All Activity

Asian and European indices and US futures fall after worst week for Wall Street equities since pandemicView the full article

Donald Trump’s tariffs could cause long-lasting damage to US alliances, influential Wall Street banker tells shareholdersView the full article

Trump’s signal to push ahead with sweeping tariffs hits crudeView the full article

The first few weeks of working for a new boss are exciting. You’re ready to jump in, hopeful for growth opportunities, and eager to please. Your boss is enthusiastic, too, likely welcoming you with open arms, setting up 1-1’s, and taking a keen interest in your professional development. You both want to make a great impression on each other. Yet, as the new job glow wears off, you may find yourself confused by how quickly your boss’s attention vanishes. The leader you were excited to work for becomes the person ignoring your emails, giving haphazard feedback, and postponing your 1-1 (again!). Working for a boss who is overwhelmed is a frustrating, yet not uncommon experience. A growing number of managers report feeling burnt out. Yet, employees are eager for growth opportunities, mentorship, and regular communication with their leaders. This tension often results in teammates feeling under-supported and confused, while managers feel overloaded and guilty. Even if your manager is spiraling, you’re not powerless. Through intentionally leading yourself, you can form a supportive and impactful partnership, getting the most out of your manager’s often limited time. Make it easy to say yes When your manager is juggling a million things, they don’t have time to read between the lines or guess what you need. Most leaders want to support their team—they just need a little direction. That’s where you come in. Rather than hoping your manager will “support you,” be specific. Ask them to role-play a tough conversation with you, join a high-stakes meeting, or advocate for your work to leadership. The clearer you are about what you need, the easier it is for them to step up and help. Don’t just hope for “growth opportunities”—go after them. Find the conference you want to attend, break down why it matters, how much it costs, and then ask your manager for approval. A clear, direct request is way more likely to get a yes than a vague wish for development. Same goes for flexibility. Instead of saying you need “more work-life balance,” be specific. Ask to work from home on Fridays or swap early mornings for late nights—whatever actually helps you. Your manager is busy, and broad requests like “support” or “professional development” are easy to push to the bottom of the list. Spell out exactly what you need, make it an easy yes, and watch how much more you get. Take charge of your 1-1s If your manager is showing up to your 1-1’s frazzled and in need of a deep breath, you’re not alone. The challenge is that overwhelmed managers spend most of their time on near-term fires. They’re often worried about getting through the week, not building a successful year. Left unchecked, this can leave your long-term strategies and professional growth high and dry. Address the pop-up windows in your manager’s brain first, but then take it upon yourself to proactively bring up longer-view horizons by asking questions like: · What skills should I be proactively developing to excel in my role? · How can I further support our organizational strategy of X? Or mitigate the challenge of Y? · Who should I be building relationships with beyond our immediate team? 1-1’s that don’t go beyond immediate deliverables won’t hurt your manager, they’ll hurt you. Surface what’s most important to your career growth; don’t wait for your manager to bring it up. Create a paper trail A leader who is overwhelmed will often forget what happened, what they said, and what the next steps are. Their brain is either in overdrive or stuck in a survival response. If your leader is overwhelmed, create a paper trail. It’s on you to recap conversations, confirm prioritizations, and document timelines. This is of service to you and your manager. For you, creating a paper trail saves you time. When your manager can search their inbox for information, they’re less likely to ask you to recap or remind. When they inevitably ask you anyway, you have a simple email to forward. A paper trail is also a form of self-protection. Overwhelmed bosses are more likely to give unclear directions, change timelines, and constantly change their minds. Protect yourself and your work product by documenting important conversations. Busy managers are juggling a hundred things at once, and sometimes, they don’t even realize they’ve given unclear or conflicting feedback until they see it in writing. That quick comment they made in passing? It might not hold up once it’s written down. That timeline they casually agreed to? It might suddenly seem impossible when it’s laid out in black and white. If your boss is moving a mile a minute, a clear, written recap can be a lifesaver—it gives them a chance to process things at their own pace and catch any misunderstandings before they turn into bigger problems. Bottom line: don’t leave things up to memory or interpretation. Put it in writing and protect yourself from the dreaded “I never said that.” Be the change you seek Don’t add fuel to the never-ending corporate fire drill. People mirror the energy around them—regardless of hierarchy. Want your manager to be more engaged? Show up engaged. Wish they were less frantic? Bring calm and focus to your meetings. Yes, working for an overwhelmed boss can be frustrating. But odds are, they don’t want to be this way. They probably wish they had more time to support you, but they’re drowning in emails, answering to their own micromanager, or buried under deadlines. Here’s the good news: You don’t have to wait for them to change the dynamic. You can shift the tone—no title required. View the full article

While home sales and remodeling rates remain low, Thumbtack—which connects homeowners with professionals to do work on their houses—says business is booming. In fiscal 2024, Thumbtack saw revenue of $400 million, up 27% from the previous year, with billions of dollars going to the roughly 300,000 small businesses that book work through the platform. Cofounder and CEO Marco Zappacosta attributes the company’s success to more than 15 years of work helping users find the right, trustworthy professional—even if they’re not entirely sure what they need to fix a problem in their home—bolstered by recent advances in artificial intelligence. “You’ve got to remember this is, on average, a $1,000 purchase,” Zappacosta says. “It’s not something you do casually.” Zappacosta believes it’s inevitable that the vast majority of home maintenance and remodeling bookings will ultimately move online, similar to the travel and transportation industries. What sets this industry apart, however, is the sheer number of service types—Thumbtack lists professionals in about 500 different categories, from ceramic tile installation to black mold remediation. To help users understand what’s available and how services match their needs, the company has offered an AI-powered search feature since last year. It allows users to describe home issues in plain language, rather than rely on keyword searches or Yellow Pages-style lookups for terms like “plumber” or “electrician.” Thumbtack is also testing an AI feature that lets users upload photos of home issues, such as a leak through the ceiling, to get help finding the right professional. As AI grows more powerful, it can help transform the experience of booking home services from a traditional internet search into something more like a conversation with a savvy neighbor, Zappacosta suggests. “The opportunity that AI creates for our business is at any point in the process, if you have a question or concern, or if you have to make a decision, we can arm you with the relevant context to help you evaluate that and confidently take action,” he says. Even before the rise of large language models, the company offered a collection of home project guides, including advice to help people decide when to tackle a task themselves and when to hire an expert. Alongside reminders of scheduled work and tools to rebook trusted pros, the Thumbtack app also provides customized guidance on when to perform various maintenance tasks—guidance Zappacosta suggests will only improve as AI systems advance and the company gathers more data about users, their homes, and their needs. AI can also likely help professionals optimize their use of Thumbtack, Zappacosta says, enabling them to better configure platform features to find sales leads suited to their businesses. “The focus on pros is always how we can provide them more consistent value,” he says. Thumbtack’s technical edge, says Sequoia Capital partner and Thumbtack board member Bryan Schreier, gives the company a strong chance of becoming the go-to platform for home services—akin to Uber for ride-hailing or DoorDash for delivery. “Owning a home is complex, and so I think it’s just taken a while to deliver the technical achievement that is required to become the Uber of the home services space, because it is so complex,” Schreier says. “In the last couple of years, in terms of its growth and profitability, I think the secret behind [Thumbtack’s] emergence is the fact that they have cracked the technological nut behind what had been holding back a company from becoming the Uber of the home services space until now.” In parallel with its AI efforts, Thumbtack has forged partnerships with other online platforms, including providing search results for home improvement-related terms on Nextdoor. The company was also recently featured in an Amazon preview of upcoming AI enhancements for Alexa, which would be able to book professionals on users’ behalf. These partnerships now account for 10% of Thumbtack’s annual revenue and help deliver its services to users even if they don’t visit the site directly. “Hiring pros and dealing with your home is a huge activity—it happens in a ton of places on the internet,” says Zappacosta. “And increasingly, platforms are utilizing us as the best way to fulfill a homeowner’s hiring needs.” View the full article

On Maui’s North Shore, inside an industrial building that was once a pineapple cannery, an architecture office sits across the hall from a surfboard manufacturer. When the architects first moved in, they noticed something: Every few days, the dumpsters in the back would fill up with scraps of foam from making the boards. David Sellers, one of the architects, realized that the foam could be used in a building material—insulated blocks that are typically made from a mix of concrete and new polystyrene foam. “I was just like, ‘We shouldn’t be throwing this away,’” says Sellers, principal architect at the firm, Hawaii Off Grid. “We live on an island, with limited space. So how can we use this to make houses?” In 2023, the team got a small grant to pursue the idea of recycling the surfboard waste into new blocks. Then came the Lahaina fire, which destroyed more than 2,000 homes and other buildings. The small firm paused the project and focused at first on helping redesign houses. “But we also said, we’re going to need a lot of building materials,” he says. “And we’re going to need building materials that are fire resistant.” The blocks have some advantages. In addition to resisting fire, they’re also four times as strong as a two-by-four framed wall in a hurricane. They’re impervious to mold, mildew, and termites, all issues in Hawaii. The insulation properties are twice what’s required by code. (The fact that it’s energy efficient is especially important for Hawaii Off Grid, which focuses on the carbon footprint of each of its projects; the firm actually requires all of its clients to commit to net zero buildings.) The blocks use only about a third as much cement as is used in cinder blocks. It’s also an accessible alternative to wood. “Lumber is at an all-time high again, and the availability of building materials is stretched thin,” Sellers says. “This is another option that people can utilize and hopefully help them rebuild faster and not be pinched by the current tariffs that we’re dealing with in the building industry.” To make the blocks, the company uses a large machine to grind up the foam into tiny beads. Then those are mixed with Portland cement, making a consistency that Sellers compares to rice crispy treats, and pressed together in wooden molds. The one-foot-high blocks are five feet long, making them faster to stack together during construction. The design-build firm has just completed its first house using the surfboard-waste-based blocks, on the edge of the burn zone in Lahaina. More are coming. Though the fire happened 20 months ago, the process of rebuilding is just beginning, delayed by the need to decontaminate properties and by red tape. Now, as construction begins to ramp up, materials will be in more demand. With the volume of foam waste produced by its neighbor alone, the firm has calculated that it would have enough to build 10 to 20 houses a year, much more than it currently needs as a small firm. Sellers has also talked to companies like Lowe’s about recycling foam packaging after appliance deliveries. (In theory, old surfboards could also be recycled, though surfers tend to hang on to old boards and display them rather than throw them away.) The idea could be replicated by other builders, Sellers says. But he’s hoping that polystyrene foam can eventually be phased out—at which point, they’d stop using the blocks as a building material. “I hope we won’t be using petroleum-based solutions, moving forward,” he says. Surfboard companies are already experimenting with alternative materials, and other companies are trying to find foam alternatives for packaging. For now, the architects plan to keep recycling as much foam as possible to keep it out of the dump and out of nature. “We have a stockpile of foam,” Sellers says. “We’re trying to not let any foam go in the landfill.” View the full article

So far, it doesn’t seem like it. There seems to be massive overlap in SEO and GEO, such that it doesn’t seem useful to consider them distinct processes. The things that contribute to good visibility in search engines also contribute…Read more ›View the full article

An outbreak of extreme weather has roiled the country with deadly dust storms in the plains and hundreds of tornadoes across the eastern U.S. over the past few weeks. Now, heavy rainfall across parts of the South and Midwest is prompting comparisons with some of the worst flooding on record for the region. Very moist air from the record-warm Gulf of Mexico is being drawn northward into a stalled frontal system creating a perfect recipe for torrential rains. Parts of the Ohio and Mississippi River Valleys received more than 15 inches of rain over the past four days. High water swept away buildings, forced water rescues in river towns, and cut off rural areas when roads flooded. More than 18 people have died, just days after damaging tornadoes swept through some of the same locations. The rains prompted dire wording from the National Weather Service including warnings of a “potentially historic, prolonged flash flood event” and “serious concern of catastrophic, life-threatening” consequences from “generational” rainfall. “This isn’t routine. This is a rare, high-impact, and potentially devastating event,” said a social media post from the Memphis office of the National Weather Service. This week’s floods are set to reach a mark set only a handful of times over the past 200 years. The region’s last floods of this magnitude were in 1997 and 2011. In 1997, parts of western Kentucky received more than 10 inches of rain in a single day, which created turbulent currents on the Ohio River strong enough to flood the lock-and-dam infrastructure that allows barge traffic to operate. In 2011, water rose so rapidly that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had to blast a hole in levees along Mississippi River farmland in rural southern Missouri in a last-ditch effort to avoid an uncontrolled breach of the levees further downstream in Memphis, Baton Rouge, and New Orleans. The worst-case scenario for the Ohio River was the flood of 1937—in which the river peaked about 10 feet higher than current forecasts. Although that magnitude isn’t expected this time, a similar amount of rain fell—just about 100 miles further north than this week’s storms, enough so nearly all runoff went into the Ohio River. More than a million people were homeless after the 1937 flood, and only one bridge was left intact between Pittsburgh and Memphis. The flood struck during the middle of the Dust Bowl and at the end of the Great Depression, and it paved the way for the modern system of flood control through levees and dams. Although weather forecasts for the rains have been reliable, the National Weather Service continues to be stretched thin due to Trump’s budget cuts. A staffing assessment gathered by NWS employees and published by the Associated Press on Friday found that nearly half of all local forecast offices are now critically understaffed, reducing meteorologists’ ability to interface with the public and local emergency management. “Detailed vacancy data for all 122 weather field offices show eight offices are missing more than 35% of their staff—including those in Arkansas and Kentucky where tornadoes and torrential rain hit this week,” said the report. A four-day total rainfall of 15 inches is more than Memphis, Tennessee, typically receives in April, May, and June combined. According to NWS data, in a stable climate, that kind of rainstorm is only expected to recur approximately once every 500 to 1,000 years. This is exactly the sort of extreme weather event that our infrastructure isn’t built to handle. According to the Corps of Engineers, many of the locks and dams along the Ohio River are beyond their 50-year lifespan. Climate change increases the risk of extreme rainfall events, and the Corps is in the process of updating its flood maps to account for those changes nationwide. This week’s rains have already created major flash flooding in cities and smaller rivers from Texas to Ohio. Near the confluence with the Mississippi River, the Ohio River is expected to crest by mid-April at its highest level since 2011—just a few feet below the tops of the levees there. All that water will gradually make its way into the Mississippi and out to the Gulf of Mexico through Louisiana. In addition to physical damages, the flooding could bring weeks of shipping delays for companies that rely on the roads and river barges that form the backbone of the Midwest’s economy. This week’s flooding could add to supply chain chaos as Trump’s latest tariffs go into effect. The governors of Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee have asked the federal government for help, and Kentucky has also activated its National Guard to help respond to the floods. The governors have also declared states of emergency as waters continue to rise. View the full article

The news has been something of a hellscape lately, and the urge to doomscroll is destined to worsen rising anxieties about tariffs and the cost of living. Luckily, there’s a new website that you can turn to if you need a bit of a brain break, and it’s all about chickens. Chicken.pics is a site from the mind of Erika Hall, co-founder of the design consultancy Mule. In a new subsection on the site, called Clickens, users are presented with two paintings of chickens and asked to judge them based on a hyper-specific adjective: For example, one might have to choose which of two hens is more maladjusted, mephistophelean, or persnickety. All of the chickens are hand-painted by Hall, and there are over 200 of them, as well as more than 200 potential adjectives, which means the chicken show-down options are functionally infinite. It’s a nostalgic concept that harkens back to an early 2010s era of the internet, when silly stunt websites were everywhere—and it’s a reminder that sometimes, the internet can still be fun. chicken.pics Which chicken is more punk? The idea for Clickens hatched back in 2021, when Hall was on a sabbatical to write her book, Just Enough Research, and was, by her own admission, looking for ways to procrastinate. She took up painting with watercolors and gouache as a sufficiently distracting side-hobby, but soon found it difficult to imagine new things to paint. Chicken was top of mind at the time because Hall’s senior pug, Rupert, had begun preferring the meat over his usual canned food. chicken.pics “I thought, ‘You know what, if I have to cook all this chicken for my silly little dog, I need to do something for the chickens, because we take chickens for granted,’” Hall says. “Like, there’s 33 billion of them on the planet, and we just turn them into nuggets and things. And I thought, I’m going to honor these chickens that I’m feeding to my dog by really trying to see chickens and help other people see chickens.” So, Hall started painting chickens—and just didn’t stop. Soon, square “profile pics of chickens” were covering her kitchen walls. Last year, she set up Chicken.pics to as a gallery to display the works. chicken.pics “I made this website last year called Chicken.pics—which is, like, the greatest domain ever—because the web has gotten all platformized, and there just aren’t fun, stupid websites anymore,” Hall says. “So I decided I was going to restart the web from first principles and just make a website. It’s not trying to sell you anything. It’s just got pictures of chickens.” In the last week of February, a friend helped Hall add the Clickens feature to the website, which pits two random chickens against each other in a battle of adjectives, “hot or not” style, Hall says. In just over a month, more than 74,000 votes have been cast on the site. “People need something to do that isn’t doom scrolling—that was the intention,” Hall says. “It’s just a silly thing for people to do.” View the full article

When the House of Cinema in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, was demolished in 2017, it was an architectural awakening for the city. A large circular concrete building completed in 1982, the House of Cinema was an instant cultural and architectural landmark in the city, then part of the Soviet Union. Its demolition, to make way for a controversial commercial development project, spurred many in the city to worry about which landmark would fall next. That led the Uzbekistan Art and Culture Development Foundation to launch a citywide research project to document endangered buildings. Most were built between the late 1960s and early 1980s when the Soviet Union sought to frame its ambitions through civic architecture. Many buildings from this time embraced modernism, with swooping facades, inventive structural forms, and artful mosaic panels adorning interiors and exteriors. As public buildings, their fates were at the whims of government leaders eager to develop the city into a 21st century economic powerhouse, which is how the House of Cinema was destroyed. Tashkent: A Modernist Capital To try to stop others from falling, the Uzbekistan Art and Culture Development Foundation funded a team of international researchers, historians, and architects to undertake Tashkent Modernism XX/XXI, a research project documenting the city’s modernist structures, and rallying for their preservation. Tashkent: A Modernist Capital “The concentration of modernist architecture is very high in Tashkent, but what truly sets it apart is the remarkable number of well-planned, innovative, and elegantly designed public buildings,” says architect Ekaterina Golovatyuk, one of the experts involved in the project and a co-founder of Grace Studio, a Milan-based architecture, design, and urbanism firm. Underway since 2018, the research project has documented 24 key modernist sites across the city. Of those, 21 have secured national heritage site status, along with 154 mosaic panels, protecting them from demolition. These buildings, and the ongoing effort to save them, is the subject of a pair of new books, Tashkent: A Modernist Capital, published by Rizzoli New York, and Tashkent Modernism XX/XXI, published by Lars Müller Publishers. The books reveal Tashkent as an under appreciated hotbed of modernist architecture, and a historical turning point for both Soviet and post-Soviet Central Asia. At one point the fourth largest city in the Soviet Union, Tashkent was chosen in the 1950s as a showcase of the “Soviet Orient,” which resulted in an architectural boom. “The city was meant to demonstrate how well socialism could adapt to a different cultural context,” Golovatyuk says. “This initiated a very interesting search for local identity, contended between architects from Tashkent and Moscow. The result was a transformation of traditional architectural elements within the framework of a modernist language.” Tashkent: A Modernist Capital This building spree took on new urgency in 1966 when a massive earthquake damaged much of the city. The city’s recovery coincided with a Soviet Union-wide emphasis on prefabricated building and new forms of construction, leaving Tashkent with a wide variety of inventive and modern buildings. Tashkent: A Modernist Capital The Tashkent Modernism XX/XXI research project has put this legacy under a new spotlight, helping to save many buildings from demolition while also underscoring their significance as the city grows. Some of these buildings are also being seen in a broader context. Golovatyuk and Giacomo Cantoni, co-founder of Grace Studio, were recently named curators of Uzbekistan’s national pavilion at the upcoming Venice Architecture Biennale. Their exhibition will focus on one project included in the research project, a large-scale scientific complex outside Tashkent known as the Sun Heliocomplex. Dedicated to studying solar energy, it was ahead of its time in both design and intention. Tashkent: A Modernist Capital Golovatyuk says this project and others that are being saved through the Tashkent Modernism XX/XXI research project are finding new relevance, especially within Uzbekistan, where contemporary architects are building on their heritage. “I think the search for national identity restarted almost from scratch when Uzbekistan gained independence in 1991,” says Golovatyuk, who first visited Tashkent in 2006. “Many buildings have sought to establish continuity with the pre-Soviet past through ornamentation, probably in a more exuberant manner than during the modernist period.” Tashkent: A Modernist Capital An emerging generation of young architects is taking particular inspiration from the buildings being preserved through the Tashkent Modernism XX/XXI research project, creating what Golovatyuk calls “a more sophisticated dialogue with both tradition and the modernist past.” Tashkent: A Modernist Capital The effort to save and recognize these buildings is city-specific for Tashkent, where modernism is now a kind of calling card. But it’s also a fight that exists in cities around the world, such as Philadelphia, where an internationally renowned police headquarters building is losing a long preservation battle, and Boston, where the government center complex is a perennial demolition target. Tashkent: A Modernist Capital “A few of these buildings faced at least some risk of transformation, but I believe it is to be expected. The city has been undergoing rapid growth for the past eight years, there is significant pressure on all real estate,” Golovatyuk says. “This kind of pressure is the fate of modernism not only in Tashkent, but worldwide.” The research project’s success in securing protected status for Tashkent’s modernist buildings could be a playbook for other cities to follow. View the full article

Kinsta stops bad WordPress plugin updates from going live by rolling them back automatically when problems are detected. The post Kinsta WordPress Updater Prevents Failed Plugin Updates appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Chinese aerospace giant Comac has unveiled its plans for the C949, a supersonic aircraft designed to fly 50% farther than the Concorde and produce sonic booms quieter than a hairdryer. Scheduled to debut in 2049—coinciding with the centenary of the People’s Republic of China—the aircraft positions China to challenge US supersonic projects like NASA’s X-59 and Boom Supersonic’s Overture in a race to redefine global air travel. “The most important thing here is that this shows supersonic is a race—and China’s interested,” says Blake Scholl, CEO and founder of Boom Supersonic. “Advanced airplanes symbolize technological superiority, and it’s no accident that China wants that crown.” In a scientific paper published last month in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Aeronautica Sinica, Comac engineers detailed a Mach 1.6 aircraft capable of flying 4,225 miles, surpassing the Concorde’s 2,796 miles. The key to its design is a “reverse-camber” fuselage. In aerodynamics, this term refers to an unconventional curvature design in the fuselage or wings that inverts traditional airfoil shapes (which usually turns down from front to back). For the Comac C949, this term specifically describes a concave midsection—curving inward rather than outward—along the aircraft’s body. The team claims this curved midsection weakens shockwaves. This silhouette combines with a long needle-shaped nose that splits pressure pulses, and aerodynamic bulges near the engines to disperse exhaust turbulence. The airplane doesn’t have a regular cockpit. Similar to the X-59 If the long dart shape looks familiar, it’s because you probably saw it before: NASA’s X-59 uses a very similar design. According to the research paper reported by the South China Morning Post, the team led by Comac’s chief aerodynamicist Wu Dawei did simulations that demonstrate that the C949 aerodynamic features will reduce its sonic boom noise to just 83.9 perceived level decibels (PLdB), about the sound of a hairdryer. This is only 5% of the 105 PLdB noise generated by the Concorde. NASA’s aircraft will have a 75 PLdB boom—comparable to the hum of a dishwasher—so the C949 will be slightly louder. Comac, like NASA with the X-59, believes that a quieter boom will make the case for removing the supersonic flight ban over land that’s been in place since 1971. The company says that the take-off noise will be within the international limits for take-off in airports near cities. The state-owned company, which aims to become the next Boeing or Airbus, knows that this is crucial for its commercial viability all around the world. Both the C949 and X-59 employ elongated noses and redesigned fuselages to fracture shockwaves, but the C949 adds artificial intelligence systems not found in NASA’s demonstrator. The paper claims that its artificial intelligence-powered ‘fly-by-wire’ control system adjusts the aircraft’s surfaces 100 times per second to counteract instability at high speeds. The C949’s twin turbofans—the jet engines that provide the thrust—are adaptive-cycle, which means that they will alternate between two modes. One, when flying at a cruise altitude of 52,000-feet, is a fuel-efficient mode at 1.7 times the speed of sound (Mach 1.7). The other one, at lower altitudes, a “low boom” mode at Mach 1.6. Like the C949, the X-59 features a 30-meter needle-shaped nose—nearly half its length—to stretch and disperse shockwaves, while its engine is positioned atop the fuselage to direct noise upward. “It’s all about the geometry,” Lockheed X-59 program director Dave Richardson told me in an interview. “There’s no exotic technology, just a meticulous way to turn a bang into a dull thud.” Lockheed has envisioned that, using its aerodynamics, a 44-passenger commercial aircraft would be 61 meters long. Richardson acknowledges there will be obstacles: “Scaling [the X-59] requires engines that can sustain Mach 1.8 without afterburners—a challenge, but not impossible.” The Chinese engineers will have to develop a new engine too, just like Boom Supersonic. NASA’s Quesst prototype uses a virtual cockpit system that uses HD cameras to project the frontal outside view on internal screens that traditional pilot’s glass cockpit. This eliminates protuberances from the fuselage that would amplify the sonic boom sound. While Comac hasn’t disclosed if the C949 will feature a full digital cockpit, it’s the only possible design option. Overture will also use one, like the Boom Supersonic XB-1, the prototype that served Scholl and his team to test their design ideas for Overture and their idea of boom-less supersonic flight. The Overture avoids these extreme aerodynamic shapes, leveraging an atmospheric phenomenon called Mach cutoff. At 18,000 meters, its “boomless cruise” technique uses temperature and wind gradients to bend shockwaves upward, preventing them from reaching the ground. The sonic boom occurs but never reaches the ground. Not even as a dull thud, like the C949 and X-59. The company demonstrated this in two supersonic flights over the Mojave Desert, California, just a few months ago. “It’s not magic, just math,” says Scholl, who aims to offer Mach 1.7 flights at business-class prices by 2029. “We don’t need new materials, just smarter engineering,” he adds. Challenges and advantages According to Scholl, the X-59 and the C949 won’t be able to operate at current airports due to their size and shape, hindering their commercial adoption. The X-59 requires new airport infrastructure—it’s too long for existing gates, tells me. Overture, by contrast, fits current airports,” he says. Regardless, Comac faces considerable challenges. It’s a relative newcomer to commercial aviation. Its first airliner, which includes a first homegrown engine, the C919, entered service in 2023. The company lacks the certification experience or supply chain power of Boeing or Airbus. Still, its ambitious timeline includes delivering a wide-body airplane called the C929 (an equivalent to the 787 Dreamliner) by 2027; and an ultra-long haul, 400-seat airplane called the C939 (equivalent to Boeing’s 777-9) by 2039. Then it plans to launch the C949 in 2049. So many complex projects, all built from scratch, carry the risk of delays, especially with unproven engine technology, according to industry experts. But if any country can pull this off, it’s China. Beijing has developed a very mature aerospace industry. The country is manufacturing a completely new, homegrown Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter in large quantities. It is now testing two different new sixth-generation fighters, which broke cover months before the U.S. announced its future sixth-generation fighter, the F-47, for now just a 3D render. And, to top it all, Beijing is ahead in another key aerospace race: hypersonic flight. General Mark Milley, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, recognized this fact when the Pentagon detected a Chinese secret test that “defied physics” in 2021, qualifying it as “close to a Sputnik moment,” referring to the day the Soviet Union left the U.S. behind in the space race. China has the economic and technological power to make it happen, and state funding shields Comac from market pressures. The supersonic endgame It’s a real danger, especially when “the U.S. is abdicating leadership,” warns Scholl. “Look at Boeing—they haven’t launched a new plane in decades” [Boeing’s last new commercial airliner was the Dreamliner, which was announced in 2003 and took off in 2009 for the first time] China aims to replicate their industrial success in aviation. “Look at what happened with cars. Chinese cars take over in markets without any tariffs. That shift happened in 10 years,” he says. “China aims to replicate this in aviation.” The C949 is feasible and fits into Chinese aerospace ambitions, but Comac still have to turn its idea into reality—and from scratch. For now, NASA’s X-59 must demonstrate that its boom is acceptable to regulators. Boom Supersonic has shown that quiet supersonic flight is possible, but needs a new fuselage and new engines that balance speed and efficiency. Almost everything remains to be done, and the race has just begun. But Scholl warns: “They have put a date on it. They have a model number. They are very serious. They’ll move as fast as engineering allows, without our regulatory red tape.” “We’ve seen what happened in semiconductors when we lost leadership. We can’t let that happen here,” Scholl urges. And Wu and his team knows it, as they write in their paper: “The winner will dictate 21st-century aviation.” For now, all three contenders are rewriting the rules for this race, almost silently. View the full article

Planned Parenthood is facing a new wave of existential threats, this time targeting its funding as a women’s health provider. Three years after the U.S. Supreme Court removed the federal right to abortion, Planned Parenthood President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson shares why she’s now turned to the same court to protect her organization from an attack by South Carolina’s governor. Big funding attacks are also underway from Texas and the Trump Administration. McGill Johnson’s approach to conflict, and how she motivates herself and her team, provides a telling window into leadership in duress. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. Planned Parenthood is at yet another inflection point. We’ve talked previously about the Dobbs case, the Supreme Court decision that allowed states to ban abortions. With the election of Donald Trump, there’s a new wave of challenges, particularly around funding for Planned Parenthood. This week, you’re back in front of the Supreme Court for oral arguments over South Carolina’s efforts to block Medicaid coverage of Planned Parenthood health centers. How uneasy is that? You haven’t had much luck with the Supreme Court recently. Well, what can I say? They’re coming from all sides. They are coming from a whole administration approach to try and take away healthcare for millions of people in this country. At every level of government we are under attack, and I do think that this Trump era, this new Trump era 2.0, is different, because they have consolidated power in every single branch, and they are using it with abandon, and watching them try, whether it’s a Medicaid defund, a Title 10 defund, potentially the Supreme Court case that could deny us access to Medicaid state by state, it just feels like everywhere we turn, they’re coming for us even when they know it’s not popular. Planned Parenthood’s known for its policy advocacy, but it operates 600 some health centers around the country providing care beyond just abortion services. The South Carolina case that is this week, it has this sort of potentially massive implications for that work. Something like half of the patients at Planned Parenthood centers use Medicaid, so this is sort of a way to shut down the flow of resources. Yes, and you’re absolutely correct. I mean, first of all, just to level set who Planned Parenthood is, Planned Parenthood is first and foremost a healthcare provider, providing millions of patients access to basic STI testing, and family planning, everything that you could imagine with respect to sexual and reproductive healthcare. Fifty percent of our patients are also Medicaid patients. Over 60% of our patients are in rural areas. This Supreme Court case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic, is really about Governor McMaster, the governor of South Carolina, trying to insert his own opinion in order to deny South Carolinians the right to choose Planned Parenthood as a provider. Denying South Carolinians who use Medicaid from using that insurance at a Planned Parenthood means he would deny Planned Parenthood patients the right to choose their own doctor. It is so anti-freedom, is so anti-choice, is anti-libertarian, so anti-conservative government, but it is about power, and control, and trying to deny us access to care. The concern here is not only about the South Carolinians; it’s that this is a national case where other states could in fact follow McMaster’s lead if the Supreme Court gives them a go-ahead, and they could similarly try to deny access to Medicaid for Planned Parenthood patients. And it’s not specifically Medicaid that is being spent on abortions. Right, because Medicaid isn’t being spent on abortions because of the Hyde Amendment because Congress already has an amendment to most bills where federal tax dollars are not being spent on abortion services. This is about denying access to birth control, STI testings to breast cancer screenings, to wellness exams. One-out-of-three women comes to a Planned Parenthood, and have been to a Planned Parenthood in their lifetime. So a very significant reach in terms of who we see, and who we serve, and it’s trying to deny them access to choosing who their doctor should be. The administration strategy sometimes seems like they want to flood the zone with so much pushing of opponents, pushing organizations, corporate organizations to cause organizations to give up on something in order to protect a higher priority. Do you feel any of that pressure to prioritize in a different way in this environment? I can say I feel disappointment. I feel concerned for a number of really critical institutions in our society. Corporations are feeling a financial pressure to go against their core values. There may be lots of ways in which they’re reconciling that. I know as a leader that your values are, that’s your integrity, that’s who you are. And so I cannot actually stand here as the president of Planned Parenthood, and say, “We’re going to walk away from the very communities that we have committed ourselves to providing care for just because the administration may be a little bit easier on me.” It goes very much against what Planned Parenthood stands for, and how we were founded. We were founded by providing birth control, which at the time was not actually legal. We were literally born into resistance. And I do think that the word resistance is a little funny these days, but when you are providing care that has been stigmatized, that in itself is an act of resistance, that’s how we have to stay grounded in our mission. Planned Parenthood is, as we’ve said, under constant attack, sometimes metaphorically, sometimes financially, sometimes physically. Do you feel like you’re personally under attack, and, sort of, what’s the mood and morale for your team? The Planned Parenthood health center workers who walk through protesters, who walk through probably more protesters now, given that the Trump essentially gave immunity to several of those protesters who had been arrested under the Face Act, and allow them to essentially come back to harassing our workers, I’m worried about them. I’m worried about the patients who have to navigate that. I’m worried about the abortion providers who are day in, day out, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles back and forth between cities and affiliates in order to ensure that everyone can meet the need. I think for my team, we center them, and we ensure that they have what they need. I chose this fight. You don’t come to Planned Parenthood by accident. I don’t worry about myself. I worry about supporting all of the people who show up every day because they care about this mission. You have days though, sometimes you’re like, “All right, I signed up for this fight, but this fight has become harder, and harder, and harder, and I’ve been in this fight, and maybe it’s time to just make my life a little easier.” Well, I mean, there are always days, but I think sometimes, and I think this is a particular kind of leadership, where sometimes you see a fight, and you want in on it, and I think you can’t do this job unless you relish taking on the fight because you really believe in the cause. And so are there days where I’m tired? Are there days where I think I can’t get on another plane, or I’m trying to balance a lot with my family, and make sure I’m back for the high school musical? Those are the sorts of things that every executive is making a choice on, but I can tell you what does pull me through, and that is those moments when I am sitting on a plane, and someone comes up, and they say, “Thank you for doing what you’re doing.” They may grab my hand a little tighter. They may look me in the eyes. They may tell me their whole story. Being able to bear witness to the difference that Planned Parenthood has made in their lives, I think is something different than what a lot of CEOs may experience in their day-to-day life. And so it is grueling. I won’t lie on that regard, but it really means something. This is just an honor. I don’t know how to top this. It will be an honor to have served in this role. View the full article

President Donald Trump has just expanded the social media surveillance system for immigrants. Starting in May, the United States will begin collecting the social media handles of all permanent resident applicants. That means anyone seeking a Green Card—including those already living in the United States—must sign up to be digitally surveilled by the government. Marco Rubio also reportedly demanded that diplomats scrutinize the social media accounts of student visa applicants, withholding approval from those who criticize the United States or Israel. This expansion is expected to have a chilling effect on the internet economy. Under government surveillance, current and future immigrants may shut down their online presences out of fear of retribution. Social media CEOs—Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and others—stood at Trump’s inauguration and donated to his Victory Fund. Will they continue to support him now that he’s threatening their bottom line? Trump’s moves against immigrants’ online freedom During Trump’s first administration, the Department of Homeland Security began tracking the social media accounts of immigrant and nonimmigrant visa applicants. But the former president has now expanded that policy through an executive order titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” Immigrants will now have to disclose their social media handles when applying for Green Cards, asylum, or any other immigration benefit. For those who have already entered the country, the executive order suggests that future forms will likely require social media disclosures as well. Most experts predict this policy will crush digital free speech. Even the Department of Homeland Security appears wary. It issued a 60-day call for public comment, inviting agency representatives and citizens to share concerns. Since the forum opened a month ago, it has received over 1,000 comments, calling the policy a “gross violation of civil liberties,” “an unreasonable violation of privacy,” and “Orwellianism.” One commenter wrote, “Simply – Stay out of people’s lives who are here legally.” Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Marco Rubio is intensifying scrutiny of student visa holders. Following Trump’s executive order, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun detaining student protesters across the country. One such case involved Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts PhD candidate, who was apprehended on the street by plainclothes, masked officers. Now Rubio is demanding that diplomats inspect the social media pages of student visa activists. According to a cable reported by The New York Times, Rubio instructed that certain applications be sent to the “fraud prevention unit” for a “mandatory social media check.” This includes individuals suspected of having terrorist ties or sympathies, as well as anyone who held a student visa beginning on October 7, 2023—the date of Hamas’s attack on Israel. Will Silicon Valley take note? There are nearly 13 million legal permanent residents in the U.S.—13 million social media users who may quiet or delete their online presences due to the expansion of Trump’s digital surveillance state. That’s not even counting the countless foreign nationals seeking student or travel visas who could do the same. Such behavior could significantly shrink the user bases of major social media platforms. And the CEOs of those companies—many of whom supported Trump—might start to feel the effects. Among those onstage at his inauguration were Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Sundar Pichai (Google), and Shou Zi Chew (TikTok). What happens when immigrant users stop turning to Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok out of fear? Zuckerberg, in particular, has recently leaned into the right’s “free speech” rhetoric. In January, he cut Facebook’s already limited fact-checking operations, claiming they were “too politically biased” and “shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas.” It was a bold move in the name of online free expression—if you’re aligned with the right ideology. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is using Zuckerberg’s own platforms to surveil people with the “wrong” ideologies and deny them entry into the country—or worse. What will it take for these Big Tech CEOs to abandon their MAGA pipe dreams? For some financiers, it was tariffs. Maybe for them, it’ll be a direct hit to their customer base. View the full article

A 400 bad request is when a server can‘t process a request due to formatting issues or missing information. View the full article

When my emergency IAR app sounds at 3 a.m., there’s no room for ego, second-guessing, or hesitation. In that critical moment, all that matters is trust, teamwork, and execution. While I have spent decades in the corporate world, some of my most valuable leadership lessons have come from my experience as a volunteer EMS first responder. In the field, when I’m assisting in a life-threatening trauma situation or responding to a car accident, leadership is put to the test under extreme pressure. But whether I’m piloting an ambulance on a dark highway or guiding my company through turbulent times, the principles remain the same: Know your role, remove the noise, maintain a true north, and harness the power of the collective. First responders make real-time decisions under pressure, relying on trust and collaboration, and CEOs today must embrace the same mindset. While I see some leaders reverting to top-down management in response to rapid change and shifting policies, this approach can actually hinder long-term success. True leadership isn’t about command and control—it’s about creating an environment of clarity, trust, and adaptability, where teams are empowered to act decisively and navigate uncertainty together. It’s especially critical that executives embrace this ethos as their organizations—and their teams—are increasingly beset by outside noise and pressures that can potentially distract from their mission. Here’s what leaders can learn from first responders: Know When to Take a Back Seat In emergency response, knowing your role is crucial. A 17-year-old EMT might direct someone twice their age, and that’s exactly as it should be. Whether you are administering first aid, navigating traffic, or coordinating logistics, each team member must be clear about their responsibilities so they can work together in harmony. I recently watched a young ambulance corps captain in her mid-20s take command of a complex mental health emergency. With police on the scene and tensions high, she led with a calm, tactical presence that turned a chaotic situation into a controlled, compassionate response. Her ability to take charge had nothing to do with age or rank—it was about skill, confidence, and knowing when to step up. The same holds true in any organization. Leadership isn’t about titles or hierarchy; it’s about recognizing strengths and empowering the right people to lead when it matters most. Remove the Noise, Focus on Your North Star In an emergency, chaos surrounds you: passing traffic, weather conditions, bystanders, distraught family members. First responders must filter out this noise to focus on their task at hand. A clear example of this is a severe car accident I responded to where an older gentleman had driven off the highway into the woods. The vehicle was so badly damaged that we couldn’t even identify what kind of car it was. In these emergency situations, it’s the moments you take to assess the situation that make all the difference. Moving quickly doesn’t mean rushing in. It means taking the time to carefully evaluate the scene, calculating the arrival time of fire and additional emergency services, and identifying the right individual to enter the vehicle. By filtering out the surrounding chaos—the twisted metal, the external commotion, the emotional intensity—we were able to focus on our critical mission of saving the man’s life. As a leader, removing noise isn’t about ignoring those external factors. It’s about relying on a wealth and depth of experience to create a protective structure that allows your team to execute effectively. I approach an important meeting the same way I handle an emergency situation: by carefully assessing the context, gathering critical data points, and clearly outlining the objective. This ensures my team has all the information they need to contribute meaningfully toward our shared goal. Time is our most valuable currency. By setting a clear direction, I keep the focus on what matters, enabling diverse perspectives to inform—but not derail—the final decision. The Power of the Collective Individual skill is essential, but the power of the collective is truly transformative. Every first responder brings their own expertise and intuition, but success comes when these individuals work together in harmony. A single person may perform a critical task, but it’s the combined effort of all team members that ensures the best possible outcome. For executives, operating in isolation is a recipe for failure. Just like AI algorithms, leadership decisions are only as good as the inputs we apply. To harness the power of the collective, you must value every voice—regardless of volume. Some team members are naturally outspoken, while others hold back critical insights. Effective leaders create spaces that draw out diverse perspectives, whether it’s proactively calling on a subject matter expert to weigh in or setting up a roundtable discussion to give everyone a chance to chime in. It’s not just about making space; it’s about knowing when a nudge is needed. Getting Comfortable with Change Change has always been a constant in business, but its pace and unpredictability have grown in recent years. Just like in emergency response, where rapid shifts require clear thinking and decisive action, businesses must not only accept change but develop the confidence to navigate it effectively. The leaders who build strong, agile teams—not just obedient followers—will be the ones who thrive. It’s about creating the conditions where teams can perform at their best, even in the most challenging circumstances. I see this firsthand every Monday night when I’m on call from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.—and it continues to shape my leadership long after the shift ends. View the full article

The fallout from ‘Liquidation Day’View the full article

SEO focuses on unpaid search traffic, while SEM encompasses both unpaid and paid search engine traffic. View the full article

When deciding if something is worth the effort, whether you’ve already exerted yourself or face the prospect of work, changes your calculus. That’s what we found in our new research, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. When you consider a future effort, more work makes the outcome less appealing. But once you’ve completed the work, more effort makes the outcome seem more valuable. We also discovered that hiding behind this general principle of timing there are individual differences in how future and past effort shapes people’s value for the fruits of their labor. What’s it worth to you? In our experiment, we gave participants a choice between a fixed amount of money and a household item—a mug—that they could take home if they exerted some amount of physical effort, roughly equivalent to walking up one, two, or three flights of stairs. This setup allowed us to determine the value each person placed on the effort—did it add to or subtract from the value of the item? For instance, if putting in a little more effort made someone switch their decision and decide to go with the cash instead of the mug, we could tell that they valued the mug plus that amount of effort less than that sum of money. We also manipulated the time aspect of effort. When the effort was in the future, participants decided whether they wanted to go with the cash or get the mug with some effort. When the effort was in the past, participants decided whether they wanted to cash in the mug they had already earned with effort. As we had expected, future effort generally detracted from the value of the mug, but the past effort generally increased it. But these general trends do not tell the whole story. Not everyone responds to effort the same way. Our study also uncovered striking individual differences. Four distinct patterns emerged: For some people, extra effort always subtracted value. Others consistently preferred items with more work. Many showed mixed patterns, where moderate effort increased value but excessive effort decreased it. Some experienced the opposite: initially disliking effort, then finding greater value at higher levels. These changing patterns show that one’s relationship with effort isn’t simple. For many people, there’s a sweet spot: A little effort might make something more valuable, but push too far and the value drops. It’s like enjoying a 30-minute workout but dreading a two-hour session, or conversely, feeling that a five-minute workout isn’t worth changing clothes for, but a 45-minute session feels satisfying. Our paper offers a mathematical model that accounts for these individual differences by proposing that your mind flexibly computes costs and benefits of effort. Why violate the ‘law of less work?’ Why should timing even matter for effort? It seems obvious that reason and nature would teach you to always avoid and dislike effort. A hummingbird that prefers a hard-to-get flower over an easy equal alternative might win an A for effort, but, exhausted, would not last long. The cruel world requires “resource rationality”—optimal, efficient use of limited physical and mental resources, balancing the benefits of actions with the required effort. That insight is captured by the classic psychological “law of less work,” basically boiling down to the idea that given equivalent outcomes, individuals prefer easier options. Anything different would seem irrational or, in plain language, stupid. If so, then how come people, and even animals, often prize things that require hard work for no additional payoff? Why is being hard-to-get a route to value? Anyone who has labored hard for anything knows that investing effort makes the final prize sweeter, whether in love, career, sports, or Ikea furniture assembly. Could the answer to this “paradox of effort” be that in the hummingbird example, the decision is about future effort, and in the Ikea effect, the effort is in the past? Our new findings explain seemingly contradictory phenomena in everyday life. In health care, starting an exercise regimen feels overwhelming when focusing on upcoming workouts, but after establishing the habit, those same exercises become a source of accomplishment. At work, professionals might avoid learning difficult new skills, yet after mastering them, they value their enhanced abilities more because they were challenging to acquire. What still isn’t known Sayings like “No pain, no gain” or “Easy come, easy go” populate our language and seem fundamental to our culture. But researchers still don’t fully understand why some people value effortful options more than others do. Is it physical aptitude, past experiences, a sense of meaning, perception of difficulty as importance or impossibility, moralization of effort, specific cultural beliefs about hard work? We don’t know yet. We’re now studying how effort shapes different aspects of value: monetary value; hedonic value, as in the pleasure one gets from an item; and the aesthetic value, as in the sense of beauty and artistry. For instance, we’re investigating how people value artful calligraphy after exerting different amounts of effort to view it. This work may shed light on curious cultural phenomena, like how people value their experience seeing the Mona Lisa after waiting for hours in crowds at the Louvre. These studies could also help researchers design better motivation systems across education, health care and business. Piotr Winkielman is a professor of psychology at the University of California, San Diego. Przemysław Marcowski is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, San Diego. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. View the full article

As renewable energy gathers steam around the world, the harms of mining its mineral components continue to grow. On the environmental front, for example, there’s the destruction of Indonesian rainforests to mine nickel and the draining of precious South American groundwater reserves to obtain lithium. There’s also the human toll, which can be seen in forced displacement and child labor exploitation in the cobalt-rich Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as violence toward Indigenous people living on nickel-studded lands in the Philippines. The devastation raises the question: Is the world better off just sticking with the status quo? With these factors, is renewable energy and clean technology any better than fossil fuels? Whatever the answer, the comparison must account for the continued and additional coal, oil, and gas use that will happen in the absence of a mineral-powered energy transition. Not only does the status quo involve devastating greenhouse gas emissions that wreak havoc on the whole planet, but it also requires local ecological disruption in the form of fossil fuel extraction, which will continually expand as existing fuel deposits are depleted. Fracking and drilling for oil and gas can cause groundwater contamination, oil spills, and the uncontrolled release of planet-warming methane. And mining for coal, of course, is similarly destructive as other kinds of mining. While “there’s a lot of room for improvement with metals mining,” said Julie Klinger, a mineral supply chains expert at the University of Delaware, “look at the devastation that fossil fuel extraction has brought.” Indeed, the most mined resource today is coal, with around 8.7 billion tons produced in 2023 alone. We need fossil fuels in such large quantities precisely because they are fuels, continuously shoveled into power plants to generate energy. By contrast, solar panels and wind turbines require a fixed quantity of metals only during the construction phase—and once built, they can produce energy for several decades without additional inputs. Because of this, experts agree that the world will actually see a net decrease in energy-related mining if we replace fossil fuels with metals-powered technologies. In 2023, a team of scientists and Deloitte consultants in the Netherlands projected future metal and coal demand under an ambitious scenario where humanity reaches net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. They found that, despite a more than sixfold increase in demand for energy-related metals—bringing the total up to just over 3 billion tons—total global ore extraction would decrease by a third because of the decline in coal mining. In any case, mining for energy transition minerals will likely only ever constitute a relatively small proportion of global mining activity. Mines cover less than 0.02 percent of Earth’s surface, but many of them are for iron and aluminum, which we need in ever-increasing quantities to build the world around us, regardless of where we get our energy. “That will dwarf anything that’s actually used for the energy transition,” said geologist Gawen Jenkin of the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom. Most importantly, perhaps, while fossil fuels can only be burned once, many minerals can in principle be used many times over. The Netherlands study estimates that we could slash energy-related mining demand by an additional third in the 2050 net-zero scenario if we were to massively upscale recycling of EVs, wind turbines, and solar panels. The fundamental issue, said Raphael Deberdt, a socioeconomic mining expert at the Colorado School of Mines, is that our economic system incentivizes as much extraction as possible in order to fuel infinite consumption. But shifts to reduce resource consumption—think electric buses and trains rather than SUVs, and reusing old solar panels and EV batteries wherever possible, for instance—and a circular economy that makes the best use of every resource would do wonders to ease the burden of mining. There are other actions we can take to further reduce the adverse effects of mineral mining. For example, engineers can substitute materials connected to labor or human rights abuses with ones that can be more responsibly sourced; Tesla, for instance, has begun to equip its electric vehicles with iron-phosphate batteries that are cheaper and don’t require cobalt or nickel, which have been linked to environmental and social damage in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia, respectively. This reflects a broader shift across auto industries—with manufacturers like Renault and Volkswagen reportedly following suit—while iron-phosphate batteries are also becoming increasingly popular for general electricity storage. There are also many opportunities to extract minerals from the waste of existing mines that were originally built for different purposes. Research by mining and sustainability expert Tim Werner of the University of Melbourne has estimated that waste from a single Canadian zinc mine could supply several years’ worth of global demand for indium, which is used in solar cells, and there are already efforts to recover cobalt from old lead mines in Missouri. Nascent attempts to recover critical minerals from ocean water, plant life, and even asteroids have shown promise, though they are not developed enough to displace traditional methods. In short, the mantra “reduce, reuse, recycle”—in precisely that order—retains its importance in an all-renewables world. The more of these changes we adopt, the more luxury we’ll have to choose where and how minerals are mined. “This transition needs to happen,” Werner said. “But we have to be really strategic, really smart, and really conscientious and responsible about where they’re coming from.” — Katarina Zimmer, Grist This article originally appeared in Grist, a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Sign up for its newsletter here. View the full article

The 0.5% contraction according to Halifax contrasts with economists’ bets of a 0.1% riseView the full article

If global long-only funds start to rotate out of risk the market turmoil could get worseView the full article

Chances are, you or someone you know has been the target of a scam. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), reported scams cost Americans more than $12.5 billion in 2024—a 25% increase from the previous year. But as scams grow more sophisticated, so do their opponents. A growing number of online vigilantes are flipping the script, turning the scam on the scammers—and racking up millions of views in the process. Mashable’s Chris Taylor recently spoke to a few who’ve turned scambaiting into full-time work. