ResidentialBusiness

The people of New York have spoken. In electing Zohran Mamdani mayor, they voted for generational change, democratic socialism, and joyful pop-culture politics. The historical significance of Mamdani’s victory will be parsed for days, weeks, and years to come. But the people of New York did not just elect a mayor, they also voted to change the way housing gets built in one of the tightest housing markets in the United States. Voters passed three ballot initiatives designed to speed up and increase housing production by an even greater margin than Mamdani’s victory. With these ballot initiatives, Mamdani also won a huge victory—one he didn’t even campaign for, though he did voice his support for the measures the night before the election. These ballot measures will make at least some of his housing policies meaningfully easier to achieve, including his promise to build 200,000 low-income apartments, and his desire to spread housing construction more equitably across the city. Mamdani’s victory signified voters’ hunger for change, especially when it comes to new approaches to reducing the cost of living. The housing ballot measures were yet another indicator of the same phenomenon. Local leaders elsewhere should take note. What New Yorkers Voted For Local media outlets like The City and The New York Times have good explainers on the ballot initiatives. I’ll briefly describe the most significant updates here and how they might impact housing in the U.S.’s most populous city. Ballot Measure 2 creates a new expedited review and approval process for all publicly funded affordable housing projects, turning what can be an 18-month process into a 3-month process. It also creates a new affordable-housing fast track for all housing projects in the 12 community districts (out of 59 total) that have permitted the least-affordable housing in recent years. These 12 community districts will mostly be more suburban parts of the city in eastern Queens, south Brooklyn, and Staten Island. They are, as it happens, the same parts of the city that supported former Governor Andrew Cuomo in the mayor’s race. (Cuomo endorsed the ballot measures.) Ballot Measure 3 creates an expedited rezoning and environmental review process for small housing projects and zoning variances. Projects allowed under this policy would generally be limited to 45 feet in height in low-density areas, or a 30% increase over allowed density in higher-density areas. This measure will allow totally new project types that are not currently built in New York, including “missing middle” housing in low-density zones. Larger projects that require zoning variances will now be able to get them in a quicker process through the nonpolitical Board of Standards and Appeals, rather than the City Council. Ballot Measure 4 creates a new appeals board that gives projects rejected by the City Council another chance at approval. Eligible projects would have to include affordable housing, whether through the city’s local inclusionary zoning policy, called Mandatory Inclusionary Housing, or as a city-funded affordable housing project. This measure effectively ends the practice of “member deference,” in which a single council member can block a project in their district. In sum, these measures will make it much faster to approve all affordable housing projects and many market-rate housing projects; they reduce uncertainty for all housing proposals; they will allow new housing to be built in neighborhoods that have traditionally built very little; and they move power over development away from the City Council and to the mayor and appointed boards like the Planning Commission and Board of Standards and Appeals. Mamdani’s vision for housing All of these outcomes correspond to housing policy goals that Mamdani has articulated, including the goal of constructing 200,000 new, union-built, deeply affordable housing units over 10 years. Funding that promise—especially while sticking with union labor and very deep levels of affordability—will be a tall order. But these ballot measures will make achieving this overall goal more of an economic problem than a political one. Getting affordable developments built will not require project-by-project land use battles. Mamdani has also voiced his support for spreading housing production more evenly across the five boroughs, particularly to wealthier neighborhoods. Ballot Measure 2 does exactly that, through its special rules for the NIMBYest community districts, and Ballot Measure 3 moves toward the same goal by opening up new development opportunities in low-density areas. As his campaign progressed, Mamdani emphasized the importance of government efficiency and effectiveness. These ballot initiatives will allow government to act more quickly on its housing goals, spending less staff time and resources on approval processes. The newly elected mayor has also warmed to the idea of market-rate and mixed-income housing being part of the solution to the city’s housing crisis. While mostly focused on 100% affordable housing projects, these measures will help market-rate projects, too, by eliminating council member deference and streamlining mixed-income projects in NIMBY strongholds. What these ballot measures will not do is move the needle on Mamdani’s signature campaign promise to freeze the rent for rent-stabilized tenants. That action goes through a whole different entity—the Rent Guidelines Board—and comes with a host of legal and political questions. What the ballot measures may do, however, is set the stage for a sort of “grand bargain” around housing production and tenants’ rights. By supporting both of these policy goals simultaneously, Mamdani could build his credibility among constituents in both camps. There’s also some evidence that tenants tend to be more supportive of housing development when strong renter protections are in place, as Rogé Karma reported in a recent piece in The Atlantic. Throughout the campaign over the ballot initiatives, the largest opponent was the New York City Council, whose powers will unquestionably be diminished by these new policies. The Council’s “no” campaign relied on the fact that the initiatives were developed by a commission appointed by Mayor Eric Adams, a highly unpopular figure in New York politics. But soon neither Adams nor Cuomo (the candidate Adams endorsed) will be in City Hall. The new powers afforded by these ballot initiatives will be held by a 34-year old democratic socialist. How will he use them to reshape the city? View the full article

UK regulator finds failings allowed a senior manager’s dishonest action to go undetected for several yearsView the full article

How I spend my hours in the day is how I live. To make the most of my waking hours, I practice the one-hour rule—a simple habit that helps me learn, reflect, and think. I give myself 60 uninterrupted minutes a day to try and become a little wiser than I was yesterday. I consciously take control of my growth to transform how I think, how I decide, or live. It takes commitment. But just an hour a day learning, thinking, and reflecting is helping me improve my life processes. That’s it. Sixty minutes. Five hours a week. And you are upgrading yourself daily. That means reading something that stretches you. Reflecting on what went wrong and why. Sitting in silence and letting your mind wander on purpose. The result is more clarity. Fewer regrets in life. And growth that actually sticks. One focused hour doesn’t just change your day. It rewires your direction. And gives your brain time to connect, create, and course-correct. ‘Think week’ In the 1990s, Bill Gates called his time away to reflect “think week.” He used seven days of solitude in a cabin in the forest to “read, think, and write about the future.” “This ability to turn idle time into deep thinking and learning became a fundamental part of who I am,” Gates said. The logic is timeless. Consistency beats intensity. An hour a day compounds faster than you think. One book a month, 12 a year. Twelve new mental frameworks. Twelve ways you now see the world differently. You don’t have to disrupt your schedule to apply the rule. It doesn’t have to be one stretch. You can use pockets of time in the day to get the same impact. An hour is long enough to change your life. And short enough to be doable. It’s the sweet spot between wishful thinking and practical results. You can learn a new skill, reflect on what went well or didn’t go well in the day. Or simply sit and think without your phone. The return of intentional time to learn, think, or reflect compounds in all areas of your life. The three pillars of the one-hour rule 1. Make learning an active process. Feed your brain something worth reflecting on. Your input will always determine your output. What you feed your brain determines how you decide, how you speak, and how you work. But don’t just consume, engage. Reading 10 pages means nothing if you’re not putting the ideas to use. Don’t just collect information, digest it. If you read about negotiation, go try it on your coworker or someone who can give you feedback. Learning sticks when you take action. Try things. Fail forward. Every time you stretch your understanding, you expand what’s possible for you. 2. Reflect on the new knowledge. If learning is the input, reflection is the processing system. It’s how you turn experience into usable wisdom. “We do not learn from experience . . . we learn from reflecting on experience,” says philosopher and psychologist John Dewey. Without reflection, you’re basically walking in circles. Lots of movement, no direction. “What worked? What didn’t?” What lesson did you take from what’s not working? Write it down. You’ll start to see patterns. Habits that hold you back. Decisions that move you forward. That’s your personal feedback loop. Reflection turns problems into clarity. Make sense of your day. What could you have done differently? 3. Think to turn learning into wisdom. Most people are too busy reacting to life. They recycle the same opinions, habits, and ideas. Thinking is how you question your perspective on anything. It’s you sitting alone with your mind, connecting dots no one else sees. It’s letting your thoughts wander. And then following the interesting ones. I like to do this while walking. Something about movement untangles thoughts. I’ve solved more problems in sneakers than behind my desk. Thinking gives your brain the room to process ideas. And when it does, it surprises you. Your mind starts connecting dots when you commit to the rule. You will begin to notice patterns in your own habits, at home and at work. That one-hour-a-day habit can help you handle conflict better, do your work better, or live better at home. Try it. One hour for your own transformation. Just you, your curiosity, and 60 minutes of honest focus. Do that long enough, and you’ll realize you were not just learning for an hour a day. You were rebuilding your entire life. One hour of learning, reflecting, and thinking daily can put you in control of the direction of your life. That’s the power of the hour. It’s small enough to start today. And big enough to change your life. It’s how you leap ahead. View the full article

BaFin imposes its highest ever penalty of €45mn on European arm of Wall Street bankView the full article

For years, email, texting, and messaging apps have ruled how we communicate. But one timeless human skill—often neglected—is quickly becoming a true difference-maker in the digital age. Active listening. It’s both an art and a discipline, and it’s what separates average leaders from exceptional ones (while making them instantly likable in the process). The truth is, active listening is the foundation of effective communication and the heartbeat of strong relationships. Yet as technology consumes more of our attention, we’re losing touch with this skill—and with it, a powerful competitive advantage in business. When you focus on your people—their growth, their needs, their challenges—none of it works without listening deeply first. Listen more than you talk After 25 years of coaching leaders, I’ve learned that the most effective ones know when to stop talking and start listening. Few things elevate a conversation more than genuine attentiveness. When you truly listen, you show respect for people at every level, demonstrate curiosity, and practice humility—three traits every great leader needs. I call this authentic listening. It’s the ability to understand what’s really happening on the other side of the conversation—to sense the will of a group, help clarify it, and create alignment around it. Management thinker Peter Drucker said it best: “The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn’t said.” Authentic listeners do exactly that. They listen intuitively—not just for facts or responses, but for meaning. They lean into conversations with empathy, seeking to understand what matters most to the other person. This kind of listening is selfless, not self-centered. It always circles back to one powerful question: How can I help this person right now? The hard part of listening Good listening always requires humility. In my coaching sessions with executives, I make one thing clear from the start: If you want to grow as a leader, you have to embrace the humble responsibility of inviting feedback—and then have the courage and openness to truly listen to it. That’s a tall order for many leaders, especially the higher you climb up the corporate ranks. There are several approaches to successfully listening for feedback. For example: Be open. Listen without interruption, objections, or defensiveness. Be responsive. Listen without turning the tables. Ask questions for clarification. Be accountable. Seek to understand the effects and consequences of your behavior. Be self-aware. Be aware of your own emotional reactions, body language, and how you’re coming across in the listening. Be quiet. Refrain from making or preparing to make a response, or trying to explain, defend, or fix. The last part of listening A lot of people think listening just means sitting quietly and absorbing what someone else is saying. But according to the authors of Radical Listening, the best listeners don’t just nod along—they ask great follow-up questions. For example: Questions that connect to the speaker. This shows you’re paying attention to what was just said and engaged in the conversation. Open-ended questions. Instead of a simple yes or no, open-ended questions invite deeper insights. Questions to encourage more sharing. Great follow-up questions help people open up about their plans, emotions, and perspectives. At first, asking questions might feel like the opposite of listening. But research tells a different story. In fact, studies show that employees consistently link good listening with strong leadership, a connection that holds true across cultures and organizations worldwide. As you move forward, embrace listening by relating to others with more curiosity and intent. Treat it like a human experiment in your professional development journey, with listening as a key tool in your toolbox. Speaking of toolbox, here’s a roadmap to develop your listening skills and master your interpersonal communication, with steps straight from my coaching sessions with top global clients. Like this article? Subscribe here for more related content and exclusive insights from executive coach Marcel Schwantes. —Marcel Schwantes This article originally appeared on Fast Company’s sister publication, Inc. 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

An unpopular government cannot afford to be branded dishonest by the public View the full article

The most obvious use case for generative AI in editorial operations is to write copy. When ChatGPT lit the fuse on the current AI boom, it was its ability to crank out hundreds of comprehensible words almost instantly, on virtually any topic, that captured our imaginations. Hundreds of “ChatGPT wrote this article” think pieces resulted, and college essays haven’t been the same since. Neither has the media. In October, a report from AI analytics firm Graphite revealed that AI is now producing more articles than humans. And it’s not all content farms cranking out AI slop: A recent study from the University of Maryland examined over 1,500 newspapers in the U.S. and found that AI-generated copy constitutes about 9% of their output, on average. Even major publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal appear to be publishing a minimal number of words that originated from a machine. I’ll come back to that, but the big takeaway from the study is that local newspapers—often thought to be the crucial foundation of free press, and still the most trusted arm of the media—are the largest producers of AI writing. Boone Newsmedia, which operates newspapers and other publications in 91 communities in the southeast, is a heavy user of synthetic content, with 20.9% of its articles detected as being partially or entirely written with AI. Why local papers rely on AI Putting aside any default revulsion at AI content, this actually makes a lot of sense. Local news has been stripped down to the bone in recent years as reader attention has fragmented and advertising dollars have shrunk. A great deal of local papers have folded (more than 3,500 since 2005, according to Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University), and those that remain have adopted other means to survive. In smaller markets, like my New Jersey town, it’s not uncommon for the community paper to republish press releases from local businesses. The fact is, writers cost money, and writing takes time. AI, of course, radically alters that reality: for a $20 a month ChatGPT subscription, you now have a lightning-fast robot writer, ready to tackle any subject. Many unscrupulous people treat this ability as their own room full of monkeys with typewriters, cranking out articles just to attract eyeballs—the definition of AI slop. But there’s a difference between slop and AI-generated copy written to inform, with the proper context, and edited by a journalist with the proper expertise. In a local news context, the use case for AI writing that’s most often cited is the lengthy school board meeting that, if covered, would take a reporter several hours of listening to transcripts, synthesizing, and contextualizing just to cover what happened. With AI, those hours compress to minutes, freeing up the reporter to write more unique and valuable stories. More likely, of course, is that the reporter no longer exists, and an editor or even a sole proprietor simply publishes as many pieces as they can that serve the community. And while it’s not the ideal, I don’t see what’s wrong with that from a utilitarian perspective. If the copy informs, a human has done a quality check, and the audience is engaging with it, what does it matter whether or not it came from a machine? AI mistakes hit different That said, when mistakes happen with AI content, they can undermine a publication’s integrity like nothing else. This past summer, when the Chicago Sun-Times published a list of hallucinated book titles as a summer reading list, it caused a national backlash. That’s because AI errors are in a different category—since AI lacks human judgment and experience, it makes mistakes a human never would. That’s the main reason using AI in copy is a risky business, but safeguards are possible. For starters, you can train editors to catch the mistakes that are unique to AI. Robust fact-checking is obvious, and using grounded tools like Google’s NotebookLM can greatly reduce the chance of hallucinations. Besides factual errors, though, AI writing has many telltale quirks (repeated sentence structures, dashes, “let’s delve . . .,” etc.). I call these “slop indicators,” and, while they’re not disastrous, their continued presence in copy is a subtle signal to readers that they should question what they’re reading. Editors should stamp them out. Which is not to say publications shouldn’t be transparent about the use of AI in their content. They absolutely should. In fact, I’d argue being as detailed as possible about the AI’s role at both the article level and in overall strategy is crucial in maintaining trust with an audience. Most editorial “scandals” over AI articles blew up because the copy was presented as human-written (think about Sports Illustrated‘s fake writers from two years ago). When the publication is upfront about the use of AI, such as ESPN’s write-ups of certain sports games, it’s increasingly a non-event. Which is why it’s confusing that some major publications seem to be publishing AI copy without disclosing its presence. The study claims that AI copy is showing up in some national outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. This appears to be a similar, if smaller scale, issue as the Sun-Times incident: Almost all of the instances were in opinion pieces from third parties, though it appears to be happening around 4–5% of the time. That suggests third parties are using AI in their writing process without telling the publication. In all likelihood, they’re not aware of the outlet’s AI policy, and their writing contracts may be ambiguous. However, it’s not like the rest of the content was totally immune from AI writing; the study revealed it to be present 0.71% of the time. Getting ahead of AI problems All of this speaks to the point about transparency: be straight with your audience and your staff about what’s allowed, and you’ll save yourself headaches later. Of course, policies are only effective with enforcement. With AI text becoming more common and more sophisticated, having effective ways of detecting and dealing with it is a key pillar of maintaining integrity. And dealing with it doesn’t necessarily mean forbidding it. The reality is AI text is here, growing, and not going away. The truism about AI that’s often cited—that today is the worst it will ever be—goes double for its writing ability, as that is at the core of what large language models do. Of course, you can bet there will be train wrecks over AI writing in the future, but they won’t be about who’s using AI to write. They’ll be about who’s doing it irresponsibly. View the full article

Being asked to apply for a promotion is often framed as an unqualified win: validation that your work is seen and your potential recognized. Yet for many high-achieving professionals, that invitation can spark as much ambivalence as excitement. Because the question isn’t only “Can I do this?” It’s also “Do I want to live this way?” Promotions can be career accelerators, but they also reconfigure your days, your priorities, and your sense of balance. The challenge is learning to evaluate the opportunity without being swept away by it—to discern whether it’s truly aligned with this season of your life. The recognition feels good—until the logistics set in There’s an undeniable thrill in being seen. Someone has connected the dots between your competence and your potential. A promotion can expand your reach and amplify your impact. But recognition isn’t the same as readiness. The women I coach rarely question whether they can do the job; they question whether they can do it well while maintaining the life they’ve intentionally built. Before saying yes, imagine your typical Tuesday six months from now. What fills your calendar? What’s energizing—and what’s draining? If the answer feels expansive, that’s information. If it feels heavy, that’s information, too. Beware the “just for practice” mindset Many people apply with low expectations, telling themselves they’re “just interviewing for practice.” But interview processes are designed to entice you—they make you picture yourself in the role and attach to the possibility. That’s not a reason to opt out, but it’s a reason to stay clear-headed. Know what success looks like before you begin, so you’re deciding from intention, not momentum. Ask two grounding questions When you’re stuck between ambition and hesitation, two questions can clarify your thinking: Can I live with the outcome if I don’t apply and dislike who gets the job? If that thought bothers you, it may signal that you care deeply about the work or the direction of your organization. What looks like ambivalence might actually be conviction. Can I live with the outcome if I do apply and don’t get it? If rejection would shake your sense of worth, pause and make sure you have the support to weather it. If you can answer yes to both, you’re operating from clarity rather than fear. Readiness vs. willingness When someone says, “You’d be great for this,” they’re recognizing your readiness. But willingness—the energy and capacity to take it on—is a separate question. You may have every credential yet still feel an internal no. Maybe your kids need you differently right now, or you’ve finally found equilibrium after years of intensity. That’s not a lack of drive—it’s discernment. Sustainable growth depends on timing. The real cost of “up” Leadership often brings influence—but also more meetings, politics, and distance from the work you love most. One client put it bluntly: “I thought a promotion would mean more freedom. It meant more meetings about other people’s freedom.” If the day-to-day realities of the new role sound energizing, that’s your green light. If they sound exhausting, it’s okay to hit pause. Ambition doesn’t have to mean saying yes to everything. Build the infrastructure for success If you move forward, do it deliberately. A bigger job requires a sturdier foundation—at work and at home. Clarify what support you’ll need, what boundaries will sustain you, and what you can delegate. Thriving in a higher role isn’t about doing more alone; it’s about designing systems that help you hold more together. Decide—and own it If you say yes, treat the process as a two-way interview. Ask about resources, expectations, and what success actually looks like. Enter the role with curiosity and flexibility, not perfectionism. If you say no, do it with confidence. Try something like: “I’m honored to be considered. Right now, I’m focused on deepening my impact where I am and want to be intentional about my next step.” That’s not avoidance—it’s leadership. The paradox of promotion Promotions are both validating and destabilizing. They can expand your influence—or stretch you too thin. The goal isn’t to make the “right” choice, but an honest one. When someone taps you on the shoulder and says, “You should apply,” take the compliment. Then take a breath. Listen to both voices inside you—the one that craves growth and the one that craves peace. True wisdom lives in the space between them. View the full article

Tech leaders say systems now rival human intelligence in key tasks, further fuelling the superintelligence debateView the full article

UK broadcaster says uncertain economic outlook causing widespread cautionView the full article

