Anderon. IBM will match the grant with another $1 billion in cash for the Albany, New York-based standalone company. It’s an investment that IBM predicts will pay off in spades. “Anderon will operate as a state-of-the-art 300-millimeter quantum wafer foundry,” IBM stated in an announcement. “It will help the nation solidify its leadership at the center of a thriving new quantum industry that is estimated to generate up to $850 billion in economic value by 2040 and spur American economic growth while also bolstering national security.” Alongside IBM, GlobalFoundries is set to receive $375 million from the grant, while companies such as D-Wave Quantum, Inc., Infleqtion Inc., and Rigetti Computing Inc. should get $100 million each. Diraq, a private startup, is expected to receive $38 million. The final deals are still being confirmed and multiple announcements state the funds are contingent on meeting certain milestones. Fast Company has reached out to the Commerce Department for comment. We will update this post if we hear back. Shares of publicly traded companies involved were up in Thursday’s premarket. As of publication, IBM (NYSE: IBM) is up about 6.6%, D-Wave (NYSE: QBTS) is up about 17.5%, and Rigetti (Nasdaq: RGTI) is up about 15.5%. Meanwhile, Global Foundries (Nasdaq: GFS) rose about 14.5% and Infleqtion (NYSE: INFQ) jumped about 24%. The government wants a stake in quantum computing companies It’s critical to highlight that these grants are being supplied by the Biden-era 2022 Chips and Science Act. It provided $280 billion in funding for semiconductors—a critical part of quantum computing—over the next decade, and votes against it came from 187 House Republicans and 32 Senate Republicans. Last year, The President used his joint address to Congress as a platform to rally against the legislation. “Your CHIPS Act is a horrible, horrible thing,” The President told Congress, according to Politico. Directing his remarks at Speaker Mike Johnson, he continued: “You should get rid of the CHIP[S] Act and whatever’s left over Mr. Speaker, you should use it to reduce debt or any other reason you want to.” Now, despite the Chips and Science Act devoting money toward advancement, the The President administration is making these grants contingent on receiving stakes in the quantum computing companies. Yes, as part of the award, the The President administration is continuing its unusual practice of taking equity in major companies. Notably, the government took a 10% stake in Intel last year. D-Wave and Infleqtion plan to offer $100 million worth of common stock to the Commerce Department—with Infleqtion proposing a 15% discount on market pricing. View the full article

When considering the best customer service approach for your business, it’s essential to focus on creating a customer-centric culture. This involves comprehending the customer experience, leveraging technology effectively, and nurturing a proactive service environment. Key elements include accessibility, personalization, and empowering your team to resolve issues independently. By implementing these strategies, you can improve customer satisfaction and loyalty. But what specific steps can you take to guarantee your approach is effective and sustainable? Key Takeaways Prioritize accessibility by ensuring prompt responses across all channels to retain customers and build trust. Implement personalized service strategies to meet customer expectations and enhance overall satisfaction. Leverage technology such as CRM systems and AI chatbots to streamline service and reduce response times. Foster a customer-centric culture where feedback drives decision-making and employees feel empowered to resolve issues. Continuously gather customer feedback and set SMART goals for ongoing improvement in service delivery. Understanding Customer Experience Comprehending customer experience (CX) is vital for any business that wants to thrive in today’s competitive market. CX encompasses every interaction and emotion a customer has with your brand, which can greatly influence their loyalty and spending behavior. To provide exceptional guest service, you need to understand that positive experiences can lead to a 90% likelihood of repeat purchases. Conversely, negative experiences can drive 32% of customers away entirely. Investing in excellent customer service is important, as 80% of customers value experiences as much as the products and services you offer. Key Elements of Excellent Customer Service Excellent customer service is essential for nurturing loyalty and ensuring a positive brand reputation. To achieve this, focus on accessibility; 73% of social media users will switch brands if responses are delayed, highlighting the need for prompt communication across all channels. Personalization is also fundamental; 70% of customers expect representatives to understand their history, which boosts satisfaction. Furthermore, proactive engagement is a good practice in customer care. Anticipating customer needs before they reach out cultivates healthier relationships. Empowering your customer service teams through training and granting autonomy enables quicker issue resolution, greatly impacting customer retention. Finally, keep in mind that how to give outstanding customer service includes leveraging technology—CRM systems and AI tools can streamline service delivery and improve the overall experience by increasing efficiency and personalizing interactions. Leveraging Technology for Enhanced Interactions As businesses endeavor to provide outstanding customer service, leveraging technology becomes a key strategy in improving interactions. By integrating advanced tools, you can raise your service technique and deliver amazing customer service. Consider these effective methods: AI-driven chatbots: These provide 24/7 support, responding instantly to common inquiries and cutting down wait times. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems: These give you a thorough view of customer interactions, allowing for personalized service based on insights. Automation technologies: They help manage inquiries and follow-ups efficiently, reducing human error and improving overall service efficiency. Data analytics: By leveraging this technology, you can identify customer preferences and tailor services to improve the customer experience effectively. Building a Customer-Centric Culture To build a customer-centric culture, every employee must understand that customer satisfaction is a shared responsibility across the organization. This culture prioritizes excellent customer service, promoting employee engagement by making each team member feel empowered in their roles. Research shows that organizations with a strong customer service vision enjoy higher employee retention and improved customer experiences. In a customer-centric environment, decisions are driven by customer feedback, leading to necessary adjustments that improve overall satisfaction and loyalty. Empowering employees to resolve customer issues independently not just reduces micromanagement but also allows for quicker problem resolution. Furthermore, regular training and development are critical in this culture, ensuring employees possess the skills and knowledge to meet evolving customer expectations. Strategies for Continuous Improvement in Customer Service A customer-centric culture lays the groundwork for strategies that cultivate continuous improvement in customer service. By embracing these methods, you can guarantee excellent customer service during keeping your team engaged and motivated: Collect and Act on Customer Feedback: Since 85% of customers are willing to share insights, regularly seek their feedback to identify areas for improvement and boost satisfaction. Implement SMART Goals: Establish Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound objectives, allowing for regular progress assessments and necessary adjustments. Leverage Data-Driven Decision-Making: Track key performance indicators like Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT) and Net Promoter Score (NPS) to refine your service approaches. Invest in Ongoing Training: Provide continuous training for your customer service team, equipping them with the skills and tools to improve service quality effectively. Frequently Asked Questions What Are the 4 P’s of Service Strategy? The 4 P’s of service strategy are crucial for effective customer service. First, Product focuses on the services you provide, ensuring they meet customer needs and expectations. Next, Price involves setting competitive prices that reflect the value offered. Place emphasizes accessibility, allowing customers to easily access your services through various channels. Finally, Promotion includes marketing efforts that inform customers about your services, creating awareness and encouraging engagement with your brand. What Is My Approach to Excellent Customer Service? Your approach to excellent customer service should focus on clarity, responsiveness, and empowerment. Start by establishing a clear vision aligned with your organizational goals, ensuring consistency. Empower your team to make decisions for quicker resolutions. Implement a robust CRM system to personalize interactions based on customer history and preferences. Regularly measure KPIs like Customer Satisfaction Score to identify improvement areas, during proactive engagement with customers through timely follow-ups to improve satisfaction and loyalty. What Are the 5 R’s of Customer Service? The 5 R’s of customer service are crucial for enhancing customer experiences. First, you need to Recognize customer issues quickly, which boosts loyalty. Next, Respond swiftly to inquiries, as 70% of customers expect a reply within 24 hours. Then, Resolve problems effectively to increase satisfaction and retention. Afterward, Retain customers by nurturing loyalty through consistent engagement. Finally, Repeat this process to promote long-term relationships and guarantee continuous improvement in your service approach. What Are the Top 3 of Customer Service? The top three customer service approaches are accessibility, personalization, and proactive engagement. First, being accessible and responsive is key, as customers expect quick replies. Second, implementing a strong CRM system helps you track interaction history, enabling customized service. Finally, anticipating customer needs before they reach out can greatly improve satisfaction, as it addresses issues proactively rather than reactively. Together, these strategies create a more effective and satisfying customer experience. Conclusion In summary, adopting a customer-centric approach is crucial for your business’s success. By focusing on accessibility, personalization, and proactive engagement, you can improve customer experiences. Utilizing technology like AI-driven tools and empowering your service team further elevates interactions and resolutions. Regular feedback collection allows for ongoing adjustments and refinements. In the end, these strategies not just boost customer satisfaction but likewise cultivate loyalty, leading to repeat purchases and long-term success for your business. Image via Google Gemini and ArtSmart This article, "What Is the Best Customer Service Approach for Your Business?" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

