ResidentialBusiness

Elon Musk is the kind of entrepreneur who likes to have an enemy as motivation—traditional carmakers, the mainstream media, the “deep state.” His newest undertaking, launched October 27, is no exception: Grokipedia is positioned as an alternative to Wikipedia, which Musk claims is biased and “woke.” A product of Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, Grokipedia’s inner workings are unclear, but the pitch is that it’s an AI-generated compendium of what Musk calls “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” One major factor that makes Grokipedia different from Musk’s other rival-fueled enterprises is that Wikipedia is quite popular, well-liked, and widely trusted. There’s no substantial burgeoning dissatisfaction with or opposition to Wikipedia fueling demand for an alternative. To the contrary, in the world of mass-market information, it’s one of the strongest brands out there. This wasn’t always the case. Founded in 2001, Wikipedia’s crowdsourced alternative to a traditional encyclopedia was treated with skepticism for its first decade or so, as consumers weighed the merits of formal expertise against what came to be called crowdsourcing. But by the mid-2010s, its trust grew even as long-established information brands struggled. For example, in a YouGov survey in the U.K., 64% of respondents said they trust Wikipedia “a great deal” or “a fair amount,” beating out the likes of the BBC and The Times; a five-country survey in 2019 found trust of Wikipedia at 78% or better. For techno-optimists, Wikipedia was touted as a portent of the internet’s utopian work-together future. In a world where top-down information “gatekeepers” were no longer trusted, Wikipedia attained a Web-era version of gravitas, a crowdsourced Walter Cronkite. That vision was replaced by the divisive realities of social media, but Wikipedia has hung on, remaining one of the world’s most popular sites, recognized as one of the great collective efforts of humanity, built on a robust internal debate structure from thousands upon thousands of individual contributors all around the world. Prior to Grokipedia’s launch, Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales spoke to The New York Times about his new book, which “tries to apply the lessons of Wikipedia’s success to our increasingly partisan, trust-depleted world.” On the subject of Musk, Wales shrugged: “We’ll be here in a hundred years and he won’t. As long as we stay Wikipedia, people will still love us.” The truth is that the rise of AI more generally could pose a threat to Wikipedia: AI summaries in Google searches are already said to be cutting into Wikipedia traffic, and that could impact the combination of donations and volunteers that keep the effort afloat. But as for Grokipedia itself, the site is off to a rocky start. Wired found that it “pushes far-right talking points” on gender and other issues. The Atlantic noted that the entry for Musk himself left out reference to his apparently pro-apartheid grandfather, but did note that he’d lost 20 pounds. Some found that Grokipedia had, in multiple cases, simply rehashed its rival’s entries, and others just saw it as a bland knockoff, the exact opposite of Wikipedia’s human touch and originality. (Musk’s xAI has not been transparent about exactly how entries are chosen or assembled, but reports suggest they appear to be generated by some iteration of its Grok chatbot, seemingly working off Wikipedia entries in at least some cases.) But even Cronkite had skeptics, so of course Wikipedia does, too. Musk’s complaints about the online encyclopedia (specifically his own entry) fall in line with a wider conservative line of attack. These critics insist that Wikipedia has “systemic ideological biases—particularly a left-leaning slant in coverage of political figures and topics.” (Or at least that’s what Grokipedia says.) In a war of credibility, Wikipedia has become a formidable opponent, maybe especially to Musk. “For many people, their level of trust in Elon Musk is extremely low because he says wild things all the time,” Wales told The Times. “When he attacks us, people donate more money.” View the full article

Business minister hails food group’s listing as sign of stock market revivalView the full article