Matt outworked his peers and risen a rung too high on the career ladder—at least, too high for the good of anything but his insecure ego. Constantly fearing his bluff would be blown, he overcompensated by striving to impress upward while leading from fear. His anxiety seeped through his management team, then filtered into the ranks beneath, chipping away at everyone’s courage. He micromanaged, filtered feedback, and pushed out anyone who challenged him—the best, brightest, and boldest. When crisis hit, his “play not to lose” mentality magnified while competitors gained ground Chances are you’ve met someone like Matt. They’re crushing every deadline, exceeding every target, climbing every ladder. But look closer, and you may also see fractured relationships, disenchanted colleagues, and toxic team dynamics in their wake. Meet the “insecure overachiever”—exceptionally capable people whose deep-seated insecurities override their nobler aspirations. These aren’t garden-variety workaholics. They’re high performers driven by a gnawing fear of not being enough: not smart enough, valued enough, worthy enough. The distinction between healthy ambition and insecure overachievement is deceptively subtle. Both deliver results. But healthy ambition stems from wanting to contribute value and build connection, while insecure overachievement is fueled by the need to prove worth and alleviate anxiety. Why The Best Workers Can Destroy The Most Value What makes this pattern problematic is that organizations often reward the dysfunction. Insecure overachievers stay later, work harder, say yes faster, and consistently over-deliver. Those in power generally love them—until the hidden costs surface: toxic cultures, talent loss, and teams that become competitive battlegrounds rather than collaborative ecosystems. The warning signs can be subtle. Wins bring only fleeting relief before anxiety about the next goal kicks in. They sacrifice essentials—sleep, health, relationships—for work extras. Self-worth becomes dangerously intertwined with output: a bad day at work equals being a bad human. Here’s where it gets destructive: insecurity rarely stays contained. Insecure overachievers often shore up fragile egos by diminishing others. When your worth feels constantly threatened, making others feel smaller provides temporary relief. Axios cofounder Jim VandeHei put it bluntly “Nothing destroys more relationships, teams, or companies than insecure people in power,” he warned. “It’s an insidious form of cancer.” Breaking Free Without Breaking Down Recognizing yourself in this pattern? The good news: breaking free doesn’t mean abandoning ambition. It means realigning it from proving something to improving something. Find Your Summon Bonum. Roman philosopher Cicero coined this phrase—Latin for “the highest good”—believing everyone should aspire toward it. Until we’re more committed to a positive future outcome, our actions will be governed by fear of a negative one. Trade proving for improving. When all your energy focuses on impressing others, it’s taken from improving yourself and tapping into your creative faculty to bring smarter solutions. The irony? Shifting from external validation to personal growth and contribution creates more sustainable success—and greater respect—over time. Instead of “What did others think?” ask “What did I learn?” Schedule non-negotiable recovery. Treat rest like any other crucial meeting. Organizational psychologist Adam Grant’s research demonstrates that meaningful contribution—not endless output—drives long-term well-being and sustainable performance. Practice radical self-compassion. Talk to yourself like you would a trusted friend facing the same struggles. Dr. Kristin Neff’s research shows self-compassion actually improves performance by reducing the fear that fuels over-functioning. Embrace the insecure part of yourself; befriend that younger version who learned that achievement equaled love. Leading Insecure Overachievers If you manage these high performers, resist the temptation to simply enjoy their output while ignoring their patterns. Left unchecked, their behaviors can poison entire teams. Spot the early warnings. Notice team members who rarely delegate, constantly seek reassurance despite competence, take more credit than due, or obsess over managing upward while neglecting their own teams. Like Matt, they create competitive rather than collaborative environments. Have direct conversations about workload and help them see how their drive affects team dynamics, not just individual metrics. Recognize effort, not just results. Focus on contribution over competition. Acknowledge people for who they are, not only what they produce. Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety shows that when people feel safe to be imperfect, teams become more innovative and resilient. Model healthy boundaries. If you’re sending midnight emails and working weekends, you’re reinforcing the very behaviors you want to change. Demonstrate that rest and boundaries are professional strengths, not weaknesses. The Path Forward Organizations need ambitious, competitive, and driven professionals. But the healthiest ambition comes from being committed to outcomes that transcend self-interest and insecurity alleviation. Organizations whose leaders are more committed to purposeful growth over impression management will ultimately outperform others. The real question isn’t whether you’re achieving enough—it’s whether you’re achieving for the right reasons, and whether your drive lifts others up or tears them down. Sustainable success isn’t about proving your worth at others’ expense. It’s about expressing your potential while helping others do the same. Don’t be a Matt. The world has enough insecure overachievers already. View the full article

Former Tory minister Sir John Redwood and City executive Mark Dowding contribute to CFABB reportView the full article

Libertarian president vows to double down on radical transformation of Argentina’s economy after midterm election victoryView the full article

Use of derivatives to enhance bets on UK government bonds raises parallels with strategies that fuelled 2022 meltdownView the full article

Big Four firm says move reflects better management of workloads View the full article

On Jeff Bezos’s defence of AI maniaView the full article

Mohammed bin Salman’s utopian city was undone by the laws of physics and financeView the full article

The lender reported $33.3 million in net income in the third quarter this year, up from the second quarter and same period a year earlier. View the full article

Chancellor looks to offset a forecast sharp drop in government revenue from fuel duty View the full article

Anna's Archive, a popular website for pirating books and articles, seems to be square in Google's sights, according to copyright and digital rights publication TorrentFreak. The search giant is said to have blocked some 749 million Anna's Archive URLs from showing up in search results, TorrentFreak found, after combing through a recent transparency report. The removal wasn't necessarily targeted, as Google regularly delists content at the request of copyright holders. At time of this writing, has taken down links to 15,125,359,564 pages since 2011. But this is the latest in an ongoing, AI-prompted saga that is seeing copyright holders crack down on so-called "shadow libraries," and it already represents around 5% of Google's overall takedowns. Anna's Archive is a platform for pirated e-booksPersonally, I hadn't heard of Anna's Archive, which makes sense—it's a newer player in the field. The platform popped up in 2022, shortly after its predecessor, Z-Library, had its domains seized by the U.S. Department of Justice. Since then, it's been quietly operating on its own little corner of the internet, serving as an open-source search engine for literary works that links to free publicly available sources when they exist, and pirated uploads when they don't. Like Z-Library, it's been blocked by German ISPs and sued in the U.S., but remains operational. You can think of it kind of like the Pirate Bay, but for literary works—but on a larger scale (impressive given how new it is). TorrentFreak notes that only 4.2 million Pirate Bay URLs have been taken off Google, which is paltry compared to Anna's Archive's numbers. AI scraping could be a factorThat discrepancy could be due to more aggressive takedown filing from publishers and authors, as more than 1,000 separate users have issued takedown requests to date, according to the Google data. These include both individuals and larger names like Penguin Random House, and their diligence could be related to Anna's Archives' stance on AI, as the site has admitted that it has freely provided access to 30 LLM developers to train on its "illegal archive of books," and still openly hosts freely accessible pages for others to access. Where copyright holders and readers will go from here is still up in the air. It's important to note that, despite all appearances to the contrary, Google does not own the internet. Removing a site from its search engine does not prevent users from visiting it directly, and all three Anna's Archive domains—annas-archive.org, annas-archive.se, and annas-archive.li—remain live. Additionally, Anna's Archive does not host any pirated content itself, but simply provides users to links where they can find it. All of this puts it in a legal gray area, which, when backed by the site's open-source nature and strong commitment to the ideal that "preserving and hosting these files is morally right," means it's likely to continue in some form or another for years. Still, as companies like Meta are found to have used pirated content to train its AI models, it's likely actions that Google's will become more common, and other sites, or even legal entities, might follow suit. Plan accordingly. (And if, like me, you've been asking yourself "Who the heck is Anna?" the archive's FAQ has an answer: "You are Anna." It's a nod at the anonymous uploaders who provide it with much of its material.) View the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Meta has begun rolling out its latest firmware update for its Ray-Ban and Oakley smart glasses. The update, V19.2, is available this week, and improves Garmin integration and video recording for both first and second generation Ray-Ban Meta and Oakley Meta wearables. Ray-Ban Meta - Wayfarer Large glasses with Meta AI, Audio, Photo, Video Compatibility - Polarized Gradient Graphite Lens (Refurbished) - Matte Black $263.00 at Best Buy Get Deal Get Deal $263.00 at Best Buy The improvements to Garmin device integration lets Meta users sync Garmin stats to videos and photos, ask Meta AI for health info, and get real-time voice updates of fitness metrics while active. These features were previously exclusive to Oakley Meta Vanguard glasses, but now everyone has access. As for the improvements to videos, the update introduces selectable stabilization modes (auto, low, medium, and high), the ability to record clips that are five minutes long (up from three minutes), and the option of recording 1080p video at 60 FPS—not bad for a camera you wear on your face. Oakley | Meta HSTN - with Meta AI, Audio, Photo, Video Compatibility - Black, Prizm™ Black Polarized $449.00 at Amazon Get Deal Get Deal $449.00 at Amazon How to update your Meta smart glassesIf you have Meta glasses set to "automatic update," all you have to do is make sure your specs have power and are connected to your phone via Bluetooth and they'll automatically update over the air. If you want to check for an update manually, follow these steps: Open the Meta AI app. Click the glasses icon at the top right. Select the Gear icon next to the glasses. Hit "Updates" Hit "Check" to see if your device is up-to-date. Meta's update schedule is impressiveRay-Ban Metas have been my daily-wear glasses for over a year now and they're my choice for best overall smart glasses on the market. One of the reasons I like them so much is that Meta provides regular software updates. The company makes fixes and adds features approximately every six to eight weeks, and they're usually notable improvements. August's update added AI photo restyling and Google and Outlook calendar integration, and May's update added Live AI and translation features. The pace of updates is on par with a platform instead of a gadget, making these smart glasses feel like they're designed for the long haul, instead of a "buy one this year, then buy the new one next year" gadget. View the full article

Social media group will integrate the artificial intelligence search engine within its appView the full article

Previously, Kim was a managing director in J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s strategic investments group, where she managed a diverse portfolio of fintech investments. 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. Ahead of Black Friday, Amazon has discounted several versions of the Google Pixel 10. Right now, you can get the Google Pixel 10 Pro XL with 256 GB of storage and 16 GB of RAM for $899 (originally $1,199), marking a record-low price according to price-tracking tools. Google Pixel 10 Pro XL $899.00 at Amazon $1,199.00 Save $300.00 Get Deal Get Deal $899.00 at Amazon $1,199.00 Save $300.00 Built with aluminum and Corning Gorilla Glass Victus 2, the phone has an IP68 rating, meaning it can withstand dust and be submerged to 1.5 meters for up to 30 minutes. Its 6.8″ Super Actua display reaches 3,300-nit peak brightness, making it easier to use in direct sunlight. Powered by the Google Tensor G5 chip, it integrates AI tools like the Magic Cue and Gemini Live, which help you brainstorm or point your camera at something you want more information about. The camera system offers 50 MP images and 8K video in low light. It has a 42 MP main lens, a 48 MP ultrawide lens, and a 48 MP telephoto with up to 100× digital zoom. The battery should last over 24 hours on a charge, and up to 100 hours with Extreme Battery Saver turned on. It takes between 77 and 90 minutes to fully charge and reaches around 70% in half an hour with a wired 45W charger. Google promises seven years of software support, which ensures lasting performance and security updates down the line. Altogether, the currently discounted Google Pixel 10 Pro XL is a great option for Android users who want to level up with a bigger, faster, and more powerful phone with impressive camera performance. Our Best Editor-Vetted Tech Deals Right Now Apple AirPods 4 Wireless Earbuds — $119.00 (List Price $129.00) Apple iPad 11" 128GB A16 WiFi Tablet (Blue, 2025) — $299.00 (List Price $349.00) Shark AI Ultra Matrix Clean Mapping Voice Control Robot Vacuum with XL Self-Empty Base — $299.99 (List Price $599.00) Bose QuietComfort Noise Cancelling Wireless Headphones — $199.00 (List Price $349.00) Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Plus — $29.99 (List Price $49.99) Google Pixel 10 Pro 128GB Unlocked Phone (Obsidian) — $749.00 (List Price $999.00) Amazon Fire HD 10 (2023) — $69.99 (List Price $139.99) Introducing Amazon Fire TV 55" Omni Mini-LED Series, QLED 4K UHD smart TV, Dolby Vision IQ, 144hz gaming mode, Ambient Experience, hands-free with Alexa, 2024 release — $699.99 (List Price $819.99) Google Nest Cam Indoor (Wired, 3rd Gen) - Security Camera with 2K Video and Gemini, Night Vision, 2-Way Audio, Works with Google Home - 2025 Model - Snow — $74.99 (List Price $99.99) Sony WH-1000XM5 — $328.00 (List Price $399.99) Deals are selected by our commerce team View the full article

Russian president asks officials to draft proposals amid fears of a new atomic arms raceView the full article