When considering the best customer service approach for your business, it’s essential to focus on creating a customer-centric culture. This involves comprehending the customer experience, leveraging technology effectively, and nurturing a proactive service environment. Key elements include accessibility, personalization, and empowering your team to resolve issues independently. By implementing these strategies, you can improve customer satisfaction and loyalty. But what specific steps can you take to guarantee your approach is effective and sustainable? Key Takeaways Prioritize accessibility by ensuring prompt responses across all channels to retain customers and build trust. Implement personalized service strategies to meet customer expectations and enhance overall satisfaction. Leverage technology such as CRM systems and AI chatbots to streamline service and reduce response times. Foster a customer-centric culture where feedback drives decision-making and employees feel empowered to resolve issues. Continuously gather customer feedback and set SMART goals for ongoing improvement in service delivery. Understanding Customer Experience Comprehending customer experience (CX) is vital for any business that wants to thrive in today’s competitive market. CX encompasses every interaction and emotion a customer has with your brand, which can greatly influence their loyalty and spending behavior. To provide exceptional guest service, you need to understand that positive experiences can lead to a 90% likelihood of repeat purchases. Conversely, negative experiences can drive 32% of customers away entirely. Investing in excellent customer service is important, as 80% of customers value experiences as much as the products and services you offer. Key Elements of Excellent Customer Service Excellent customer service is essential for nurturing loyalty and ensuring a positive brand reputation. To achieve this, focus on accessibility; 73% of social media users will switch brands if responses are delayed, highlighting the need for prompt communication across all channels. Personalization is also fundamental; 70% of customers expect representatives to understand their history, which boosts satisfaction. Furthermore, proactive engagement is a good practice in customer care. Anticipating customer needs before they reach out cultivates healthier relationships. Empowering your customer service teams through training and granting autonomy enables quicker issue resolution, greatly impacting customer retention. Finally, keep in mind that how to give outstanding customer service includes leveraging technology—CRM systems and AI tools can streamline service delivery and improve the overall experience by increasing efficiency and personalizing interactions. Leveraging Technology for Enhanced Interactions As businesses endeavor to provide outstanding customer service, leveraging technology becomes a key strategy in improving interactions. By integrating advanced tools, you can raise your service technique and deliver amazing customer service. Consider these effective methods: AI-driven chatbots: These provide 24/7 support, responding instantly to common inquiries and cutting down wait times. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems: These give you a thorough view of customer interactions, allowing for personalized service based on insights. Automation technologies: They help manage inquiries and follow-ups efficiently, reducing human error and improving overall service efficiency. Data analytics: By leveraging this technology, you can identify customer preferences and tailor services to improve the customer experience effectively. Building a Customer-Centric Culture To build a customer-centric culture, every employee must understand that customer satisfaction is a shared responsibility across the organization. This culture prioritizes excellent customer service, promoting employee engagement by making each team member feel empowered in their roles. Research shows that organizations with a strong customer service vision enjoy higher employee retention and improved customer experiences. In a customer-centric environment, decisions are driven by customer feedback, leading to necessary adjustments that improve overall satisfaction and loyalty. Empowering employees to resolve customer issues independently not just reduces micromanagement but also allows for quicker problem resolution. Furthermore, regular training and development are critical in this culture, ensuring employees possess the skills and knowledge to meet evolving customer expectations. Strategies for Continuous Improvement in Customer Service A customer-centric culture lays the groundwork for strategies that cultivate continuous improvement in customer service. By embracing these methods, you can guarantee excellent customer service during keeping your team engaged and motivated: Collect and Act on Customer Feedback: Since 85% of customers are willing to share insights, regularly seek their feedback to identify areas for improvement and boost satisfaction. Implement SMART Goals: Establish Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound objectives, allowing for regular progress assessments and necessary adjustments. Leverage Data-Driven Decision-Making: Track key performance indicators like Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT) and Net Promoter Score (NPS) to refine your service approaches. Invest in Ongoing Training: Provide continuous training for your customer service team, equipping them with the skills and tools to improve service quality effectively. Frequently Asked Questions What Are the 4 P’s of Service Strategy? The 4 P’s of service strategy are crucial for effective customer service. First, Product focuses on the services you provide, ensuring they meet customer needs and expectations. Next, Price involves setting competitive prices that reflect the value offered. Place emphasizes accessibility, allowing customers to easily access your services through various channels. Finally, Promotion includes marketing efforts that inform customers about your services, creating awareness and encouraging engagement with your brand. What Is My Approach to Excellent Customer Service? Your approach to excellent customer service should focus on clarity, responsiveness, and empowerment. Start by establishing a clear vision aligned with your organizational goals, ensuring consistency. Empower your team to make decisions for quicker resolutions. Implement a robust CRM system to personalize interactions based on customer history and preferences. Regularly measure KPIs like Customer Satisfaction Score to identify improvement areas, during proactive engagement with customers through timely follow-ups to improve satisfaction and loyalty. What Are the 5 R’s of Customer Service? The 5 R’s of customer service are crucial for enhancing customer experiences. First, you need to Recognize customer issues quickly, which boosts loyalty. Next, Respond swiftly to inquiries, as 70% of customers expect a reply within 24 hours. Then, Resolve problems effectively to increase satisfaction and retention. Afterward, Retain customers by nurturing loyalty through consistent engagement. Finally, Repeat this process to promote long-term relationships and guarantee continuous improvement in your service approach. What Are the Top 3 of Customer Service? The top three customer service approaches are accessibility, personalization, and proactive engagement. First, being accessible and responsive is key, as customers expect quick replies. Second, implementing a strong CRM system helps you track interaction history, enabling customized service. Finally, anticipating customer needs before they reach out can greatly improve satisfaction, as it addresses issues proactively rather than reactively. Together, these strategies create a more effective and satisfying customer experience. Conclusion In summary, adopting a customer-centric approach is crucial for your business’s success. By focusing on accessibility, personalization, and proactive engagement, you can improve customer experiences. Utilizing technology like AI-driven tools and empowering your service team further elevates interactions and resolutions. Regular feedback collection allows for ongoing adjustments and refinements. In the end, these strategies not just boost customer satisfaction but likewise cultivate loyalty, leading to repeat purchases and long-term success for your business. Image via Google Gemini and ArtSmart This article, "What Is the Best Customer Service Approach for Your Business?" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication. The first-generation Sonos Beam has dropped to $260.93 at Woot for an open-box unit, and according to price trackers, that’s the lowest price this soundbar has hit so far. For comparison, the same model is still sitting around $488 on Amazon, where it has never dropped below $299. The “open box” label here is also less risky than it sounds. Woot says the packaging may have been opened for testing or display purposes, but the soundbar itself is new and still covered by a standard 12-month manufacturer’s warranty. Shipping is free for Prime members, while everyone else pays an extra $6. This deal runs for the next four days or until stock runs out. Sonos Beam (Gen 1) $260.93 at Woot $486.13 Save $225.20 Shop Now Shop Now $260.93 at Woot $486.13 Save $225.20 Even though this is the older Beam from 2018, it still holds up surprisingly well if your main goal is improving TV audio without stuffing a giant soundbar under your screen. It is compact enough to fit comfortably in front of most TVs without blocking the display, and it looks clean in a way many bulkier soundbars don’t. More importantly, it works with Alexa, AirPlay 2, Siri, and Google Assistant, and it slides easily into a multi-room Sonos setup if you already own other speakers from the company. Sonos packed four full-range drivers, a tweeter, and three passive radiators inside its small frame, and the result is a fuller, more detailed sound than most built-in TV speakers can manage. Dialogue comes through clearly, and movies have noticeably better depth and bass without immediately forcing you to buy a separate subwoofer. That said, it doesn’t support newer formats like Dolby Atmos, so you’re not getting the same overhead surround effects you’d find on newer premium models—but for apartments, bedrooms, or smaller living rooms, the Sonos Beam feels appropriately sized. Our Best Editor-Vetted Tech Deals Right Now Apple AirPods 4 Active Noise Cancelling Wireless Earbuds — $148.99 (List Price $179.00) Apple Watch Series 11 (GPS, 42mm, S/M Black Sport Band) — $329.00 (List Price $399.00) Apple iPad 11" A16 128GB Wi-Fi Tablet (Silver, 2025) — $299.00 (List Price $349.00) Fire TV Stick 4K Plus Streaming Player With Remote (2025 Model) — $29.99 (List Price $49.99) Sonos Move 2 — $399.00 (List Price $499.00) Sony WH1000XM6- Best Wireless Noise Canceling Headphones — $398.00 (List Price $459.99) Ring 2nd Gen 2K Wired Video Doorbell (2026 Release) — $49.99 (List Price $79.99) Deals are selected by our commerce team View the full article

A company tax deadline is the date by which your business must file tax returns or make payments to the IRS. These deadlines differ depending on your business structure, whether it’s a C corporation, S corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship. Comprehending these deadlines is crucial to avoid penalties and guarantee compliance with tax laws. As you navigate these important dates, you’ll want to know how to prepare effectively and stay on track. Key Takeaways Company tax deadlines vary by business structure, including C corporations, S corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships. C corporations must file Form 1120 by April 15, while S corporations need to file by March 15. Estimated tax payments are due quarterly on April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15. Non-compliance with tax deadlines incurs penalties, including a 5% monthly penalty for late corporate returns. Preparing for tax deadlines involves organizing documentation and consulting a tax professional for tailored advice and compliance strategies. Understanding Company Tax Deadlines Grasping company tax deadlines is crucial for guaranteeing compliance and avoiding penalties. Each business structure has its specific deadlines. For C corporations, the Form 1120 due date is April 15, whereas S corporations must file by March 15 each year. Furthermore, estimated tax payments for corporations are due quarterly on April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15 of the following year for calendar year filers. Sole proprietors need to file their taxes using Schedule C (Form 1040) by April 15, aligning with individual tax return deadlines. LLCs and partnerships are required to submit Form 1065 by March 15, and partners will receive Schedule K-1 by March 16 to report income on their personal returns. Finally, businesses must ascertain they send W-2 forms to employees by January 31 each year, adhering to reporting requirements for wages paid in the previous year. Key Business Tax Deadlines for 2025 As you prepare for the upcoming tax season in 2025, it’s essential to note several key business tax deadlines that could impact your operations. For S corporations and partnerships, returns are due by March 17, whereas sole proprietorships and single-member LLCs must file by April 15. This date is likewise significant for C corporations, which face the 1120 due date on April 15, 2025, with extensions possible via Form 7004. Estimated tax payments for the first quarter are due on April 15, followed by Q2 payments on June 16. Moreover, you must file 1099 forms and W-2s by January 31 to report payments made to contractors and employee wages. If your FUTA tax liability exceeds $500, quarterly payments are due on April 30, July 31, and October 31. Staying aware of these deadlines will help you avoid penalties and streamline your tax filing process. Employment and Payroll Tax Payment Timelines Grasping employment and payroll tax payment timelines is vital for maintaining compliance and avoiding costly penalties. FICA taxes are due by the 15th of the month after each payroll period, ensuring timely contributions to Social Security and Medicare. If you’re dealing with FUTA tax liabilities, remember these are due quarterly, with payments required by the last day of the month following the quarter’s end. If your FUTA liability is $500 or less, you can carry it over to the next quarter. Furthermore, employers must file W-2 forms for employees by January 31 each year, reporting wages and tax withholdings from the previous calendar year. If your business has a FUTA liability of $500 or more, you must pay that quarter’s tax using Form 940 by January 31 of the following year. Staying on top of these deadlines is vital, especially when considering when corporate tax returns are due. Importance of Staying Compliant With Tax Deadlines Grasping the importance of staying compliant with tax deadlines is vital for any business owner. When are corporate taxes due? Different business structures, like S Corporations, have specific deadlines, so comprehending your requirements is fundamental for timely submissions. Non-compliance can lead to severe consequences, including financial penalties and interest on unpaid amounts. For example, corporations face a 5% penalty for each month their return is late, capping at 25%. If your business has tax liabilities exceeding $500, you’re required to make estimated tax payments quarterly to avoid underpayment penalties. Late submissions not only incur automatic penalties but can additionally complicate your financial standing. Consulting a certified tax professional can improve your compliance strategy, helping you navigate complex deadlines and maximize deductions. Staying informed and organized is key to avoiding unnecessary fines and ensuring your business remains in good standing. How to Prepare for Upcoming Tax Deadlines Preparing for upcoming tax deadlines requires a proactive approach to secure your business stays compliant and avoids penalties. Start by familiarizing yourself with specific tax deadlines based on your business structure; for example, S corporations need to file by March 17, whereas sole proprietorships and C corporations have an April 15 deadline in 2025. Furthermore, guarantee compliance with estimated tax payment schedules, with key dates being January 15, April 15, June 16, and September 15 for 2025. Gather and organize all necessary documentation, such as receipts and financial statements, well in advance of the Internal Revenue Service tax deadline to maximize deductions. Consulting with a certified tax professional can provide customized advice and strategies, helping you navigate tax intricacies. Finally, consider utilizing services like Block Advisors for year-end tax filing readiness to prepare and avoid missed deductions before the suggested December 1 date for end-of-year tax planning. Frequently Asked Questions What Happens if I Miss My Tax Deadline? If you miss your tax deadline, you could face penalties, which typically include late fees and interest on any unpaid taxes. The IRS may likewise assess additional charges if you fail to file your return altogether. It’s vital to file as soon as possible, even in the event that you can’t pay the full amount owed. Consider applying for an extension or a payment plan to mitigate consequences and avoid further complications with your tax obligations. Can I Request an Extension for My Tax Filing? Yes, you can request an extension for your tax filing. Typically, you’ll need to submit Form 4868 to the IRS, which grants you an automatic six-month extension. It’s essential to recognize that this extension only applies to filing your return, not to paying any taxes owed. You should estimate your tax liability and pay any amount required to avoid penalties and interest. Always check specific guidelines for your situation to guarantee compliance. Are There Different Deadlines for State Taxes? Yes, there are different deadlines for state taxes, and they can vary considerably from one state to another. Typically, each state sets its own tax filing deadline, which may align with the federal deadline or differ by weeks or months. You should check your specific state’s tax authority website for precise dates, as some states may likewise offer extensions. Staying informed about these deadlines is essential to avoid penalties and guarantee compliance. How Can I Find My Specific Tax Deadline? To find your specific tax deadline, check the official IRS website or your state’s tax authority site, as they provide accurate and updated information. You can additionally refer to tax software, which often includes deadlines, or consult a tax professional for personalized guidance. What Documents Do I Need to File My Taxes? To file your taxes, you’ll need several key documents. Gather your W-2 forms from employers, 1099 forms for any freelance work, and receipts for deductible expenses. Don’t forget your Social Security number and bank details for direct deposits. If you’re claiming dependents, have their information ready as well. Finally, previous tax returns can help you spot any changes or carryovers. Keeping these documents organized will streamline your filing process. Conclusion In conclusion, comprehension and adhering to company tax deadlines is crucial for your business’s financial health. By recognizing key filing dates for various business entities and maintaining compliance with employment and payroll tax timelines, you can avoid penalties and interest. Preparing in advance guarantees you’re ready for upcoming deadlines, allowing you to focus on growing your business. Staying informed and organized will help you navigate the intricacies of tax requirements effectively. Image via Google Gemini and ArtSmart This article, "Company Tax Deadline: What Is It?" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

A company tax deadline is the date by which your business must file tax returns or make payments to the IRS. These deadlines differ depending on your business structure, whether it’s a C corporation, S corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship. Comprehending these deadlines is crucial to avoid penalties and guarantee compliance with tax laws. As you navigate these important dates, you’ll want to know how to prepare effectively and stay on track. Key Takeaways Company tax deadlines vary by business structure, including C corporations, S corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships. C corporations must file Form 1120 by April 15, while S corporations need to file by March 15. Estimated tax payments are due quarterly on April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15. Non-compliance with tax deadlines incurs penalties, including a 5% monthly penalty for late corporate returns. Preparing for tax deadlines involves organizing documentation and consulting a tax professional for tailored advice and compliance strategies. Understanding Company Tax Deadlines Grasping company tax deadlines is crucial for guaranteeing compliance and avoiding penalties. Each business structure has its specific deadlines. For C corporations, the Form 1120 due date is April 15, whereas S corporations must file by March 15 each year. Furthermore, estimated tax payments for corporations are due quarterly on April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15 of the following year for calendar year filers. Sole proprietors need to file their taxes using Schedule C (Form 1040) by April 15, aligning with individual tax return deadlines. LLCs and partnerships are required to submit Form 1065 by March 15, and partners will receive Schedule K-1 by March 16 to report income on their personal returns. Finally, businesses must ascertain they send W-2 forms to employees by January 31 each year, adhering to reporting requirements for wages paid in the previous year. Key Business Tax Deadlines for 2025 As you prepare for the upcoming tax season in 2025, it’s essential to note several key business tax deadlines that could impact your operations. For S corporations and partnerships, returns are due by March 17, whereas sole proprietorships and single-member LLCs must file by April 15. This date is likewise significant for C corporations, which face the 1120 due date on April 15, 2025, with extensions possible via Form 7004. Estimated tax payments for the first quarter are due on April 15, followed by Q2 payments on June 16. Moreover, you must file 1099 forms and W-2s by January 31 to report payments made to contractors and employee wages. If your FUTA tax liability exceeds $500, quarterly payments are due on April 30, July 31, and October 31. Staying aware of these deadlines will help you avoid penalties and streamline your tax filing process. Employment and Payroll Tax Payment Timelines Grasping employment and payroll tax payment timelines is vital for maintaining compliance and avoiding costly penalties. FICA taxes are due by the 15th of the month after each payroll period, ensuring timely contributions to Social Security and Medicare. If you’re dealing with FUTA tax liabilities, remember these are due quarterly, with payments required by the last day of the month following the quarter’s end. If your FUTA liability is $500 or less, you can carry it over to the next quarter. Furthermore, employers must file W-2 forms for employees by January 31 each year, reporting wages and tax withholdings from the previous calendar year. If your business has a FUTA liability of $500 or more, you must pay that quarter’s tax using Form 940 by January 31 of the following year. Staying on top of these deadlines is vital, especially when considering when corporate tax returns are due. Importance of Staying Compliant With Tax Deadlines Grasping the importance of staying compliant with tax deadlines is vital for any business owner. When are corporate taxes due? Different business structures, like S Corporations, have specific deadlines, so comprehending your requirements is fundamental for timely submissions. Non-compliance can lead to severe consequences, including financial penalties and interest on unpaid amounts. For example, corporations face a 5% penalty for each month their return is late, capping at 25%. If your business has tax liabilities exceeding $500, you’re required to make estimated tax payments quarterly to avoid underpayment penalties. Late submissions not only incur automatic penalties but can additionally complicate your financial standing. Consulting a certified tax professional can improve your compliance strategy, helping you navigate complex deadlines and maximize deductions. Staying informed and organized is key to avoiding unnecessary fines and ensuring your business remains in good standing. How to Prepare for Upcoming Tax Deadlines Preparing for upcoming tax deadlines requires a proactive approach to secure your business stays compliant and avoids penalties. Start by familiarizing yourself with specific tax deadlines based on your business structure; for example, S corporations need to file by March 17, whereas sole proprietorships and C corporations have an April 15 deadline in 2025. Furthermore, guarantee compliance with estimated tax payment schedules, with key dates being January 15, April 15, June 16, and September 15 for 2025. Gather and organize all necessary documentation, such as receipts and financial statements, well in advance of the Internal Revenue Service tax deadline to maximize deductions. Consulting with a certified tax professional can provide customized advice and strategies, helping you navigate tax intricacies. Finally, consider utilizing services like Block Advisors for year-end tax filing readiness to prepare and avoid missed deductions before the suggested December 1 date for end-of-year tax planning. Frequently Asked Questions What Happens if I Miss My Tax Deadline? If you miss your tax deadline, you could face penalties, which typically include late fees and interest on any unpaid taxes. The IRS may likewise assess additional charges if you fail to file your return altogether. It’s vital to file as soon as possible, even in the event that you can’t pay the full amount owed. Consider applying for an extension or a payment plan to mitigate consequences and avoid further complications with your tax obligations. Can I Request an Extension for My Tax Filing? Yes, you can request an extension for your tax filing. Typically, you’ll need to submit Form 4868 to the IRS, which grants you an automatic six-month extension. It’s essential to recognize that this extension only applies to filing your return, not to paying any taxes owed. You should estimate your tax liability and pay any amount required to avoid penalties and interest. Always check specific guidelines for your situation to guarantee compliance. Are There Different Deadlines for State Taxes? Yes, there are different deadlines for state taxes, and they can vary considerably from one state to another. Typically, each state sets its own tax filing deadline, which may align with the federal deadline or differ by weeks or months. You should check your specific state’s tax authority website for precise dates, as some states may likewise offer extensions. Staying informed about these deadlines is essential to avoid penalties and guarantee compliance. How Can I Find My Specific Tax Deadline? To find your specific tax deadline, check the official IRS website or your state’s tax authority site, as they provide accurate and updated information. You can additionally refer to tax software, which often includes deadlines, or consult a tax professional for personalized guidance. What Documents Do I Need to File My Taxes? To file your taxes, you’ll need several key documents. Gather your W-2 forms from employers, 1099 forms for any freelance work, and receipts for deductible expenses. Don’t forget your Social Security number and bank details for direct deposits. If you’re claiming dependents, have their information ready as well. Finally, previous tax returns can help you spot any changes or carryovers. Keeping these documents organized will streamline your filing process. Conclusion In conclusion, comprehension and adhering to company tax deadlines is crucial for your business’s financial health. By recognizing key filing dates for various business entities and maintaining compliance with employment and payroll tax timelines, you can avoid penalties and interest. Preparing in advance guarantees you’re ready for upcoming deadlines, allowing you to focus on growing your business. Staying informed and organized will help you navigate the intricacies of tax requirements effectively. Image via Google Gemini and ArtSmart This article, "Company Tax Deadline: What Is It?" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

American cities are choking on traffic. From Los Angeles to Chicago, Atlanta to Boston, gridlock is miserable for everyone. New York City’s Congestion Relief Zone offers a data-rich blueprint for cities willing to treat transportation as a system, rather than focusing on one form of travel at a time. Launched in January 2025, the program charges most drivers entering Manhattan’s core business district during peak hours. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) first comprehensive evaluation report, released in January 2026, shows clear success across mobility, environment, revenue, and equity metrics. The haters are flummoxed. More movement Decongestion Pricing works by making drivers pay a fee towards the cost of clogging city streets. Even with a modest $9 in one of the world’s most congested areas, the results are impressive: Vehicle entries into the zone fell 11%, with more than 27 million fewer entries in the first year. Vehicle miles traveled inside the zone dropped 7.1%. Speeds rose 4.6% year-over-year during toll hours across the zone and key roadways. Morning peak speeds on major crossings into Manhattan (bridges and tunnels) improved an average of 23%, with standout gains like the Holland Tunnel at +51%. Trucks moved 5.6% faster. Travel times became more reliable, without commuters or delivery trucks causing widespread spillover delays on surrounding corridors. Commuters who used to drive alone are shifting some trips to off-peak times, spreading demand and reducing the worst bottlenecks. Real benefits for low-income residents “But what about people who can’t afford a $9 toll” was one of the early questions. MTA’s Low-Income Discount Plan provides a 50% discount on peak tolls for eligible drivers with incomes ≤ $50,000 or in qualifying assistance programs. Residents inside the decongestion zone with incomes under $60,000 can claim a state tax credit covering tolls paid. Most low- and moderate-income households in metro areas already depend on buses, trains, and walking rather than driving into downtown. Faster bus speeds, growing ridership, and revenue-funded upgrades deliver disproportionate benefits. For families without cars (the majority in many urban low-income households) the program means quieter streets, safer crossings, fewer health impacts from pollution, and a better-funded transit network that connects them to jobs and opportunity. Stronger transit and better service With fewer private vehicles clogging streets, transit riders benefit directly: MTA bus speeds in and around the decongestion zone increased 2.3%, reversing years of decline and delivering more reliable trips. Ridership grew on routes through the decongestion zone: subway trips +9%, local/select bus +8.4%, express bus +7.8%. Revenue from the program is dedicated to transit capital improvements. That includes new electric buses, modern subway signals, station accessibility, structural repairs, and subway expansions. Charging a fee for contributing to congestion generates dedicated funds that keep the overall multimodal transportation system reliable. Cleaner air and safer streets Reduced driving translates to environmental and safety gains: Greenhouse gas emissions in the zone fell ~6.1% because fewer people are driving themselves. Early air quality data shows stable or improving trends, with no major pollution spikes in surrounding areas. Some analyses noted double-digit drops in certain particulates inside the zone. Traffic crashes, injuries, and noise complaints have declined, improving quality of life for residents and workers. A model for American cities New York’s Decongestion Pricing shouldn’t be a one-off experiment. Any metropolitan area grappling with clogged streets now has hard evidence that the benefits of decongestion pricing arrive quickly, and public opinion can shift positively with results. Other metros don’t need to copy NYC exactly. They can learn from its detailed monitoring, robust mitigation, and visible reinvestment of revenue. A smart pricing system works for people who need to drive themselves and transit riders whose buses move faster through downtown. What are the rest of us waiting for? View the full article

After months of anticipation, Elon Musk’s SpaceX finally made its S-1 financial filing and business prospectus public for all to see. The document, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), makes an ambitious case to investors that Space Exploration Technologies Corp.—yes, that’s the official name—is poised to build a future for humanity that will include cities on the moon and other planets. But perhaps unexpectedly, the prospectus also offers a fascinating autopsy of one of the internet’s most legendary brands. Buried within the revenue and profit figures for SpaceX’s rocket and satellite businesses is a by-the-numbers look into the spectacular death of Twitter, the social network that Musk acquired for $44 billion in 2022. Musk, of course, has since changed the name to X, and while media outlets for a time took to putting “formerly Twitter” in parentheses whenever they’d cite the social network’s posts in news copy, that practice seems to have fallen out of favor. More recently, Musk folded X into xAI, his artificial intelligence startup, and even more recently, he merged xAI with SpaceX. It’s within this context—xAI is part of a loss-making AI unit within SpaceX—that we can now see limited financial disclosures related to the former Twitter. Here are a few things we’ve learned: Rebranding Twitter to X was costly From a sheer brand perspective, the decision to change Twitter’s name to X was at once perplexing and vexing. Twitter’s blue bird logo, after all, was once so recognizable that it could be easily identified the world over. By contrast, X is both unmemorable and unoriginal. Let’s leave aside for a second that it is already the name of a legendary 1980s punk band, it’s also a moniker that always requires additional context. Twitter, meanwhile, already had the authority of existence at the time when Musk purchased it. It had brand value, and when it became X in 2023, that rebrand was costly. While the SpaceX prospectus doesn’t get too specific, it does disclose that its year-over-year impairment declined by $3.71 billion, or a staggering 98.3%, the year after Twitter changed its name. This enormous sum, SpaceX states, was “primarily related to the impairment of the Twitter brand following its rebranding to X.” Humans post on X in service to Grok SpaceX’s prospectus touts X as “a real-time information, entertainment, and free speech platform,” but its primary purpose seems to be as a training ground for the AI assistant Grok. The prospectus sets up Grok as a frontier AI model that uniquely benefits from its integration with X, where humans have actual discussions about a diversity of topics in real time. Anyone who is familiar with X as it exists now knows that nearly every notable thread will include users asking Grok to explain or add context to someone’s post. “Grok, what does this mean?” has even become a meme of sorts on other social networks. While X users may feel like the chatbot is there to help them, it’s really the other way around. X now exists in service to Grok. As the prospectus puts it, being part of X “further enhances Grok’s truth-seeking objective.” X’s true user metrics are obscured The prospectus includes a few seemingly impressive user metrics for the social network: Across Grok and X, it reports 1.3 billion “supported accounts” were active within the last 12 months. However, it later clarifies that a supported account doesn’t have to be human. “The total number of supported accounts may include fake, spam or bot accounts if they are active,” the filing says. Similarly, SpaceX reports 350 million daily posts across X and Grok. But again, how much of this reflects human activity is unclear. The company discloses that daily posts “may include posts generated by AI or accounts managed by AI.” Fast Company reached out to X for comment. AI is a loss-making unit for now SpaceX says in its prospectus that it plans to prioritize growth at its AI unit, which includes Grok and X. For now, that part of its business losing enormous sums of money. The unit reported a $6.36 billion loss on $3.2 billion in revenue for 2025. This is a contrast to SpaceX’s profitable Connectivity unit, which includes its Starlink satellite internet business. That unit reported income of $4.42 billion on revenue of $11.39 billion in 2025—representing revenue growth of almost 50%. View the full article

If you have a Microsoft account that uses SMS for two-factor authentication, you may soon have to choose a more secure method for logging in. As reported by Windows Latest, the company is ditching text-based authentication codes for personal accounts, stating that these are "now a leading source of fraud." Users will be prompted to set up a passkey instead. Microsoft is trying to eliminate passwordsMicrosoft has already started moving toward a password-less environment—last year, the company made passkeys the default on new accounts at setup. Now, it is phasing out SMS codes for 2FA and account recovery in favor of passkeys, authenticator apps, and verified backup email addresses. SMS codes are quick to set up and convenient to use. However, they are also among the least secure forms of multi-factor authentication (MFA), as they are highly susceptible to phishing and SIM swapping attacks. Authenticator apps (which generate temporary codes that change every 30 seconds) may be slightly better, but the best MFA option is one based on WebAuthn credentials, like biometrics and passkeys. Passkeys use your device's built-in authentication, such as a face scan, fingerprint scan, or PIN. They can also be synced across devices via password management services. Once you've established your passkey, you can authenticate logins anywhere using one of those methods on your trusted device. Passkeys can't be phished or stolen, and they only work on the legitimate domain they're made for (so they won't prompt you to authenticate if you're trying to log into a spoofed site). They also require that your trusted device be physically close to the device you're logging in on, so they can't be used to access your accounts remotely. While there doesn't appear to be a set date for cutting off SMS authentication, Microsoft users should expect to make this transition to an alternative method soon. View the full article

Tech titans are in many ways the intellectual heirs of the Soviet space programmeView 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 65-inch Toshiba C350 Fire TV is down to $264.99 on Amazon right now, which is half off its usual $529.99 price and the lowest it has dropped so far, according to price trackers. At this price, it sits in the same territory as many smaller budget sets, but with a much bigger screen. The main appeal here is simple: You’re getting a straightforward 65-inch 4K TV with Amazon’s Fire TV platform already built in—and because of that, setup is pretty painless if you already use Amazon devices. Once you sign in with your Amazon account, Prime Video recommendations, watchlists, and Alexa features are already sitting there waiting for you. 65-inch Toshiba C350 Fire TV $264.99 at Amazon $529.99 Save $265.00 Get Deal Get Deal $264.99 at Amazon $529.99 Save $265.00 The interface looks and behaves exactly like Amazon’s streaming hardware, right down to the content-heavy home screen and Alexa voice controls. Picture quality is decent for the money, though this is still very much an entry-level TV—the C350 handles 4K and HDR content, but it skips higher-end features like local dimming, wide color support, HDMI 2.1 gaming features, or a high refresh rate. In practice, while movies and shows look perfectly fine for casual viewing, contrast and color fall a bit behind those of similarly priced models from TCL and Vizio, especially in darker scenes, notes this CNET review. Fast-moving sports and games also won’t look as smooth as they would on more expensive TVs. Still, for everyday streaming, YouTube, and regular cable viewing, it gets the job done without major issues. The bigger compromise is really the Fire TV experience itself. Amazon pushes its own content hard, and the interface can feel more cluttered and slower than other smart platform layouts. Some apps also work differently than they do on competing smart TV systems. For example, you can’t directly buy movies inside the Vudu app on this TV. Small annoyances like that add up depending on how you watch things. Also, the USB ports here don’t provide enough power for many external streaming sticks, so if you eventually switch away from Fire TV, you may need separate power cables for those devices. Our Best Editor-Vetted Tech Deals Right Now Apple AirPods 4 Active Noise Cancelling Wireless Earbuds — $148.99 (List Price $179.00) Apple Watch Series 11 (GPS, 42mm, S/M Black Sport Band) — $329.00 (List Price $399.00) Apple iPad 11" A16 128GB Wi-Fi Tablet (Silver, 2025) — $299.00 (List Price $349.00) Fire TV Stick 4K Plus Streaming Player With Remote (2025 Model) — $29.99 (List Price $49.99) Sonos Move 2 — $399.00 (List Price $499.00) Sony WH1000XM6- Best Wireless Noise Canceling Headphones — $398.00 (List Price $459.99) Ring 2nd Gen 2K Wired Video Doorbell (2026 Release) — $49.99 (List Price $79.99) Deals are selected by our commerce team View the full article

The market has never before had to price a stock so speculative yet so largeView the full article

Beneficiaries include start-up backed by firm with links to the The President familyView the full article

The word “calorie” may bring up thoughts of nutrition labels and treadmill readouts, but really calories are just units of energy. Your car runs on gas, your house runs on electricity, and your body runs on food energy. So how many calories do we burn each day, and how many should you burn? Let’s dig in. You actually burn most of your calories at restCalories aren’t only burned during exercise. It takes energy to keep the lights on, so to speak—for your heart to beat, your brain to think, your cells to repair themselves, and more. In fact, most of our calories are burned doing these maintenance chores. Scientists call this baseline calorie burn our "basal metabolic rate," or BMR. There are several equations that will estimate your BMR; for a calculator, try the one at tdeecalculator.net. (It uses the Mifflin-St. Jeor formula if you don’t know your body fat percentage, and the Katch-McArdle formula if you do.) To give you an example, I plugged in my stats—I’m 150 pounds and 5’6”—and the equation guesses that someone my size burns: 1,352 calories for most of my basic bodily functions (not including digestion!) 1,623 calories, total, if I’m sedentary 2,096 calories, total, if I do moderate exercise three to five times a week 2,569 calories, total, if I’m a hardcore athlete or a person who exercises on top of having a physical job Keep in mind these are just estimates; your actual calorie burn may be more or less. (From tracking my calories over the years, I know that I'm usually somewhere between those last two numbers, depending on how active I am.) The factors that affect your total calorie burn include: Body size: The bigger you are, the more calories you burn at baseline and the more you burn during exercise. Muscle mass: Muscle burns more calories than other tissues, which is why you get a more accurate estimate if you know your body fat percentage; the lower your body fat, the more muscle you have by comparison. Age: These formulas assume that your metabolism slows down a bit as you age (although there is evidence that this may not make a big difference). Activity: The more you exercise, the more calories you burn. Genetics and other factors not accounted for in the formula: There’s actually a huge variety from person to person, even if you compare people of the same size, age, etc. We're all different. To give you a sense of the range, the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans calculates calorie counts for two example people, who are both a bit smaller than average Americans, but let's take a look anyway. The document figures that a 5’10” man who weighs 154 pounds will burn, in total, between 2,000 and 3,000 calories each day, depending on his age and activity level. Their example woman is 5’4” and 126 pounds, and she will burn between 1,600 and 2,400 calories. So if you’re used to thinking of 2,000 calories as some kind of upper limit for how much to eat—or 1,200 calories as a calorie budget for dieting—you may be surprised to realize how many calories you probably already burn. How (and why) to burn more caloriesIf you’re trying to lose weight, logic would say that you should focus more on diet than exercise. After all, if most of your calorie burn is your BMR, exercise is going to be a drop in the bucket by comparison. I don’t think that’s the only thing you should consider, though. If your BMR is 1,300 calories and your total burn is 1,600, then sure, you could eat 1,300 calories without exercising and probably lose weight. But it’s hard to be healthy while you’re eating so little. Burning more calories through exercise helps your body in two ways: Exercise is good for us, regardless of calorie burn; we should all be getting at least 150 minutes of cardio per week, plus some strength training to help build or retain muscle. The more food you eat, the easier it is to fit in the good stuff: vitamins, minerals, fiber, good fats, and a variety of vegetables. A person who burns 2,300 calories and eats 2,000 is in a much better position to benefit from exercise and good nutrition than a person who burns 1,600 and eats 1,300. So how do you burn more calories? You can’t get younger, and if you’re losing weight you won’t want to get bigger. The biggest levers you can pull are: Exercise more Gain muscle mass (through strength training, and eating plenty of protein) Don’t diet all the time I’ve written before about how I’ve noticed my total calorie burn increases when I’m eating more food; when you feed your body, it’s more willing to expend energy. This is one of the reasons it’s thought to be beneficial to take “diet breaks” if you plan to be in a weight-loss phase for a long time. Why you shouldn’t rely on “calorie burn” numbers from wearables or exercise machinesYou’re probably wondering how much exercise is “enough” to burn more calories. It’s a trick question, though: You want to change what kind of person you are—stop being sedentary and become a frequent exerciser—rather than nickel-and-dime yourself about exactly what numbers you burned in which workout. This is because our bodies get more efficient with exercise over time. A half-hour jog might burn 300 calories in theory, but at the end of the day you may have only burned, say, 200 more than if you hadn’t jogged. You might end up feeling more tired later in the day, or you might just be getting better at running and burning fewer calories when you do it. (This is an ongoing area of scientific research.) There is evidence that exercise machines’ estimates of calorie burn are extremely inaccurate; wearables like Fitbits and Apple Watches are probably a bit better, being personalized to your exercise intensity, but they’re still ultimately relying on estimates that aren’t always accurate. View the full article

Robotaxis are multiplying across American cities. But are consumers actually ready to trust them? Zoox CEO Aicha Evans discusses the company’s strategy as an Amazon subsidiary, its intensifying rivalry with Waymo, and why a new partnership with Uber could be the key to getting autonomous rides from novelty to scale. Evans also reveals why she recruits what she calls an “invisible army of rebels” inside Zoox. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company, Bob Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. Zoox is in the red-hot center of building a new mobility future: electric autonomous vehicles. You have a new partnership with Uber. Your robotaxis are operational in Las Vegas and San Francisco. How close are we, really, to a dramatically different mobility paradigm? I think, as an industry, there’s been a lot of progress. We’re at the proof-point stage. Over the last 20 years, we’ve had a lot of “Oh, it’s happening tomorrow morning” and “Oh, it’s never going to happen.” We’re past that stage now. The proof points are there, for us and for fellow travelers. Now it’s a matter of starting to prepare for scale. But I’ve always been very consistent that this is not going to be like a consumer product where, all of a sudden, boom, 100 million people experience it. It’s going to be step by step, but we’re well on our way, which is really exciting. Your most well-known fellow traveler, Waymo, has chosen to retrofit existing cars. You guys have opted for purpose-built vehicles with a striking design. It’s got two benches facing each other. There are no driver controls, no steering wheel. It doesn’t really look like a car. Why make that choice? If AI is going to be doing the driving, it’s really about the customer experience and also about the best way to materialize this product. First, you have the safety aspect. In a regular passenger car that is architected for a human driver, the safest place to be is actually the front seat. For us, we were able to look at redundancy. We were able to look at our optimal sensor architecture so that we can see things, including occluded things. In Silicon Valley, sometimes maybe we think about the customer secondhand. Here, they thought about it firsthand and about the customer experience. It just does not feel like you’re in a car. What we’re seeing from folks, both people who ride and people in the communities where we ride, is curiosity. The first couple of minutes are, “Oh my gosh, what is this?” And then, “Wow, this makes so much sense.” Look, you’re not doing the driving, so why have a bunch of things that are involved in the driving? You were part of the team that made Zoox a subsidiary of Amazon, which acquired it for $1.3 billion in 2020. How does Amazon help Zoox’s trajectory? Is it about financial resources, access to technology and AI? How is Zoox different than if it were on its own? Focus, focus, focus. The financial backing is important. A strong relationship with AWS also goes without saying: the compute. One of the things I love about Amazon is the plurality and multitude of businesses and industries it has been in. We forget Amazon started by selling books. So they’ve seen a lot. They’ve experienced a lot. There’s a lot of pattern recognition. There’s a lot of customer obsession. So we get a lot of advice. When something’s going really well: “Can you do more of that?” When something is going poorly: “Why is that? And how are you looking at bottlenecks?” This summer, it’ll be six years, so we’re way past the dating phase. I’ve been on both sides of M&A at big companies, and I would say Amazon gets maybe an eight and a half out of 10. Eight and a half. Yes. I have the freedom I should have. I tell people all the time, it’s not like when you have a startup that is fully in the private sector with a board. I’ve been on the other side, where you have VCs, institutionals and independents. There’s always a decision-maker and a boss. Make your peace with it. And we’re sending machines out there to drive among humans. People should ask us questions, whether it’s the regulators or our bosses. It is the right thing to do, and I welcome it, and we are better for it. Your partnership with Uber, I’m curious how big a deal that is, because Uber also partners with Waymo. What makes that deal meaningful for you? They do partner with almost everybody, which is great. If I were in their shoes, I would probably do the same. [Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi] has taken rides in Zoox, and Uber totally gets the differentiated experience. For Zoox, for almost 12 years now, we’ve been so focused on building the tech and building the processes. Over the last couple of years, we’ve really started thinking about commercialization and how we’re going to do this. I don’t see this category as just taking share from whatever exists today. I actually see an expansion of the market. As far as Zoox and Uber, for us, it’s about learning. It’s about experimenting. I’m pretty sure if you arrive in Las Vegas, maybe you know about Zoox, maybe you don’t. Now you’ll see them on the Strip and be like, “What is that? Oh my gosh.” But I’m pretty sure you know about Uber. So right there, that makes it worth it to Zoox. And some transportation has nothing to do with pleasure. Frankly, it has to do with being utilitarian. If we can help serve that together and scale faster, the experiment will have worked. Prior to Zoox, you spent some years at Intel. Are there things from that experience that you draw on, or is Zoox such a different business that you look elsewhere for lessons and inspiration? Both. In general, I’m a curious person. I have this wonderful coach who taught me 15 years ago that it’s OK to ask for help. That is actually a sign of strength. So when I’m stuck, I’m known to pick up the phone and say, “Hi, I’m Aicha Evans from Zoox, an Amazon company. I need some help. So-and-so told me about you or introduced me to you.” But taking it back to Intel, I learned a ton there. I spent 12 years at Intel. It’s an important company. I root for that company to this day. I learned about hardware-software integration. I had a front-row seat to people who are hardware-only or software-only, and I was like, “Huh, that’s a problem.” I learned about process too. You’re going to laugh. If some ex-Intel or current Intel people who know me listen to this, they’re going to chuckle because I was known as a little bit of a rebel. I complained about every process: “Why are we so slow and so dogmatic and so bureaucratic? Don’t you understand?” And yeah, well, guess what? Thank you. Thank you for that training, because then I came to Zoox, and it was still a very early start-up, a little less than 500 people. It had a lot of technology, but it really needed to be orchestrated and coordinated and to put processes in place, put orgs in place, put a common language in place, in order to succeed. So there are lots of learnings that I apply, but also lots of things not to do that I won’t tell you about. That you won’t tell me. Yes. Because you have to move as fast as you can as well, not just slow. I guess that’s what being the rebel in that group means. I guess you want to have your own rebels within your own organization, but maybe not too many of them. I want enough of them because you need a uniform distribution in all functions. One of the things at Zoox is that, because we’re vertically integrated, one day you’re talking to a traditional automotive engineer about chassis, battery, suspension, brakes and harnesses. The next day you’re talking to marketing about how much we want to emphasize safety, or not. So you want to make sure that, I call them affectionately, my invisible army, or the invisible army, is distributed across the corporation. But we also have to have a contract that we will debate, we will discuss, we will consider alternatives, but once we make a decision, we commit and we move, and we don’t revisit unless there’s evidence that assumptions were incorrect. Then we do a little bit of a feedback loop and keep moving forward. View the full article

Teaching undergraduates gives you a different perspective on things. For many, they see their life already laid out: An analyst position at a prestigious bank or consulting firm after graduation, then graduate school and a string of impressive jobs at important institutions. Then family, travel, and maybe a board seat or two. We all know that life is messier than that, but that’s the type of thing you really have to learn for yourself. The management professor Henry Mintzberg once observed that we expect management to be like a conductor with an orchestra, with the leader on a pedestal directing each movement with expert precision. “But,” he argues, “management is more like orchestra conducting during rehearsals, when everything is going wrong.” The truth is that you don’t want things to go exactly as planned. It’s the off-key notes that you learn from most and what often leads to your biggest opportunities. Here are four things I’ve learned from a very messy career that produced wonderful surprises. 1. Incentives rarely work There is an old saying that “when you change incentives you change behavior,” and there is some evidence to support that it can work. For example, the Mexican government program Prospera has been proven to be extremely effective, using cash payments to boost school attendance and preventative health care. Yet research shows that incentives often fail and can even backfire horrendously. Human behavior can’t be boiled down to simple triggers. There are norms that underlie behaviors that are rarely obvious as well as unintended consequences that can warp behavior. The truth is that if you want to motivate people, incentives are rarely the right place to start. As Roland Bénabou and Jean Tirole explained in a landmark paper, there are forms of motivation beyond extrinsic benefits including, most notably, intrinsic motivation and reputational factors. For example, artists often toil for years with little material benefit, but enjoy significant intrinsic satisfaction and reputational rewards. There is also significant evidence that extrinsic incentives crowd out intrinsic and reputational motivations. In an experiment in which subjects were asked to solve a puzzle, those who were paid a flat fee were much more likely to continue to work during free time than those who were paid for each puzzle solved. Sound leadership is not about prodding people to do what you want, but attracting those who want what you want and leading them with shared values in pursuit of a shared purpose. 2. You don’t need the best people, you need the best teams In 1997, McKinsey published a landmark article declaring a “war for talent.” The firm argued that due to demographic shifts, recruiting the “best and the brightest” was even more important than “capital, strategy, or R&D.” The report was enormously influential and continues to affect how leaders manage their teams even today. I once worked at a company where senior leadership meetings on Friday mornings were meant to discuss critical issues. But no matter the agenda, the conversation always seemed to turn back to talent and the need for “better people.” They would look at our current staff and wish that they could find others who were smarter, more skilled and more ambitious. Each time I remember thinking, “You recruited these people. You trained these people. And you manage these people. If there’s a talent problem, it doesn’t lie with them. It lies with you.” As workplace expert David Burkus puts it, “talent doesn’t make the team. The team makes the talent.” Their people weren’t failing them, they were failing their people, which is why our employee turnover rate was roughly twice the industry average. The truth is that we don’t need the best people, we need the best teams. Researchers at MIT and Carnegie Mellon found that group performance is driven more by factors such as group dynamics and social sensitivity than anything else. It’s how your team builds trust, psychological safety, and collaboration that will determine what they can achieve. If you feel you need “better people,“ you should probably focus your efforts on becoming a more capable leader and creating a better, more supportive culture that empowers people to achieve their potential. 3. Empower your people to ‘never go down alone’ One of my first managers gave me great advice: “Never go down alone,” he said. “If I know what you’re doing and everybody else knows too, then you’re covered. If something goes wrong, we’re in it with you. But if you go off by yourself and nobody knows what’s going on, you will end up going down alone and taking the blame for everything.” It’s a great context shift. We tend to value our privacy and see oversight as an intrusion. We are acutely aware that our lives are messy and don’t want others to see our missteps. We wake up in the morning, clean and dress ourselves in an effort to put on our best face. Exposing our peccadilloes threatens to shatter the mask we show to the world. But when you see communication and transparency as a shield, protecting you from your own mistakes, it changes your outlook. I completely bought in and later, when I took on a senior role, had my people prepare “never go down alone” reports to tell me what I needed to know to protect themselves. They were reluctant at first, but then asked their people to do the same. The somewhat unintended result was that every Friday hundreds of reports were flying around our company like an anthill, filtering information up to me. I would review each report (they were very short) over the weekend and address any issues on Monday. It was tremendously helpful in identifying potential issues and nipping problems in the bud. 4. Everybody brings something to you and needs something from you Years ago, we had a manager named Ania running one of our publishing operations. She was well-liked, diligent, and responsible. Still, we felt the business needed a more creative spark, so we brought in a rising executive to take her place. Ania transitioned out gracefully and left the company on good terms. Things turned out well for Ania. She became a sought-after interior decorator, renowned for her creativity. As it turned out, the problem wasn’t that she lacked any creative ability. The problem was that we weren’t giving her the type of challenges that excited her. While she languished in our organization, she excelled in a different environment. That simple concept is key to being an effective manager. Everybody brings something to you and needs something from you. If you can figure that equation out, you can run your team effectively. If you can’t, you get situations like we had with Ania, in which everybody would be made better off by parting ways. For all of the simplistic talk about “carrots and sticks,” hiring only the “best people” and demanding accountability, understanding how to set your people up for success is the most important thing a manager does. That’s often not what you learn in business school, but over the past 30 years it’s what I’ve learned to be true. In the end, great management isn’t about control—or even authority—it’s about creating the conditions for people to do their best work. View the full article

Building versus buying capabilities in-house or deciding whether to outsource them is a strategic decision. And it’s not a decision all executives think about the same way. So much depends on your company’s goals and strengths. It’s important to have a structured way to think about this decision, though, so when you need to incorporate a capability, you know how to make the decision. We asked our Fast Company Impact Council members how they decide when to build capabilities in-house versus outsourcing or partnering. It was a popular question, and we had to limit the responses—to just 27! There is wisdom in these words that you can apply to your situations. 1. PARTNER FOR COMPLEX CAPABILITIES AI has shifted the equation—there are now far more things you can use easily, rather than build in-house. For many companies, that means partnering for complex capabilities instead of trying to recreate them internally. The challenge isn’t access; it’s prioritization. With so many nice-to-have services now available, the key is identifying which ones become true need-to-have capabilities that drive real outcomes. — Kevin Laymoun, Constructor 2. DEPENDS ON COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES I decide based on where real competitive advantage comes from. If a capability is strategically differentiating and tied to proprietary data, judgment, or know-how, I want it in-house. If it is more commodity and a partner can deliver it faster or better, I will partner. I tend to think about AI as two races: one to adopt what is becoming broadly available, and another to build what will actually set you apart. — Todd James, Aurora Insights 3. ONLY BUILD WITH EXPERTISE Never build something you don’t properly understand. You need to be able to judge the work, and to understand the craft and process behind it. Without that, you’re slightly kidding yourself. So the choice is fairly simple: Either hire someone you trust implicitly to lead it, or work with people who already know what they’re doing. — James Greenfield, Koto 4. BUILD CRITICAL CAPABILITIES IN-HOUSE We are leaning more toward building critical capabilities in-house, especially where they touch core workflows, professional judgment, and client relationships. Much of the startup world is trying to build around expertise firms like ours, which have developed over decades, so we have to be careful not to give away part of our value system. We will still partner where it accelerates us, but we want to build internally where the capability shapes delivery, strengthens our people, and directly supports the value we create for clients. — Mike Sewell, Gresham Smith 5. UNDERSTAND YOUR VALUE PROPOSITION When thinking about AI capabilities, for instance, the decision depends on both the company’s situation and the daily evolution of AI knowledge. Right now, it’s a bit of a fast-moving Wild West, with few standards, so building in-house requires sustained investment in talent that can keep up. To make this decision, leaders need to first understand their value proposition. If AI is central, building internally may make sense. If not, seeking a partner is often the smarter path. Many companies benefit from AI operationally without needing to own the capability, making partnerships more efficient and adaptable. — Andrea Montecchi, Oliver Wight 6. PARTNERSHIP IS USUALLY BEST I have always outsourced and partnered unless something was our sustainable competitive advantage—so few things actually are. I wrote six books on partnering and taught executive education on strategic partnering at Caltech for 24 years, so I am a huge advocate of partnering. It is a low-capital-investment way to leverage the talents and assets of other companies, while making sure your company carefully protects transferring any of your non-contracted IP to your partners. — Larraine Segil, Exceptional Women Alliance Foundation 7. OWN WHAT MATTERS MOST If a capability is central to our brand, requires deep institutional context, or needs to compound over time, I want it built in-house. If it is specialized, episodic, or something an outside partner can do faster or better without sacrificing quality or control, partnering usually makes more sense. The goal is not to own everything. It is to own what matters most. — R. Ethan Braden, Texas A&M University 8. BUILD IN-HOUSE WHEN IT WILL BE REUSED We build capabilities in-house for those things that will be needed repeatedly across projects and digital products we create, and those things that will be a competitive advantage. We outsource for very specialized skills and things that aren’t aligned with our core business. We partner when there are clear mutual benefits, like teaming up with subject matter experts to bring an innovative new mobile app to market. — Brad Weber, InspiringApps 9. STAGE AND ECONOMICS It comes down to stage and economics. Early-stage companies often rely on external partners for speed and flexibility; as they scale, bringing capabilities in-house can improve efficiency and control. But the goal isn’t binary, it’s balance. The best setups maintain healthy tension between internal teams and external partners to avoid “marking your own homework.” That outside perspective is often what pushes teams to be braver. The model may evolve over time, but the need for constructive friction to produce great work remains constant. — Emily Kortlang, Yerba Madre 10. ASK 3 QUESTIONS When deciding whether to build capabilities in-house versus outsourcing or partnering, we ask ourselves several questions: Is this something we will be able to make money on? Will this distract us from what we do best? Is this something we can be famous for? If the answer is “yes” to all three, then we investigate building it. If not, we would rather partner. — Oscar Yuan, Material 11. BE CLEAR ON WHERE YOU EXCEL We have become very clear on what we excel at and what we don’t. For the things we excel at we have built the capability in-house and avoid outsourcing any part of it. For things we are not good at but need, we look for best-in-class partners to work alongside us. I am a huge believer in being great at a few things and not trying to deliver on things where you don’t excel. — Phillip Haid, Public Inc. 12. START WITH USE CASE AND RISK PROFILE We start with the use case and the risk profile. If a capability directly affects how we operate, serve customers, or differentiate as an integrated logistics company, we build it. This way, we maintain accountability, data stewardship, and speed of learning. When a need is specialized or evolving quickly, partnerships can help us move with speed, paired with clear goals, shared ownership, and governance from the start. — Dennis Anderson, ArcBest 13. IN-HOUSE: WORKFLOW AND USER EXPERIENCE We build in-house when it’s core to our differentiation, especially where context, data, and iteration speed matter. For everything else, we partner or buy to move faster. In government, nuance and security really matters, so anything tied to workflows or user experience is hard to outsource well. The goal is to stay focused on what actually makes your product uniquely valuable and drives usage. — Madeleine Smith, Civic Roundtable 14. QUALITY IS HARD TO OUTSOURCE Our default is to build in-house. We have a very high bar for quality, and the hard part is making it reliable, coherent, and seamless for the customer. That level of quality is hard to outsource, especially for anything core to the product experience. We’ll partner where it makes sense around the edges, but the capabilities that define the product have to be built by us. — Avery Pennarun, Tailscale 15. CORE TO YOUR DIFFERENTIATION The most useful question in any build-versus-buy decision isn’t about cost or speed, it’s “Is this capability core to how we differentiate?” If yes, you build. If not, outsourcing or partnering lets you move forward while keeping your team focused on what actually sets you apart. In my experience advising growth-stage companies, the leaders who scale most effectively are as intentional about what they won’t build as what they will. — Randi Lee, Lucas Advisory 16. BUY FOR SPEED We don’t build for the sake of building. We buy for speed where it’s a commodity and build where it really matters. The line is simple: What creates our differentiated, competitive advantage, we want to own. — Steve Holdridge, Dayforce 17. ACCOUNTABILITY AND DIFFERENTIATION It’s about accountability and differentiation. We build capabilities in-house when they are core to strategy, and we have access to data, expertise, and resources—areas where ownership can be measured and accounted for. We partner when speed, scale, or specialized expertise can accelerate outcomes without diluting strategic control. And we outsource work that is transactional, repeatable, or optimized for cost and efficiency, where differentiation is low and standardization is acceptable. AI has made these decisions sharper. It quickly exposes which capabilities compound value and demand ownership, versus those that can be leveraged externally. — Felicity Carson, onsemi 18. ITERATE AND PROBLEM SOLVE IN REAL TIME Building our AI processes in-house has allowed us to scale and deploy technology quickly, with a lean team, and on an incredibly lean budget. As a startup, every single dollar we spend on data and data processing matters; our decision to build in-house has allowed us to be on an even playing field compared to bigger companies in the industry who have secured far more capital than we have. Building in-house also allows us to iterate and problem solve in real time, preventing unnecessary lag times to fix issues that arise during deployment. — Xiaodi Hou, PhD, Bot Auto 19. OUTSOURCE IF NOT CORE Our strategy is to build anything in-house that we believe, or aspire, to be a distinctive competency. Namely, something that is core to our business and our commercial or operational differentiation. Anything we want to execute with efficiency but only provides average market capability, are the things we seek to outsource. — Scott Brighton, Bonterra 20. DEPENDS ON YOUR SITUATION What really matters is the situation you’re in. When the outcome quality depends on the people doing the work having deep experience with the problem, keep it in-house. These days, our industry is moving towards smaller teams with more experienced people who are still actively involved in the work. This makes it easier for everyone to be on the same page. We partner when someone else has genuine domain expertise we lack. The key question is always whether a layer between the maker and the outcome will cost you something you cannot afford to lose. — Peter Smart, Fantasy 21. BUILD WHEN IT MAKES LONG-TERM BUSINESS SENSE When we consider building in-house capabilities, we take the long view—how the investment complements our existing offerings, whether it’s a natural extension or a net-new function, and what it truly takes to stand up. Ultimately, it has to make long-term business sense for us. — Chris Bailey, Bailey Brand Consulting 22. BUILD IF IT’S AN ONGOING CAPABILITY Math. If it is a core component or ongoing capability, I build in-house or partner because I like control, visibility, and sustainability. However, I may outsource as I ramp, with the intention to bring or develop in-house once it is a proven model. — Effie Carlson, Watershed Health 23. PARTNER WHEN OUTSIDE EXPERTISE IS ADDITIVE I usually begin by asking whether the capability is something that should become part of who we are long term. If it directly shapes how we want to operate or grow, there is real value in building that internally. At the same time, partnership can be just as important when outside expertise helps you move further or think differently than you would on your own. The strongest partnerships are the ones that solve an immediate need while also strengthening internal understanding over time. — Chadwin Sandifer, EdD, Fairleigh Dickinson University 24. DECIDE BASED ON BEST POSSIBLE CLIENT OUTCOME We build in-house when it’s core to how we differentiate. Our design practice, PR capability, and our complex business unit are all examples of specialisms that sharpen our disruption model. But we’re equally intentional about partnership. When scale, speed, or a new frontier is required, we tap into best-in-class collaborators or bespoke partners who bring something we don’t own. The goal isn’t to do everything, it’s to orchestrate the right combination of talent to deliver the best possible outcome for our client partners. — Emily Wilcox, TBWA\Chiat\Day NY 25. PARTNER WHERE IT ACCELERATES I decide based on where capability creates the most strategic value. If it differentiates how we operate—compliance, worker engagement, sustainability—we build it in-house. That’s where control, standards, and long-term capability matter. Where speed, scale, or specialist expertise is critical, we partner—often to build capability quickly and accelerate impact. It’s a dynamic model. Build where it differentiates, partner where it accelerates. — Clare Woodford, Alpine Group—Paradise Textiles and Alpine Creations 26. SPEED AND COST OF DISTRACTION It comes down to speed and cost of distraction. If building internally pulls top talent away from core priorities, you’re creating hidden risk. I build when it creates durable IP; I partner when it accelerates execution without slowing the main business. — Logan Mulvey, GoDigital Music 27. USE DESIGN SPRINTS Design sprints aren’t just for new product development. We use design sprints to make critical decisions, including the building of in-house versus outsourcing. Empathy interviews with our internal stakeholders and clearly defining the problem allows us to design experiments to test products or services against our expectations and real-world needs resulting in better decision-making and alignment. Time spent on the front end of innovation results in future savings. — Garret Westlake, Virginia Commonwealth University View the full article

Most teams have a decision-making problem that no one can quite put their finger on. Meetings multiply. Decisions get relitigated endlessly. The choices that eventually emerge are often so cautious they accomplish almost nothing. The problem isn’t personal. Teams full of talented people routinely get stuck because they were never given a shared language for making choices under uncertainty. When conditions get murky, that gap becomes expensive. High-performing teams, by contrast, build their decision-making toolkit deliberately. They move from endless discussion to concrete proposals. They know the difference between a real objection and ordinary discomfort with risk. They make the final call even when someone more senior disagrees. Teams that succeed aren’t eliminating uncertainty. They’re navigating it with speed and agility with these three habits: 1. They stop asking what to do and start making proposals Every team I’ve worked with eventually hits what I call the swirl: the discussion is thorough, the ideas are smart, and the team leaves having agreed on nothing except when to meet again. Getting unstuck requires someone to stop asking “What should we do?” and start saying “I propose we…” That shift sounds modest. The effect is not. One of my clients was part of a transformation team at a consumer health company where permission-seeking had become a genuine bottleneck. Meetings ran long on conversation and short on decisions. People waited—for clarity from above, for consensus below, for someone else to take ownership. When the team shifted the expectation—asking people to come with specific proposals rather than open questions—the dynamic changed. Junior team members who had been staying quiet started driving things forward. Conversations got shorter. Decisions stuck. A proposal doesn’t need to be complete. It just needs to be concrete enough for people to push back on, build on, or improve. That’s what moves work forward. Key takeaway: The next time a conversation starts circling, offer something specific. “I propose we…” is one of the most productive phrases in any team’s vocabulary and anyone on the team can use it. 2. They know the difference between a real objection and an ordinary hesitation Most teams block progress on discomfort, not on harm. They treat “I would have approached this differently” as a reason to wait. Good ideas get shelved not because they’re dangerous, but because someone senior in the room isn’t enthusiastic. A real objection points to immediate, hard-to-reverse damage. A hesitation is everything else—doubt, preference, or the simple fact that this isn’t how things are usually done. A client of mine was facilitating a session where a leadership team was weighing a proposal to eliminate a large, time-consuming annual process. The idea was sound and would have freed thousands of hours across the organization. The only concern raised was that junior employees might lose development time with senior leaders—a real tension worth naming, but not a reason to stop. He acknowledged it, agreed to address it in the rollout, and the proposal moved forward. Months later, the team cited it as one of the best decisions they made all year. That’s the muscle worth building: welcoming objections that reveal real risk, while refusing to let discomfort slow down decisions that are ready to move. Key takeaway: When a proposal stalls, ask directly: Is there a specific reason this will cause immediate, hard-to-reverse harm? Real objections deserve engagement. Everything else is a reason to move. 3. They understand their decision authority—and use it even when others disagree In my experience, the hard part isn’t identifying who can decide what. It’s actually exercising that authority when someone more senior pushes back. Teams get given permission and then continue to seek permission they already have. They escalate decisions squarely within their mandate—not because they lack the authority, but because holding the line when a senior person disagrees is genuinely uncomfortable. So instead of acting, they wait. We worked with a product team given clear authority over an innovation initiative. Their charter spelled out the scope and decision rights. Months in, senior regional leaders escalated concerns to the CEO—they’d been consulted and didn’t like the direction. Some team members were being told by their direct managers not to present at all. The team lead opened the session by returning to the charter: the team’s purpose, scope, and decision authority. Not as a confrontation, but as a shared reference point. That clarity gave the CEO what was needed to resolve the tension, and the work moved forward. High-performing teams understand their authority comes from the mission, not from managing political relationships. A senior colleague’s disagreement deserves a hearing. But it doesn’t override a decision the team was empowered to make. Key takeaway: Before your next project launches, write down what your team can decide without external approval—and commit to using that authority, even when it’s uncomfortable. From talk to action High-performing teams don’t decide better because they’re smarter. They decide better because they’ve built shared habits for moving from discussion to action. Proposals, the ability to separate real objections from hesitation, and the confidence to exercise authority already granted—those aren’t complicated ideas. Practiced consistently, they’re how teams stop waiting and start moving. View the full article

The release of Google’s latest AI models this week at Google I/O was yet another example of the direction of travel for the generative AI revolution. Facing a user base that is increasingly burning more tokens under basic subscriptions or API access, AI companies are starting to hike prices and throttle usage. In response to those cost pressures, consumers are beginning to cut their cloth accordingly. And while frontier AI providers are releasing ever more powerful models into the world, smaller companies are advancing, too. Often based in China, these are frequently accused of copying the innovations of U.S. models through techniques like distillation, or reverse engineering the way artificial intelligence models work by probing them and inferring their answers. What it means is that these slightly less powerful AI models are, despite lagging behind the bleeding edge, still plenty powerful for most people. The 2026 Stanford University AI Index found that AI models’ performance on the SWE-bench Verified coding benchmark surged from 60% to nearly 100% of the human baseline in the last year, while the highest-quality models gained 30 percentage points on the highly difficult Humanity’s Last Exam benchmark. At the same time, Stanford charted a shrinking gap between U.S. models and their Chinese competitors, which are often offered at a fraction of the price, or entirely free through locally hosted versions. The result is that we’re entering the “good enough” era of AI models, where the needs of all but AI’s power users could be capably handled with something that costs less than giving the likes of Anthropic or OpenAI $200 a month. “Not every task requires maximum capability,” says Azeem Azhar, founder of the Exponential View newsletter, and a user of both the frontier models put out by the biggest AI labs and smaller, cheaper alternatives. “You don’t need Nobel scientist intelligence to appeal a parking ticket.” Not everyone agrees that the gap between the cutting edge and the “good enough” models is surmountable right now, in large part because of the shift toward more agentic uses of AI. Max Weinbach, an analyst at Creative Strategies, argues that while smaller models can handle narrow or basic tasks, they still “struggle to understand everything” in the way increasingly autonomous AI agents are expected to. Models like Gemma 4 27/31B and Qwen3.6, he says, are solid for lightweight use cases, but tend to break down on more demanding tasks like vibe coding, even when paired with tools like Hermes or OpenClaw, because “the model just isn’t capable.” The idea that you could entirely live and work on locally hosted or lower-capacity models still seems slightly beyond the reach of most people. There are times when you need the extra oomph that only the models underpinning the likes of ChatGPT or Claude can provide. But the gap does appear to be closing. And for most tasks, the extra capabilities that the leading, more expensive models provide aren’t necessarily needed, something Azhar compares to getting an 8K TV when you’re barely likely to perceive the difference from a 4K one. For some, though, the idea that there’s only an imperceptible gap between the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic’s models and those of the cheaper Chinese labs, or locally hosted models, is an exaggeration. Weinbach points out that it may cost practically nothing to run a model six times in order to get the right response, with five attempts glitching out or producing the wrong answer. “But almost every user is willing to pay $20 a month to nearly guarantee a correct response the first time,” he says. What “good enough” actually means may ultimately shape consumer behavior more than model performance. Weinbach argues that people rarely choose products they see as merely adequate for tools they use every day, and that settling for good enough often becomes “a regretted decision” that eventually pushes users toward more premium options. And even if people do, if there’s one thing that widespread AI adoption over the past three-and-a-half years has taught us, it’s that for those who buy into the promise of AI, once you start using it, you discover new possibilities and use cases for it. “The cheap, ubiquitous, good-enough capability creates new users, new habits, new expectations,” says Exponential View‘s Azhar. “Those habits eventually generate demand for capabilities that only the frontier can satisfy.” View the full article

It’s alive. The Terrarium Phone Case by U.K.-based designer Daniel Idle is a clear iPhone 16 Pro Max case with a vertical terrarium designed to show off small plants growing inside. “The idea came from noticing how personal phone cases have become,” Idle tells Fast Company. “People use them to carry objects, express themselves, and customize something they interact with all the time. That got me thinking about how much time we spend on our phones and how disconnected they make us feel from nature.” To bring nature to this most unexpected of places, Idle wanted to see if a phone case could include living elements by building an ecosystem directly into it. He designed and modeled prototypes to test what it would take to make a usable case hospitable to plant growth. It’s an example of biophilic design, or design that incorporates nature directly into its form. While often seen in nature-friendly architecture or interiors, the case shows there’s room for biophilic industrial design that brings nature to everyday consumer products too. But it also presented its own challenge: balancing the functional needs of a phone case with the environmental needs of an ecosystem that could sustain plant life. Early prototypes didn’t provide enough support to keep the landscape stable and attached when handled. It had to be “durable enough to function as a handheld object rather than just a display piece,” Idle says. The solution was a vertical terrarium with specialized sticky soil that’s stable enough to allow the phone to be physically moved around while the plants inside remain firmly secure. The case is made from two pieces: the structural printed shell and the enclosed chamber, and it’s surprisingly low maintenance. It requires infrequent watering—just a small amount of water if the plants start to dry out; the case sustains itself through the condensation cycle of internal moisture. In his own case, Idle grew small-scale plants well suited for enclosed terrarium environments, including moss, which works especially well since it creates an immediate sense of landscape at miniature scale and doesn’t take much upkeep. He says the design is more of a conceptual piece at the moment but he’s looking at developing the idea commercially. Amid growing worry over skyrocketing screen time, redesigned phone cases are cropping up as one potential solution. Cases that are too annoying to pick up or that shrink the actual screen get at the problem in their own ways, but the Terrarium Phone Case bets on built-in beauty to get people to set down their screens. Photosynthesis requires sunlight, so to keep your miniature garden growing, the case needs screen-down time. Notifications will just have to wait. View the full article

Jeff Bezos is betting that the future of fashion won’t be made from cotton or polyester but, instead, from lab-grown fibers. Through the Bezos Earth Fund, Bezos and Lauren Sánchez Bezos have committed $34 million to researchers developing next-generation textiles, including biodegradable fibers and plastic-free synthetic silk. Their aim is to replace some of the most resource-intensive materials in the global clothing industry with alternatives that could dramatically reduce the industry’s environmental footprint. The investment marks a notable shift for the fund, which has largely focused on conservation since Bezos pledged $10 billion to climate initiatives in 2020. Now, it’s partially turning toward fashion, an industry deeply reliant on fossil fuels and one of the largest contributors to global emissions. “The use of fossil fuels in the fashion industry is a big issue,” Tom Taylor, the fund’s president and CEO, said, according to The Wall Street Journal. Today’s most common materials, including polyester and viscose, are derived from oil and coal. They’re cheap, durable, and ubiquitous among both fast-fashion and luxury brands, but they also come with steep environmental costs. These fabrics are not biodegradable, shed microplastics, and can release so-called forever chemicals into water systems, raising growing health concerns, according to the European Environment Agency. Bezos’s grant backs researchers who are experimenting with materials grown from bacteria, agricultural waste, and other unconventional sources, innovations that could reshape what clothing is made of at a molecular level, the Journal reported. “When you start asking questions about what clothes could be made of, the answers are incredible,” Sánchez Bezos said in a statement to the Journal. “The future of fashion is being invented right now.” Still, science is only part of the challenge. Scaling these materials has proved difficult. Sustainable textiles remain expensive to produce, and many startups in the space have struggled to survive. Even when viable alternatives exist, brands and consumers often default to cheaper, familiar fabrics, Vogue reported. “It’s small, underfunded, and lacks those industry relationships that could push it further and deeper,” Steven Kolb, CEO of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, said, according to the Journal. The fund is aiming to close that gap. Grant recipients include Columbia University, working with the Fashion Institute of Technology, as well as the University of California, Berkeley, Clemson University, and the Cotton Foundation. At Columbia, researchers are developing a biodegradable fiber grown from bacteria that feed on agricultural waste, an approach that could reduce reliance on both petroleum and water-intensive crops, the Journal reported. Biomedical engineering professor Helen H. Lu told the Journal that the funding will help expand research teams and address technical hurdles, particularly at a moment when federal support is shrinking. She pointed to “uncertainty in federal funding” after the The President administration canceled more than 1,600 grants from the National Science Foundation last year. The fund hopes some of these materials could reach consumers within three to five years, the Journal reported. But even that timeline underscores the scale of the challenge. Transforming a global supply chain built on cheap synthetics won’t happen quickly. While the Bezos Earth Fund operates independently, Bezos is still the founder of Amazon, the world’s largest clothing retailer and a frequent target of criticism over emissions tied to manufacturing and rapid delivery. The company said it has reduced carbon emissions per shipment by one-third since 2019 and is working toward net-zero by 2040. Amazon employees have publicly protested the company’s climate impact through the Amazon Employees for Climate Justice group, arguing its emissions footprint contradicts leadership’s environmental messaging. Environmental groups have also repeatedly ranked Amazon among the largest corporate emitters, pointing to the scale of its logistics network and rapid-delivery model. Even Bezos himself has faced criticism for climate philanthropy that some advocates say does not fully address Amazon’s underlying business model, highlighting a broader debate over whether corporate-led climate efforts can offset systemic consumption. Some sustainability advocates argue that better materials alone won’t solve fashion’s climate problem, instead calling for reduced production and consumption altogether. Taylor acknowledged those debates but framed the fund’s strategy differently. “Different people have different values,” he said. “This is ours.” The push into fashion also arrives as Bezos and Sánchez Bezos take on a prominent role as lead sponsors of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute—home of the Met Gala—tying their climate ambitions to one of the industry’s most visible cultural platforms. —Leila Sheridan This article originally appeared on Fast Company’s sister website, Inc.com. Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy. View the full article

When’s the last time you thought about pepper? Designers working in the consumer packaged goods category have reimagined many a pantry staple over the past several years, including olive oil, tinned fish, and even chili crisp, but pepper has remained as forgotten as it is ubiquitous. A playfully chunky new brand is giving the category design intentionality, functionality, and visual appeal—and could point to where food brand design is headed. Michael Laniak Michael Laniak, a former line cook, launched Milly on May 12 as a result of his failed attempt to source pepper in the same way he could olive oil or sea salt. Milly sells only whole peppercorns—black, white, and green—along with namesake matching pepper mills in coordinated colors. The products are available on the company’s website, starting at $14 for one tin of whole peppercorns, $28 for a pepper and mill set, and $78 for the trio of peppers and mills. Considering there’s nothing else quite like it, what we’re seeing on a small scale is the reinvention of a category, and it’s just begging for well-packaged competitors to vie for counter space next to some Graza and a well of Maldon salt. Its branding and positioning are what make this new product notable, with a hand-lettered logo and thoughtful design system that refocuses what many might dismiss as a good-enough spice into an experience you might want to consider more thoughtfully (and either gift or spend more on). The logo itself draws a playful contrast to category competitors, which offer run-of-the-mill serifs on white or black backgrounds (or red, for McCormick). Milly’s in-house designer, Cassie Scowcroft, hand-lettered the final design, which has an organic, analog look, thanks to the high-contrast weight variations of its strokes, a mix of upper- and lowercase letters, and a script y. It’s a nod to the fact that, according to the company, the peppercorns are handpicked. The color accents used on the tins purposefully reflect the flavor profile of each peppercorn, all derived from the same plant but harvested and/or processed differently to achieve a variety of notes. Red nods to black pepper’s boldness and spice; bright green embraces green pepper’s fresh, floral profile; and cream on brown hints at white pepper’s subtle, earthy flavor. The logo’s organic, blocky look and bold color pairings call to mind other brands in the food space, like the Roman restaurant Roscioli (which also opened in New York in 2023) and the new Gourmet, which, if in a very obvious way, graphically stuck it to the old institution by creating a publication in complete graphic opposition, using an asymmetric, uneven, informal logo. (Perhaps a chunky, hand-lettered micro trend is on the way in food branding?) The playfully contemporized geometric asymmetries of Milly and Roscioli also call to mind the graphic style of Italian Amaro labels from the last century and before, and the newer Amaro brand Faccia Bruto by studio GEO NYC, whose blocky type, bold color, and contrasting line illustrations are gorgeously anachronistic. While the tins are initially difficult to pop open (I’m told this is for freshness), Milly’s packaging system makes adding pepper to a dish feel special. And unlike those of competitors, Milly’s mills are refillable, reducing waste and perhaps increasing return customers. Peppercorn might be an afterthought. But so was olive oil. And then came Graza. View the full article

Google is quietly rolling out a redesign of the logos for its Workspace apps, including Gmail, Google Docs, and Google Drive. They now look like they’ve been run through a watercolor filter. Each new logo in the suite—which began showing up on May 18 on the web, Android, and iOS—is softer and rounder than its predecessor. What really stands out, though: Every single icon has been given some sort of color gradient. Gmail now smoothly transitions through Google’s brand palette of primary colors and green; Google Meet and Google Chat have lost the full palette in favor of yellow and green aura schemes, respectively; and Google Docs has gone from a flat blue to a subtle fusion of blue and purple. This is the first time Google has updated its Workspace icons since 2020, and it’s a clear effort to visually denote its shift into the AI era. More broadly, the pivot confirms a trend that Fast Company predicted back in October: The gradient is emerging as the defining color schematic of the AI era. According to Ben Sherwood, creative partner at the agency Design Bridge and Partners, we’re currently witnessing a collective pivot from the “stark simplicity of flat design” toward “what could be termed the ‘AI gradient everywhere’ aesthetic.” Buttholes, voids, and sparkles Since ChatGPT debuted in 2022, designers have faced the novel challenge of figuring out how to visually represent a technology as powerful and amorphous as AI in a way that sparks curiosity rather than skepticism. Several distinct logo shapes have already solidified themselves as hallmarks of the early AI transition—some almost to the point of parody. There are the plain circles used by Meta and Grok; the twinkling sparkle that appears on Google’s Gemini chatbot, Adobe Photoshop’s generative image filler, Grammarly’s language fixer, and Wix’s auto website maker; and the swirling, nebulous void used by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity (sometimes called the “AI butthole”). And then there’s the gradient. Of course, gradients are nothing new; they’ve long been a motif of choice for tech companies (see Instagram and Apple Music). But for Big Tech companies, they’ve become an almost unavoidable motif. Apple Intelligence, Google Gemini, and Meta AI all incorporate gradients in their logos. Microsoft has added gradients to both its Copliot logo and its entire suite of Office icons. Back in September, Google reworked its iconic “G” into a four-color gradient, which it’s now following with the new Workspace icons. Branding experts say there are a few factors driving the popularity of gradients in the AI space—and, for better or worse, it’s unsurprising that tech companies are flocking to them rather than aiming to stand out. Why every AI company is using gradients Surface level, there’s a practical reason that gradients are having a moment. Drew Stocker, creative director at Pearlfisher, says advances in rendering and production technology have made gradients more achievable and consistent than ever before. “For Google, the move toward dimensional iconography feels like a natural evolution: Gradients add depth and approachability that flat color can’t, and in a digital-first context, the execution is well within reach,” Stocker says. Moving away from flat color carries the added advantage of allowing tech companies to signal a clear departure from tech’s late-2010s mobile-transition era (defined by a minimalist aesthetic and logo “blanding”) into a new AI age. “It wasn’t that long ago that every app flattened itself into geometric minimalism,” says Ben Williams, global chief creative officer at the digital agency Dept. “The internet demanded efficiency. Icons needed to load fast, scale small, and sit neatly inside app grids. The result was ‘blanding’: a sea of interchangeable logos optimized for screens and stripped of personality.” Now the pendulum is swinging back. Companies want their products to feel less mechanical and more approachable. To do that, they’re stripping back on solid colors and harsh angles in favor of gradients, translucency, softer curves, and fluid interfaces. This emerging aesthetic is a kind of modern take on skeuomorphism, an early 2000s-era design trend that blended realism with digital design (think Instagram’s original camera logo). Even Apple, which has long abandoned its iconic skeuomorphic origins in favor of simplicity, has recently begun to bring more color and dimension back into its brand. The irony, Williams says, is that in order to escape the sea of sameness, brands are “converging all over again.” Big Tech companies aping each others’ aesthetics is a tale as old as time—and, per Anthony Cappetta, partner and creative director at the creative studio Super Okay, that’s unlikely to change anytime soon. “When everyone adopts a similar visual language, it signals compliance with established digital norms,” Cappetta says. “There’s a shared advantage in looking familiar and ‘safe’ within the ecosystem, especially for massive platforms where aesthetic shifts are scrutinized heavily. It’s less about being original and more about being instantly legible and trustworthy at scale.” In 2026, Williams adds, a gradient is a brand badge that quietly says, “We, too, are an AI company.” View the full article

Despite urgent warnings, governments have failed to take the current energy shock seriously enoughView the full article

San Jose mayor Matt Mahan had been in The Daily Show hotseat all of 30 seconds when Jon Stewart asked about his startup days. At any other period in recent California history, this question might have been a layup for the California gubernatorial hopeful, a chance to talk about Causes, the app he grew to nearly 200 million users across more than 150 countries, or Brigade, the voter activism platform he subsequently cofounded with Napster’s Sean Parker. But this was March 2026, at a time of apex anti-tech sentiment. So rather than boasting about his business chops, Mahan blinked slowly and attempted his best politician’s pivot. “I was in the startup world,” he said. “Before that though I was a public school teacher.” The crowd applauded, and Mahan shot them a winning smile. He said he taught 7th and 8th grade English and history. “That’s wonderful,” Stewart responded, laying a trap. “And you left there . . . when?” “Teaching? 2008,” Mahan replied, stiffening slightly. “Interesting,” Stewart nodded, feigning naivete. “To do what?” Mahan conceded. “To get into the tech world,” he said laughing. “You got me.” “You son of a bitch,” Stewart chided him, flogging Mahan with his notecards. When I ask Mahan later whether there was a bit of an apology in all his bobbing and weaving, he insists there wasn’t. But he says his backstage conversations with Stewart did make him wary of being typecast. “There was just sort of this pigeonholing of ‘Oh, you Silicon Valley guys,’” Mahan tells me over Zoom, sitting in a freshly pressed button-down in front of a half-wiped whiteboard. “I wanted him and his audience, and everyone who cares and is paying attention to this governor’s race to know that those stereotypes are huge oversimplifications.” That may be. But the fact that a 43-year-old candidate for California’s highest office would sooner tout his post-undergrad Teach for America fellowship than his 11-year career as an entrepreneur says a lot about how toxic Big Tech has become in Democratic politics. It also helps explain what makes Mahan—who counts Mark Zuckerberg an old Harvard buddy —a particularly unusual fit for the moment. His campaign burst onto the scene in January, with maximum donations from the likes of Google co-founder Sergey Brin and The President supporter and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale. By February, a slew of venture capitalists and CEOs backing Mahan’s independent expenditure committee ran a 30-second ad on his behalf during the Super Bowl. Mahan casts this support as a function of geography. “It’s not shocking that as the mayor of the capital of Silicon Valley, my early donors would disproportionately come from Silicon Valley,” he tells me. “It doesn’t mean that, in any way, I’m catering to the interests of the industry.” Still, the depths of Mahan’s billionaire backing, coupled with his business-friendly policies like a no new taxes pledge and firm opposition to a California billionaire tax, have made the “Silicon Valley guy” reputation particularly tough to shake. Even Tom Steyer, one of the race’s frontrunners—and an actual billionaire himself—has sought to cast Mahan as being in the pocket of the ultrarich. “Californians deserve a governor who will stand up to corporate power, not bend the knee to it,” Steyer said in a statement following Mahan’s first campaign finance report. All of this has made it challenging for Mahan to break out of a crowded field of candidates. On June 2, California voters will have a chance to decide which two voters make it to the general election in November. For Mahan, the primary will be a test of whether the same interests that can make a candidate can break one too. A ‘performance management’ approach to government Mahan grew up about an hour south of San Jose, but for all practical purposes, it was a world away. His hometown of Watsonville is California farm country. His mom worked as a teacher and his dad as a mailman. It was only thanks to a work-study program for low-income kids that he wound up commuting hours a day to a swanky San Jose private high school. In college at Harvard, he ascended the ranks of student government, eventually succeeding Rohit Chopra—the future chair of the Consumer Financial Protection Board—as president of the student council. Nick Josefowitz, a friend from that period, remembers Mahan as an idealist who took his responsibilities to the student body seriously, whether that was negotiating with the school to expand the number of emergency phones around campus or fighting to extend dorm parties until 2 am. (On that latter point, he succeeded.) Josefowitz, who is now CEO of the energy affordability non-profit Permit Power, says Mahan’s upbringing in an agricultural community far from Harvard’s hallowed halls was a motivating force behind his work ethic. “He was acutely aware there were many, many kids who were his neighbors growing up and his friends growing up, who didn’t have those same opportunities,” he says. One profile in the Harvard Crimson from that time depicts Mahan’s growing disillusionment with the privilege surrounding him toward the end of his time at the school. “I think it’s so sad that the vast majority of Harvard students will go into a very lucrative profession, do a little bit of community service on the side to feel better about their lives, [and] do nothing to change the underlying structures that have produced them,” he told the paper in 2005. Initially, at least, Mahan avoided that path, opting instead to spend two years teaching in East San Jose. He’s since said it was Zuckerberg, his dormmate, who diverted him from law school. “He said, ‘If you want to change the world, don’t be a lawyer. Go into tech,’” Mahan once told KQED. Within three years of graduation, he did, taking a job at Causes—an app that allowed people to start their own petitions and fundraisers on Facebook. Mahan went on to become its CEO, until 2014 when Causes was folded into Brigade, another startup launched by Parker and Mahan, which set out to be a social network for civic discourse. Parker funded the company in a $9.3 million Series A round, and Mahan served as CEO. The common thread between these ventures was giving people power over the political and social causes that mattered to them “without having to go through all these intermediaries who had their own agendas,” says Josefowitz, who has remained close with Mahan and volunteered as a policy advisor on his campaign. By 2020, Mahan and Parker had sold Brigade, and Mahan and his wife, Silvia, a fellow Harvard graduate, were settling down with their first child. Like a lot of new parents, Mahan began turning his attention to his own backyard—the high cost of living, the traffic, the homelessness. “You just start to wonder: What has gone wrong?” Mahan says. When a seat opened on the San Jose city council that year, Mahan ran and won. Less than two years after that, he was elected mayor in an upset victory, after campaigning on a promise to bring accountability to local government. From the outset, Mahan’s tech roots were obvious both in the way he ran the city and the policies he embraced. As Mayor, Mahan launched a slew of public-facing dashboards that track the city’s progress on things like housing production and community safety—the first step toward what he describes as a “performance management” approach to government. These days, he often touts his success in making San Jose the safest big city in the country and reducing unsheltered homelessness. But the tactics he’s deployed to achieve those results have also drawn vehement backlash, as with a policy that allowed police to arrest homeless people for repeatedly refusing shelter. Mahan also quickly gained a reputation for his bullishness on AI. In 2023, Mahan launched the GovAI coalition, a national group representing hundreds of government agencies working on the responsible use of AI. In San Jose, he has deployed AI tools to speed up city buses and identify potholes on city streets. And he’s embraced the kind of data center development that other communities have rejected, criticizing what he sees as a kneejerk impulse to blockade the industry. “Technologies come along and just completely remake labor markets over time,” he tells me, likening AI to the invention of the tractor. “It is a fool’s errand to go out and try to stop it from happening. We need to shape it.” The ‘wooden spoon’ candidate? Mahan was a last-minute entrant to the governor’s race, throwing his hat in the ring only after a number of his donors—furious over the proposed California billionaire tax—tried unsuccessfully to recruit Mahan as a congressional challenger to Rep. Ro Khanna. In announcing his candidacy for governor, Mahan criticized other candidates’ “tired playbook.” “They’re either running against The President or they’re running in his image,” he told Politico at the time. He charted a course as the field’s moderate option, who believed Democrats have only fueled The President’s fire by failing to deliver on their promises. “The best resistance is delivering results,” he tells me. “When you lead the country in most expensive housing, second most expensive energy, highest rates of homelessness and overdose, highest level of retail theft, at some point, you are enabling this would-be dictator.” But the tech money fueling Mahan’s campaign put a target on his back. Democratic Assemblymember Ash Kalra told the San Jose Spotlight that Mahan was “handpicked” by the tech elite. “They want someone who is going to be obedient to them,” Kalra said. Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, told Bloomberg that Mahan would be a “disaster” as governor. Though his own father was in a union, in San Jose, Mahan has repeatedly butted heads with local unions over contract negotiations, among other things. On social media, the Federation has cast Mahan as “just more AI BS.” Despite the initial burst of enthusiasm, Mahan‘s momentum soon flagged as polling failed to deliver the bump that donors were promised. Today, few polls have shown Mahan attracting even 10 percent of the vote share. According to one Silicon Valley donor familiar with Mahan’s campaign, the gap between Mahan’s traction and his campaign’s promises fostered a sense of mistrust among some of his early donors. “You can make whatever promises you want, but if it’s not followed up with reality, then people lose confidence in you,” the donor says. “Once you lose credibility, it’s a death spiral.” In a sign of its mounting challenges, in just a few short months, the campaign has undergone significant restructuring, with Mahan and his former advisor, Eric Jaye, parting ways in April. Meanwhile, some of Mahan’s early proponents have gone quiet. According to The New York Times, Brin, for one, has not followed up on his $1 million donation to Mahan’s independent expenditure committee. He has, however, sent $40,000 to Steve Hilton, the leading Republican candidate. (As the Times noted, Brin’s girlfriend, the influencer Gerelyn Gilbert-Soto, has compared Mahan to “a wooden spoon” online. Mahan later tried briefly to own the label, saying in his own post that he “won’t melt under pressure.”) Mahan has also caught flack for his ties to Republicans, including Lonsdale, who one Democratic operative in California referred to as a “boogeyman on the left.” “That money is pretty much worthless because of all the shit you’re going to get for it,” the operative says. “You’re trying to win a Democratic primary here.” When I ask Mahan about this critique, he defaults to a version of his stump speech. “I jumped into this race because Californians shouldn’t have to choose between more MAGA or more of the same,” he says. He also deflects against critics’ claims that he’s too cozy with tech by casting himself as “the only candidate in the race who has actively regulated tech.” By that, he means he has regulated how his own government uses tech. San Jose, he says, deletes license plate data and camera footage within 30 days and doesn’t use facial recognition technology as part of its object detection pilots to spot potholes. But setting a city’s privacy policies is a far cry from the weighty decisions about tech—and other matters—that the next governor of California will undoubtedly have to make. It was California, after all, that passed the country’s first privacy law and, more recently, passed the country’s first major AI safety law. Governor Gavin Newsom signed both bills despite furious opposition from the tech industry, and in the midst of persistent inaction in Congress. During his tenure, California has emerged as a de facto tech regulator, writing many of the rules of the road that govern tech across the country, even when the tech industry has resisted them. One question facing voters is whether they believe Mahan, with all his industry ties and support, would be prepared to do the same. For now, Mahan remains an underdog when compared to his fellow Democrats Xavier Becerra and Steyer, and his Republican opponent Steve Hilton. But his campaign has become something larger than a longshot bid for governor. It is also a referendum on whether a Silicon Valley pedigree remains an asset in California politics—or a liability. View the full article