Walk into any grocery store to stock up for Halloween and you will discover that, for chocolate treats, you have two basic choices: Will it be Mars or Hershey? I often buy both, but that is beside the point. The point is that the two giants compete for market share, but both enjoy robust sales. In other words, a relatively stable duopoly defines the U.S. chocolate candy market. But it wasn’t always like this. Before the 1960s, the Hershey Chocolate Corp. reigned supreme as the undisputed chocolate king. It was in that decade that Mars went for Hershey’s jugular. Hershey Chocolate’s response brought lasting change to its candy business, the local community, and Hershey Park, its chocolate-themed amusement park. As a professor of American studies at Penn State Harrisburg who has recently published a book on Hershey Park, I am astounded by how these changes continue to reverberate today. Milton Hershey’s paternalistic capitalism Before the 1960s, change was not a word one associated with either the town of Hershey, Pennsylvania, or its famous chocolate company. Better words would be “stability” and “productivity”—and this was by the founder’s design. Milton Hershey When Milton Hershey entered the confection industry in the 1880s, violent clashes between corporations and labor roiled American society. Hershey imagined a better way: paternalistic capitalism. In the early 1900s, he built a chocolate factory and planned community out in the farms and pastures of central Pennsylvania. Instead of offering men and women wage-earning jobs and nothing else, he took care of his workers. They owned nice homes and benefited from a generous array of free or subsidized services and amenities: snow removal, garbage collection, trolley lines, good schools, a junior college, zoo, museum, sports arena, library, community center, and theater. They even had their own amusement park. But this was a reciprocal relationship. In return, employees were expected to work hard, exhibit loyalty, practice clean living, and refrain from labor agitation. With the exception of a strike during the Great Depression, the company and town lived in harmony. Milton Hershey called the place an “industrial utopia,” and residents largely agreed. “Moving to Hershey,” one recalled, “was like moving to paradise.” Harmony also defined Hershey’s relations with Mars. At the time, Hershey produced only solid chocolate—think of Hershey bars and Kisses. In contrast, Frank Mars’s company specialized in chocolate-covered snacks, such as Snickers or Milky Way, in which milk chocolate is poured over nuts, caramel, or nougat. Where did that chocolate coating come from? Hershey, of course. In those days, Mars was a client, not a rival. Without competition, Hershey enjoyed the luxury of not having to worry about market share. Amazingly, the company did not advertise under Milton Hershey and continued this policy after his death in 1945. Hershey in crisis Everything changed in 1964. The catalyst for change was Forrest Mars, the founder’s hard-charging son, who was a true disrupter. After seizing control of his father’s company, Forrest Mars set his sights on dethroning Hershey. As reporter and author Joël Glenn Brenner explains, the younger Mars boldly terminated the partnership with Hershey while ordering his engineers to learn how to make Hershey-caliber chocolate in six months. He also modernized the factory and ordered a surge in advertising, all to wrestle market share away from Hershey, the “sleeping giant.” The strategy worked. By the decade’s end, Mars had caught Hershey in terms of market share and pushed the chocolate colossus into crisis. The good news for Hershey was that it had at the helm two forward-looking leaders, Harold Mohler and Bill Dearden. Though standard practice had always been to hire locally and from within, Mohler and Dearden recruited outsiders with MBAs from Harvard and Wharton to initiate sweeping reforms aimed at modernizing its archaic business practices. The company opened a public relations office, conducted market research, installed IBM mainframe computers to crunch numbers, retrained its sales force, and created a marketing department. Many employees, a new executive joked, were so behind the times that they had thought marketing was “what their wives did . . . with a shopping cart.” This effort culminated with the release of the company’s first TV commercials starting in 1969. The sleeping giant had awoken. The company’s next move altered the town forever. As a cost-cutting measure, it terminated the free services and amenities at the core of Milton Hershey’s vision. The era of paternalism was over. As the company liquidated assets, residents howled in protest. “It was a very traumatic time for the community,” one executive recalled. For residents, the only consolation was that at least the amusement park would stay the same. Or would it? By the late 1960s, Hershey Park had degenerated into what one executive called “an iron park with a bunch of clanging rides.” Leadership faced a pivotal decision: renovate the park or close it forever. The park had such a “rich heritage,” one executive recalled, that to shutter it would “put a stamp of negative feeling within the community.” The company elected to renovate. Hersheypark’s transformation But how to renovate was another matter. In the 1960s and 1970s, owners of traditional amusement parks had to think twice before investing in their properties. That was because Disneyland, the nation’s first theme park, had caused a sensation when it debuted in 1955. Its incredible popularity, and the opening of the more spectacular Disney World in 1971, placed pressure on old-fashioned amusement parks everywhere. After commissioning a feasibility study, Hershey officials decided to gamble: Instead of fixing up the old amusement park, they would convert it into a Disney-style theme park. To pay for the massive overhaul, they redirected capital earned from the dismantling of Milton Hershey’s paternalism. Reborn as “Hersheypark” in 1973, the ever-growing complex has become a mecca for chocolate lovers and thrill-ride seekers from across the Northeast. Every year, Halloween reminds me of this remarkable transformation. The stores become stocked with Hershey brands, and the theme park comes alive with its spooky “Dark Nights” entertainment. In the past, workers at the Hershey plant would joke that they had “chocolate syrup in their veins.” These days, they clearly have innovation, too, and that creative spirit is largely due to Forrest Mars. By giving Hershey the jolt it needed, he shook up the status quo and changed the chocolate company, town, and park forever. Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. John Haddad is a professor of American studies at Penn State. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. View the full article

A year ago, direct air capture—technology that pulls CO2 from the air—seemed ready to quickly scale in the U.S. Project Cypress, a massive undertaking in Louisiana designed to capture more than a million tons of CO2 each year, won $50 million in funding from the Department of Energy in early 2024. In Texas, another major direct air capture hub also won funding. Together, the projects were eligible for as much as $1.1 billion from the DOE, part of $3.5 billion Congress set aside for DAC hubs in the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Climeworks, a pioneer in the industry and one of the partners on the Louisiana project, was hiring a U.S. team, scaling up a new plant in Iceland, and signing large deals to sell carbon removal to companies like British Airways and Morgan Stanley. Heirloom, another tech company working on the Louisiana hub, closed a $150 million Series B round of funding. CarbonCapture, another startup in the space, raised $80 million. Multiple other DAC projects also won DOE grants. The situation is different now. In one round of cuts, according to a leaked list, the DOE might revoke around $50 million in grants to 10 different direct air capture projects. (The cuts are part of more than $7.5 billion in cancellations for what the administration calls “Green New Scam” funding.) A second leaked spreadsheet suggests that the flagship hubs in Louisiana and Texas might also be at risk. Earlier this year, Heirloom laid off some workers and reportedly canceled a planned project. Climeworks also had a round of layoffs. At the same time, a few projects are moving forward, and one key tax credit is still in place. Government support isn’t the only thing keeping the industry afloat. But the technology is still in the so-called valley of death—the stage when it still hasn’t reached large-scale commercial deployment—and funding cuts would be a major blow. Even as other countries offer incentives, it could slow down the industry globally. “I think it could slow down substantially,” says Eric O’Rear, associate director at the economic and policy research firm the Rhodium Group. “If you look at it from a policy perspective, the U.S. was really dominating this space.” From boom to uncertainty As an industry, direct air capture is still in its infancy. The technology was proven in a lab 26 years ago, but the first commercial plant, run by Climeworks in Iceland, didn’t open until 2021. It was a milestone, but tiny compared to what’s needed: It captures 4,000 tons of CO2 a year, or roughly as much as driving 930 gas cars over the same period. To deal with climate change, the world may need to capture 10 billion tons of CO2 a year by the middle of the century, according to one National Academy of Sciences estimate. (That’s on top of radically cutting emissions, not as a replacement.) Critics have argued that the technology is too expensive to be a realistic solution. But the companies developing it say that scaling up will bring costs down, both because of economies of scale and because engineers can learn by doing, improving materials and processes as they go. “Our approach, ‘deployment-led innovation,’ involves running DAC plants in the field for rapid, real-world learning,” Climeworks CEO Christoph Gebald told Fast Company in 2024. Now the company says that one key component of its tech, the sorbent, lasts 10 times longer than before, and it’s working on cutting its energy use in half, which would also cut costs in half. The company aims for a cost of $250 to $350 per ton captured by 2030. Ultimately, the industry aims to achieve $100 per ton—a tipping point that would make it affordable enough to be deployed at a very large scale. The first corporate buyers are early-stage adopters willing to pay much higher prices to help the technology grow. The two large planned DAC plants in Louisiana and Texas could help accelerate that process. But the future of those projects is still not clear. In a statement after a leaked spreadsheet listed the projects, the Department of Energy said that “no additional projects have been terminated,” and that the DOE “continues to conduct an individualized and thorough review of financial awards made by the previous administration.” Both projects have bipartisan support from state leaders, and when they were on a DOE “hit list” earlier in 2025, Republican leaders helped keep Project Cypress alive, at least temporarily. But it’s possible neither project will continue. Smaller direct air capture hubs that had planned on DOE funding may also struggle to continue—or possibly move. CarbonCapture, a startup that planned to install its tech in Arizona this year, has already relocated that project to Canada, to a site called Deep Sky that’s designed to help multiple companies scale up their technology in one place. Deep Sky announced last week that it plans to build a second large facility in Canada. The Canadian government offers strong incentives for DAC companies to build new plants. Some other countries, from Denmark to Japan, also have incentives for DAC projects. “Globally, we are seeing carbon removal continuing to scale,” says Ben Rubin, executive director of the Carbon Business Council. “I think the big question is, who will be home to those economic benefits and who will be home to those jobs?” Project Cypress, for example, was expected to create 2,300 jobs and bring billions of dollars to Louisiana’s economy. For the climate, it doesn’t matter if direct air capture happens in the U.S. or Iceland or Kenya. But the U.S. government, under President Joe Biden, started to take a leadership role in helping the tech grow faster. The political changes could slow global progress. What’s moving forward Some DAC projects are still underway, with or without government support. In Texas, 1PointFive, a subsidiary of the oil giant Occidental, is building a sprawling facility that could capture up to 500,000 tons of CO2 a year. 1PointFive told Fast Company that the facility is on track to start running this year—at which point it will be the largest direct air capture operation in the world. Some of the captured CO2 could be injected underground to help get more oil out of old oil wells, a controversial move from a climate perspective. But some of it will also be permanently stored in deep rock formations or depleted oil or gas wells. Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency granted the company permits to inject millions of tons of CO2 in storage wells over the next 12 years. The captured CO2 could also be used to make everything from plastic to jet fuel. The project, called Stratos, doesn’t have any DOE funding. Microsoft, one of the project’s customers, agreed in 2024 to buy 500,000 tons of CO2 removal over the next six years, with the caveat that the CO2 won’t be used in oil production. BlackRock invested $550 million; the total cost may be more than $1.3 billion. Others are moving forward with smaller pilots. Avnos, a California-based startup, is nearing completion on a pilot called Project Brighton that was funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, and plans to begin operation before the end of the year. The company has an unusual hybrid approach that could potentially reach low costs earlier than others like Climeworks. Along with capturing CO2, it also captures water. The tech’s design means that it can cut energy use in half or more, dramatically cutting the overall expense. (At its first large project, it expects to capture CO2 for less than $250 per ton; as it scales up, CEO Will Kain says, it has a “good line of sight” to $100 per ton.) Because the technology produces water from the air, it also has the opportunity to potentially be used at water-hungry data centers, or at facilities that want to use CO2 to make products like chemicals and need water for those processes as well. Avnos is involved in DAC hub projects with DOE funding, and hasn’t yet heard what the ultimate fate of those projects will be. But it also has deliberately looked for a variety of sources of funding for other projects. “We’re diversifying our sources of funding,” Kain says. How the industry could keep growing Kain is still optimistic about the industry. “The global momentum for carbon removal is very strong,” he says. Even in the U.S., when most of the clean energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act were axed by Congress this summer, a tax credit for direct air capture stayed in place and was actually expanded. (Now projects that use CO2 to make other products can get the same incentive as projects that permanently store CO2 underground.) If federal support for new projects wanes, as expected, “it certainly makes it harder for us to deploy first-of-a-kind pilots in the U.S.,” Kain says. “So companies like us have to get a little bit creative in how you fund.” Some companies are also working on new ways to lower the cost of direct air capture and work without government grants, including a Denver-based startup called Heimdal. The company has an unusual approach: Instead of using large fans to pull in air and extract CO2, it uses calcium oxide, a mineral that naturally reacts with the gas to capture it. “It’s very simple,” says Marcus Lima, cofounder and CEO. “It’s literally just spraying rocks on the ground.” The rocks are later heated up in a kiln to release the CO2 for storage or use. The cost is already low, at around $200 per ton. The startup opened a facility in Oklahoma in August 2024 that can capture up to 5,000 tons of CO2 per year. To help with costs, it makes some compromises that some competitors wouldn’t—selling the CO2 for use in oil production, and using natural gas as an energy source. But Lima argues that those are stepping stones toward an ideal for future operation. He also believes that companies should focus on bringing costs down without relying on grants. “My view is, at least for capital projects, federal funding should serve as an accelerant, as an enabler,” he says. “What we’re seeing now with the change of administration and the general cooling in the climate-tech capital markets is kind of a return to earth. Reality now starts to matter a lot more, because you don’t have hundreds of millions of dollars in the venture markets that you can just have like that. Projects need to make money.” Even companies with lower costs may face more challenges in getting investment now. “With this pullback in federal support, there is going to be increased uncertainty as it relates to how healthy the environment is for investing in the U.S.,” says Rhodium Group’s O’Rear. It still isn’t clear what will happen in the U.S. But more federal support would also help companies test a bigger variety of approaches to the technology. “We don’t know which of these technologies is going to be best at scale—best economic performance, best technical performance, the right kind of projects that communities want to host,” says Erin Burns, executive director of the carbon removal nonprofit Carbon180. As the world blows past 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, it makes sense to test as many solutions as possible. Without support, some nascent technologies may be lost completely. View the full article

Yes, it’s that time of year again, when most of the U.S. “gains” an extra hour of sleep as we “fall back” from daylight savings to shorter days, colder nights, and standard time. This Sunday, November 2, at 2 a.m local time, we will turn back our clocks to 1 a.m—and that will last until March 8, 2026 (when we will once again usher in daylight saving time). Although getting an extra hour of sleep sounds like a win, here’s what really happens to your health when the clocks change. Darker nights disrupt the body’s natural clock Darker evenings actually disrupt our body’s natural circadian rhythm, our mood, and our metabolism, according to Dr. Zaid Fadul, CEO of Bespoke Concierge MD. “Light is your body’s main ‘time-giver’ that sets your internal clock,” said Fadul, whose practice specializes in integrative medicine with a focus on sleep. “When evenings get darker sooner, your brain releases melatonin earlier, shifting your sleep schedule and throwing off your rhythm.” He added, “This disruption affects hormones like cortisol and insulin, lowering insulin sensitivity and increasing stress while also impacting serotonin and dopamine—the chemicals that control your mood and motivation.” The one-hour clock change also creates “social jet lag,” disrupting your body’s schedule, especially if you’re naturally a night owl, Fadul explained, noting, “Your sleep quality tanks—particularly the deep REM sleep your brain needs—leaving you foggy, tired, and less alert during the day.” While getting extra sleep doesn’t hurt, the issue is most prevalent in the spring, when people lose an hour of sleep. And that can have other impacts on health. How the time change impacts sleep and health Research shows a spike in heart attacks and cardiovascular issues after the switch to daylight saving time in the spring. Moving the clock forward or backward also alters the timing of when heart attacks occur in the week following these time changes, according to research presented at the American College of Cardiology’s 2014 Annual Scientific Session. The time change also affects night-shift workers more—which include a substantial number of the population, such as nurses, police, firefighters, and doctors. The best way to adjust your internal clock Here are Fadul’s recommendations for readjusting your internal clock after the time change. Morning light: Get outside for 10 to 20 minutes of natural sunlight within 30 to 60 minutes of waking up (no sunglasses, unless you really need them). Exposure to morning light is the fastest way to reset your clock. Evening light hygiene: Dim your lights two to three hours before bed and ditch the overhead lighting. Keep screens on warm mode with low brightness—or better yet, put them away. Consistent wake time: Wake up at the same time every day, even if you slept poorly. If you’re dragging, take a quick, 20- to 30-minute nap before 3 p.m. to recharge without messing up your nighttime sleep. Meal timing: Load up on calories and protein earlier in the day, and finish dinner at least three hours before bed. This supports your insulin rhythm and helps your body know when it’s time to wind down. Caffeine and alcohol: Cut off caffeine about eight hours before bedtime. Avoid alcohol during the adjustment window—it might help you feel drowsy, but it wrecks your sleep quality. Movement timing: Take morning or lunchtime walks to get natural light and movement together. Skip intense late-night workouts for the first two to three days after the time changes. Workouts might fire you up when you need to be winding down. Temperature cues: Keep your bedroom cool, around 64 to 66 degrees Fahrenheit (18 to 19 degrees Celsius). Take a warm shower one to two hours before bed—the cooling effect afterward signals your body that it’s time to sleep. View the full article

The consulting firm Accenture recently laid off 11,000 employees while expanding its efforts to train workers to use artificial intelligence. It’s a sharp reminder that the same technology driving efficiency is also redefining what it takes to keep a job. And Accenture isn’t alone. IBM has already replaced hundreds of roles with AI systems, while creating new jobs in sales and marketing. Amazon cut staff even as it expands teams that build and manage AI tools. Across industries, from banks to hospitals and creative companies, workers and managers alike are trying to understand which roles will disappear, which will evolve, and which new ones will emerge. I research and teach at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, studying how technology changes work and decision-making. My students often ask how they can stay employable in the age of AI. Executives ask me how to build trust in technology that seems to move faster than people can adapt to it. In the end, both groups are really asking the same thing: Which skills matter most in an economy where machines can learn? To answer this, I analyzed data from two surveys my colleagues and I conducted over this summer. For the first, the Data Integrity & AI Readiness Survey, we asked 550 companies across the country how they use and invest in AI. For the second, the College Hiring Outlook Survey, we looked at how 470 employers viewed entry-level hiring, workforce development, and AI skills in candidates. These studies show both sides of the equation: those building AI and those learning to work with it. AI is everywhere, but are people ready? More than half of organizations told us that AI now drives daily decision-making, yet only 38% believe their employees are fully prepared to use it. This gap is reshaping today’s job market. AI isn’t just replacing workers; it’s revealing who’s ready to work alongside it. Our data also shows a contradiction. While many companies now depend on AI internally, only 27% of recruiters say they’re comfortable with applicants using AI tools for tasks such as writing résumés or researching salary ranges. In other words, the same tools companies trust for business decisions still raise doubts when job seekers use them for career advancement. Until that view changes, even skilled workers will keep getting mixed messages about what “responsible AI use” really means. In the Data Integrity & AI Readiness Survey, this readiness gap showed up most clearly in customer-facing and operational jobs such as marketing and sales. These are the same areas where automation is advancing quickly, and layoffs tend to occur when technology evolves faster than people can adapt. At the same time, we found that many employers haven’t updated their degree or credential requirements. They’re still hiring for yesterday’s résumés while tomorrow’s work demands fluency in AI. The problem isn’t that people are being replaced by AI; it’s that technology is evolving faster than most workers can adapt. Fluency and trust: The real foundations of adaptability Our research suggests that the skills most closely linked with adaptability share one theme, what I call “human-AI fluency.” This means being able to work with smart systems, question their results, and keep learning as things change. Across companies, the biggest challenges lie in expanding AI, ensuring compliance with ethical and regulatory standards, and connecting AI to real business goals. These hurdles aren’t about coding; they’re about good judgment. In my classes, I emphasize that the future will favor people who can turn machine output into useful human insight. I call this digital bilingualism: the ability to fluently navigate both human judgment and machine logic. What management experts call “reskilling”—or learning new skills to adapt to a new role or major changes in an old one—works best when people feel safe to learn. In our Data Integrity & AI Readiness Survey, organizations with strong governance and high trust were nearly twice as likely to report gains in performance and innovation. The data suggests that when people trust their leaders and systems, they’re more willing to experiment and learn from mistakes. In that way, trust turns technology from something to fear into something to learn from, giving employees the confidence to adapt. According to the College Hiring Outlook Survey, about 86% of employers now offer internal training or online boot camps, yet only 36% say AI-related skills are important for entry-level roles. Most training still focuses on traditional skills rather than those needed for emerging AI jobs. The most successful companies make learning part of the job itself. They build opportunities to learn into real projects and encourage employees to experiment. I often remind leaders that the goal isn’t just to train people to use AI but to help them think alongside it. This is how trust becomes the foundation for growth, and how reskilling helps retain employees. The new rules of hiring In my view, the companies leading in AI aren’t just cutting jobs; they’re redefining them. To succeed, I believe companies will need to hire people who can connect technology with good judgment, question what AI produces, explain it clearly, and turn it into business value. In companies that are putting AI to work most effectively, hiring isn’t just about resumes anymore. What matters is how people apply traits like curiosity and judgment to intelligent tools. I believe these trends are leading to new hybrid roles such as AI translators, who help decision-makers understand what AI insights mean and how to act on them, and digital coaches, who teach teams to work alongside intelligent systems. Each of these roles connects human judgment with machine intelligence, showing how future jobs will blend technical skills with human insight. That blend of judgment and adaptability is the new competitive advantage. The future won’t just reward the most technical workers, but those who can turn intelligence—human or artificial—into real-world value. Murugan Anandarajan is a professor of decision sciences and management information systems at Drexel University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. View the full article

Imagine starting a new job where your onboarding feels personalized just for you, with an AI assistant guiding you through training, introducing you to teammates, and checking in on how you’re settling in. That level of personalization in the workplace isn’t just a concept for the future – it’s already here and happening more rapidly than many HR departments anticipate. AI is transforming HR in the workplace. In 2026, AI won’t just take over repetitive tasks, but it will fundamentally change how companies hire, onboard, coach, and retain employees. The result is HR teams that are more strategic, data-driven, and more human than ever. After more than a decade working in HR tech for small businesses and startups, I’ve seen that when AI is thoughtfully applied, it can enhance both efficiency and empathy. When used effectively, AI helps HR leaders focus less on paperwork and administrative tasks and more on the employees. AI is helping HR leaders drive meaningful change and streamline operations, all while preserving the human touch that’s at the heart of great workplaces. Here’s how I see AI reshaping HR in 2026 and the years to come: Streamlining Operations with AI AI is already automating many of HR’s most time-consuming tasks, from managing benefits to answering employee questions. IBM’s “Ask HR” platform, for example, is automating hundreds of roles previously devoted to automating answers to common inquiries. This kind of change allows HR professionals to redirect their time toward strategy, culture and engagement. AI is managing software and systems that previously couldn’t communicate. There are 5,700 pieces of payroll and HR software, most of which don’t talk to each other and need someone to manage them. The task of managing this software is ideal for AI automation, especially workflows, onboarding/offboarding, compliance & audits, and high-priority HR employee requests. It’s not always about efficiency. As automation advances, companies must ensure the human experience doesn’t get lost. The next generation of HR tools will blend speed with compassion, using AI to make employee interactions smoother and more supportive. Personalized Onboarding Workflows The first 90 days are critical for the retention and productivity of new hires. AI-driven onboarding systems can now customize each step of the process, tailoring introductions, training plans, and check-ins based on each role, skills, and personality. Instead of one-size-fits-all onboarding, new hires receive an experience that feels relevant and personal from the first day on the job. That level of automation and personalization not only accelerates ramp-up time but also builds a stronger sense of belonging, individualizing the journey for every new team member. Digital Coaching and Real-Time Support Coaching used to be an extra perk reserved for executives. Now, AI-powered tools and confidential chatbots embedded in Slack or Teams are bringing that level of guidance to everyone. These integrated tools can offer personalized collaborative feedback, monitor engagement trends, and provide employees with a safe, always-on space for support and sharing. The result is an environment where learning and growth become endless and available to all. Doing More with Leaner Teams In the startup world, especially, founders are increasingly scaling HR functions before hiring senior HR leaders. With AI platforms now able to assist with recruiting, compliance, and employee engagement, small teams can manage complex workforce needs effectively. Some are spending way too much time in the weeds of HR, manually tracking state registrations, scrambling to handle onboarding paperwork and worrying about payroll accuracy and compliance. With AI-powered tools, companies can focus on scaling their business and let the software ensure that every detail is done right. This ultimately gives founders their time back and makes HR a solved problem. This newer and more “lean HR” model allows startups to focus on strategy and workplace growth rather than administrative tasks, demonstrating that technology and AI tools can democratize access to quality HR, rather than replace it. Keeping Humans in the Loop The best AI systems will never replace the responsiveness and creativity of HR professionals. Instead, they’ll enhance and complement those skills. A “human-in-the-loop” approach ensures that technology supports human judgment, rather than replacing it. When humans and AI work together, HR teams can build workplaces that are not just efficient but also resilient and more connected. The future of HR isn’t about replacing people with algorithms. It’s about empowering people with better tools, platforms and resources. AI will take care of the repetitive so that humans can focus on trust, connection, and culture in the workplace. The true promise of AI in HR is not about losing humanity but enhancing it. View the full article

Former Goldman executive is a longtime board member of the fintech, which has struggled to win a UK banking licenceView the full article

Open hostility and high visa fees are a risky bet amid intensifying competition for the world’s brightest and bestView the full article

A year on from his re-election, diplomacy is being driven by the personal whims of the president to an extent that is unprecedented in the modern eraView the full article

UK chancellor in discussions over plans to reform the contentious welfare policyView the full article

Russian foreign ministry’s maximalist demands for ending Ukraine war led US to scrap planned meetingView the full article

Informa boss Stephen Carter resigns from House of Lords ahead of relocation to rapidly growing regionView the full article

All-round expertise is lacking, but urgently needed to run key public services efficientlyView the full article

Improving your work life doesn’t always require sweeping changes. Sometimes, the most effective strategies are the simplest ones, whether that’s protecting time for personal care, restructuring your day for better focus, or carving out moments with family. These small adjustments can reduce stress, restore balance, and promote better productivity and focus. Here, Fast Company Executive Board members share the simple changes they’ve made that have significantly improved the quality of their work lives and why these shifts are worth considering. 1. DESIGNATING ‘OFF-LIMITS’ HOURS I protect my time, headspace, and energy. I have designated hours every day that are “off limits,” dedicated to my workout, personal matters, and focus time. I do not allow myself to take any “urgent” calls or meetings, unless there’s an absolute emergency during those dedicated hours. I treat those daily hours just as vital as I treat my meeting hours. – Slma Shelbayah, Shelbayah Consulting 2. TURNING OFF PUSH NOTIFICATIONS I turn off notifications on all devices for email and Slack to avoid the temptation to check messages when they come in and instead batch-read and respond. Doing so helps avoid context switching, which is far more costly than we like to admit. Also, when on vacation, I actually remove the email and Slack icons from my phone’s home screen to add a slight extra hurdle to checking messages too frequently. – Kurt Donnell, Freestar 3. BLOCKING TIME FOR STRATEGIC IDEATION I block time on my calendar for strategic ideation, review of decisions made during the week, and reflection on whether I am making decisions and engaging in work consistent with my values. I also work the calendar rather than it working me. – Jay Bhatt, Deloitte 4. WALKING AND BRAINSTORMING IN THE MORNINGS In the mornings, when it’s not too hot or too cold, I go for a walk and I talk with Perplexity voice mode, organizing my day, brainstorming my challenges, thoughts, and more. This way, I get my steps in and don’t waste the precious morning alertness on useless things. – Al Sefati, Clarity Digital, LLC 5. HITTING A DAILY STEP GOAL Hitting 9,000 steps a day was a game-changer. Even with 14 hours behind a desk, walking eased my hip and back pain. One day, a man I always passed waved and thanked me. He’d started walking too. A small change not only improved my life, but also inspired someone else’s. – Louis Camassa, Rithum 6. SUNDAY JOURNALING I struggle to turn off my “productivity” brain. One Sunday, I sat down and wrote. Not a to-do list, not an email—just a journal entry. Messy, unfiltered, just for me. It felt like exhaling. Now, I make it a practice. Sunday journaling is my pause button, my moment to get all the stuff out of my head and onto paper so I can start the week with a little more clarity—and a little less noise. – Irina Soriano, Seismic 7. PROTECTING DAILY FOCUS TIME One simple change I made was setting boundaries around focus time. I protect a few hours each day where I’m fully present with my work—no emails, no noise. It works because it restores clarity, reduces stress, and turns tasks into creative flow. Protecting your energy is the greatest upgrade to your work life. – Sudhir Gupta, FACTICERIE 8. DEDICATING WEEKENDS TO NATURE I have dedicated my weekends to being outdoors in nature, hiking, and totally disconnecting from work. This time away from work allows me to recharge, think clearly, and come to work on Monday not feeling burned out. Making this change was slight. As well as taking this time for myself, I am also more focused, energized, and satisfied with work. – Gianluca Ferruggia, DesignRush 9. SETTING ASIDE TIME FOR FAMILY One simple change I’ve made is to block out several times during the day to spend with my toddler son. Those moments reenergize me, give me perspective, and actually make me more productive when I return to work. It’s a reminder that recharging doesn’t always mean stepping away completely—it can mean leaning into the things that bring you joy outside of business. – Kristin Marquet, Marquet Media, LLC 10. SAYING NO TO THE WRONG PROJECTS I decided to stop accepting new projects unless they were genuinely committed to safety excellence. Many organizations claim to prioritize safety or that it is a corporate value, but often, their actions tell a different story. By saying no to clients lacking a true commitment to safety, I preserve my focus and energy for work that genuinely resonates with me and aligns with my core values. – Shawn Galloway, ProAct Safety, Inc. 11. OPTIMIZING MY WORK ENVIRONMENT I have optimized my work environment for productivity. I run my company from a home office in a high-rise apartment. I chose this property purposefully because of the cityscape view. I have the latest MacBook Pro, use Ethernet, and have everything organized. I also have inspiring artwork in the property, as well as home plants, and an external monitor. My office is “epic,” so to speak. – Leon Sylvester, Soberclear 12. GOING TO THE GYM DAILY I go to the gym every single day. It’s like making my bed. I feel like I’ve accomplished something by just showing up. It doesn’t have to be intense. Maybe I’ll make a phone call while walking on the treadmill or maybe I’ll just ride the bike and scroll through my emails. Other times, I will push myself on the weight machines and grow my overall confidence, seeing my strength increase over time. – John William Patton, ProVention Health Foundation 13. LIMITING PRIORITIES TO TACKLE EACH WEEK I’ve stopped trying to solve everything at once. Instead, I focus on three to four priorities each week that will truly move the business forward. While it’s not always easy to let go of smaller tasks, this approach has made me a stronger leader and colleague—and it’s also given me back valuable time. – Martin Pedersen, Stellar Agency 14. CHOOSING A WORK LOCATION BASED ON TASKS Here’s a simple change that’s improved my work life. I’ve started to “work for my day.” I head into the office for the moments that truly matter—collaboration, connection, big conversations—and I work from home when I need quiet focus to knock out thoughtful tasks without interruptions. It’s been a game-changer for both productivity and balance. – Britton Bloch, Navy Federal Credit Union 15. CLEANING UP MY DIGITAL WORKSPACE The change I made was cleaning up my digital workspace. Every week, I clean folders and files, and even unsubscribe from unnecessary emails. Clutter in the digital world creates hidden stress. By simplifying my digital environment, I cut the friction, save time hunting for information, and reduce the overall mental overload. It’s like decluttering an office, but the one I carry in my pocket. – Volen Vulkov, Enhancv View the full article

The head of the government-sponsored enterprise's oversight agency said the cuts were made to positions that weren't central to mortgages and new home sales. View the full article

Rocket Companies lost $124 million on a GAAP basis, but its management celebrated milestones regarding its Redfin and Mr. Cooper acquisitions. View the full article

If you're getting more scam texts than your friends and family, it turns out it might be your mobile platform, at least going by a recent poll from Google and YouGov. According to Google, users on Android report receiving 58% fewer scam texts than those on iOS, and that number is even better on Pixel devices. Credit: Google That data comes from a survey Google and YouGov conducted of over 5,000 Android and iOS users across the U.S., India, and Brazil. The data says that Android users as a whole were "58% more likely than iOS users" to report that they had not received any scam texts in the week prior to the survey, and that iOS users were 65% more likely than Android users to report getting three or more scam texts in a week. On the whole, it also says that Android users were 20% more likely to describe their device's scam protection features as "very effective" or "extremely effective." As for Pixel vs. iPhone specifically, the survey also found that Pixel users were 96% more likely to report zero scam texts than iPhone users, and that iPhone users were 136% more likely to say they had received "a heavy volume of scam messages" than Pixel users, as well as 150% more likely to say their device was "not effective at all in stopping mobile fraud." Those numbers don't look good for Apple, although it's worth pointing out a few details before taking Google at its word. What is YouGov?First, to Google's credit, it didn't conduct this study alone. While the company didn't go into detail on how it partnered with YouGov here, YouGov itself is a respectable entity, widely cited in market research and even political news. The organization specializes in polls, and has been cited in everything from the New York Times to Lifehacker sister publication Mashable. It's also worth pointing out that YouGov wasn't the only independent entity Google worked with while putting together its report. The company also reached out to Counterpoint Research to evaluate its AI-powered anti-scam protections, and Leviathan Security Group to asses scam protection across four Android phones. The company used these studies to put together infographics depicting its security features vs. iPhone's, which you can see below. Credit: Google Credit: Google Note, however, how Google has put together the information here. Specifically, it implies that iPhone does not offer any scam protections in emails, while ignoring that many iPhone users access their email through the same Gmail app as on Android. It also doesn't mention Safari's ability to block pop-ups or the iPhone's ability to screen phone calls, which makes me think Google might be getting choosy with how its presenting the data here. As such, it's worth looking at its survey results with a critical eye as well. Questions about methodologyWhile Google's survey results are likely accurate to the polled audience, I do have a few questions about the methodology. First, there's the issue with this being a survey, rather than a more dispassionate look at texting inboxes. While helpful for getting insight into how users perceive their devices, surveys are susceptible to the word of those surveyed, which means that can be swayed by respondents misremembering details or misunderstanding questions. The bigger question to me, though, is sample size. While I commend Google for conducting its survey across three different regions, the company was not clear about how many of its respondents owned iPhones vs. Android devices. It's possible that iPhone users might have reported more scams simply because the iPhone is more popular in the U.S., for instance. To be fair, those numbers are reversed in India and Brazil, but without knowing a breakdown of how many people Google and YouGov interviewed where, it's hard to know if the data is being impacted by other factors. For instance, in addition to potentially being more numerous depending on a breakdown of the surveyed population, iPhone users might also be more susceptible to scam texts simply because scammers might want to target that user base more, as was once the case with viruses on Windows. The iPhone is known as a luxury device, which implies its user base might have extra money to spend, making it an alluring target. Can you believe Google's survey?So, can you take Google's polling at its word? Yes and no. With YouGov helping the company out, it's likely that the results presented are truthful, although they could still be misleading. The only way to know for sure would be to look at a detailed breakdown of the survey itself, but unlike the Counterpoint Research and Leviathan Security Group evaluations, there doesn't seem to be a way to look at the raw survey data at the moment, just Google's blog reporting on its findings. I've reached out to Google and YouGov independently with questions about their methodology, and did not immediately hear back. For good measure, I've also reached out to Apple for its take, and similarly am still waiting for a reply. In the meantime, I would take this survey with a grain of salt. It's almost certainly based in truth, but it's important to remember that it's still part of a larger advertising narrative. Google has made a big deal as of late about calling Apple's ecosystem a walled garden. If the company can convince users that it can offer them greater freedom while also upping their protection, that would be a big win. It does, however, coincide with Android's own efforts to close itself off in the name of security, so maybe the truth is both platforms aren't so different after all. View the full article

Every single day, the average working person plays many roles: sassy coworker, office comedian, and deadline stickler, to name a few. The labor doesn’t stop when one gets home—with new job titles coming into play, such as mom, brother, pet parent, and more. On Halloween, you get to choose which character you want to inhabit instead of having society dictate your role. This frivolity requires forward thinking and planning. If you find yourself running out of time, popular culture and a few easy-to-obtain items can come to the rescue. Here are nine easy costume ideas that range from classic to timely. The Louvre museum robbers This one is perfect for last-minute Halloween planners, as the true-life events surrounding the costume happened a little over a week ago. On Sunday, October 19, four robbers dressed up as maintenance workers and stole the French crown jewels from the Apollo Gallery at the world-famous Louvre Museum in Paris. The internet had a field day with this. The heist only took about seven minutes, security at the museum was severely lacking, and it occurred during regular business hours. To pull off this current event costume, all you need is a reflective maintenance vest, fake costume jewelry, and a tiara. You can wear these accessories on an all-black outfit base. Labubu These furry collectible toys really took off in 2024 despite being around for almost a decade. Artist Kasing Lung created the creepy yet cute characters in 2015 and introduced them in the book series The Monsters. Celebrity endorsements helped move the creatures into the cultural zeitgeist, with K-pop star Lisa from Blackpink leading the way. The easiest way to dress up as this popular plush toy and/or mini key chain accessory is to start with a onesie base. From there, you can get creative with premade bunny ears and makeup. Between your local Spirit Halloween store and Amazon, you should be able to obtain everything you need. Jake from State Farm This is one of the easiest looks on this list. You may even have all the costume pieces in your closet already. State Farm Insurance first introduced a real-life employee in its commercials in 2011. His name was Jake Stone. In 2020, actor Kevin Miles began playing the character in an effort to modernize the advertising campaign. All you need to pull off this look is a red polo and khakis. Bonus points if you have a name tag that introduces your character as well. Glinda and Elphaba Wicked: For Good will be released in movie theaters in the United States on November 21, ending the longest intermission in musical theater history. To celebrate all things witchy, consider dressing up as one of the movie’s leading ladies: Elphaba or Glinda (aka Galinda, before she drops a letter in Wicked: Part 1). You can even keep it minimal by wearing a simple green or pink outfit. If you want to bust out the green makeup and body paint, though, more power to you. Joel Goodsen from ‘Risky Business’ This costume will take some guts to pull off and might get a bit chilly, but it’s an easy one. In the 1983 film Risky Business, Tom Cruise plays a straight-laced high school senior named Joel Goodsen who cuts loose when his over-protective parents leave town for a couple days. His first act of rebellion is dancing around the house in a pink Oxford shirt, white socks, and briefs to “Old Time Rock and Roll” by Bob Seger. This scene is so iconic that most will recognize the dance moves if you commit by sliding around in your socks. Plus you don’t even need pants—although that could make for an awkward Uber ride. Mark and Helly from ‘Severance’ This Apple TV-inspired couple costume is more office friendly than the pantless option. Severance is of course the hit science fiction series that puts a whole new spin on the term work-life balance. Employees of Lumon Industries have undergone a process that creates two personalities living in the same body: a work personality called an “innie” and a personal life persona called an “outie.” The two are not aware of each other. At the center of this story are the couple Mark, played by Adam Scott, and Helly, played by Britt Lower. To dress up as Mark’s innie, all you need is a blue suit and Lumon Industries ID badge. To go as Helly’s innie, all you need is a pencil skirt, blue turtle neck sweater, and a Lumon Industries ID badge. Damian from ‘Mean Girls’ While this costume idea has been around since the hit 2004 movie Mean Girls came out, the classics endure for a reason. It is also so simple to pull off. Damian Leigh is the sassy gay best friend who feels more comfortable with the girls than the boys. This is one of the reasons he sneaks into the girls’ assembly with his masterful disguise of a blue hoodie and sunglasses. Make sure to tell people throughout the night that “she doesn’t even go here,” for maximum costume effect. 6-7 If you have been around any group of young people lately, you have probably heard the term 6-7. These same youths will not be able to tell you exactly what that even is, but rest assured they are obsessed with it. A quick Google search will tell you it came from rapper Skrilla’s song “Doot Doot,” but then turned into a TikTok sensation and took on a life of its own. You can be a hit at the costume party with the young people and thoroughly confuse everyone else by wearing a t-shirt with the two numbers. You could even turn this into a couple’s costume and both wear just one number. View the full article

Beijing shows it can force Washington to compromise on trade issues View the full article

The market for obesity and diabetes treatments remains scorching hot, funneling billions in sales to Eli Lilly and fueling a bidding war over another drugmaker. Lilly said Thursday that its top-selling drugs, Mounjaro and Zepbound, brought in more than $10 billion combined during the recently completed third quarter. That made up over half of the drugmaker’s $17.6 billion in total sales. Separately, Danish drugmaker Novo Nordisk announced plans to buy Metsera Inc. in a deal that could be worth up to $9 billion. That came more than a month after U.S. drugmaker Pfizer Inc. made a nearly $5 billion bid for Metsera, which has no drugs on the market but is developing several potential oral and injectable treatments. Popular treatments labeled GLP-1 receptor agonists are fueling the soaring sales and deal interest. They work by mimicking hormones in the gut and the brain to regulate appetite and feelings of fullness. But they don’t work for everyone and can produce side effects that include nausea and stomach pain. Supplies of the drugs have improved this year, and some insurance coverage is growing. That helps improve access to drugs that can cost around $500 a month without coverage. That can put them out of reach for many patients. The treatments are injectable drugs, but Novo and Lilly also are developing easier-to-take pill versions. U.S. sales of Lilly’s weight-loss treatment Zepbound nearly tripled to $3.57 billion in the third quarter. Meanwhile, revenue from the diabetes drug Mounjaro, which has been on the market longer, doubled to $6.52 billion thanks to growth outside the U.S. Combined, the drugs have brought in nearly $25 billion in sales so far this year for Indianapolis-based Lilly. That surpasses the entire company’s revenue total from 2020. The drugs helped Eli Lilly and Co. record a $5.58 billion profit in the third quarter and deliver a better performance than Wall Street expected. Novo Nordisk said it will pay $56.50 in cash for each Metsera share and could pay an extra $21.25 if the company meets some drug development milestones. The drugmaker already has the obesity and diabetes treatments Wegovy and Ozempic on the market. That combined total of $77.75 more than doubles the closing price of Metsera shares on Sept. 19, the last trading day before Pfizer made its offer. Metsera said Thursday that its board has determined that the new, unsolicited offer from Novo was superior, and Pfizer has four business days to negotiate adjustments to its offer. Pfizer called Novo’s offer “reckless and unprecedented” and an attempt by a drugmaker with a “dominant market position to suppress competition in violation of law by taking over an emerging American challenger.” Pfizer Inc. is known for the COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty and the treatment Paxlovid, among other drugs. But the New York drugmaker decided to take another stab at obesity treatments months after ending development of its own drug. —Tom Murphy, AP health writer AP Health Writer JoNel Aleccia contributed to this report. View the full article

I am extremely concerned about the prevalence of AI content on our social media feeds. Now that just about anyone can generate hyper-realistic videos with a simple text prompt, I fear that disinformation will rise exponentially, distorting worldviews faster than algorithms have so far been able to do. So you can imagine how I feel about Meta's plans to add a "huge corpus" of AI content to its feeds. Good luck out there, everyone. That's directly from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg himself. In a Meta Platforms, Inc. earnings call on Wednesday, Zuckerberg confirmed the company's plans to add this self-described huge corpus of content, thanks to how easy AI makes it to create and "remix" content. People will create AI content, the platform's recommendation systems will deliver that content to people, who may then slightly alter that content and send it back into the Metaverse. As this feedback loop will continue, feeds will start filling up with more and more AI content. That's good for Meta, and anyone who enjoys watching videos that aren't real. For those of us a little sick of this content, or worried we won't be able to spot it during long scrolling session, it's only bad news. While much (if not most) of that AI content is likely coming from outside sources, like OpenAI's Sora, some of it may come from Meta itself. The company recently rolled out "Vibes," its own short-form AI video generator, as part of the existing Meta AI app. Users can create videos directly in Vibes, or remix existing videos. I'd wager some Vibes content is going to cross your Meta feed in the near future, if it hasn't already. Zuckerberg took the time to highlight how Meta's AI recommendation systems across all of its core products—Facebook, Instagram, and Threads—are delivering "higher quality and more relevant content" to users, especially with regards to video. Apparently, the amount of time we've spent watching Instagram reels has increased by more than 30% when compared to last year. (Fun fact: Reels brings in over $50 billion according to the earnings call.) That environment seems just right to foster a new wave of AI slop to Meta's enormous audience. Look, I've definitely laughed at some AI memes that have come my way. But to suggest that flooding the feeds with realistic AI videos without any regulation or forethought is a good idea is itself laughable. If you use Meta products, watch out: You might not be able to trust what you're watching is actually real for much longer—if at all. View the full article

Uncover how high-speed internet access drives property valuations, creates lending opportunities, and transforms mortgage markets nationwide. View the full article

Proposal highlights The President administration’s push to deregulate financial industryView the full article

Shares jump after ecommerce giant says web services division is growing at fastest pace in three yearsView the full article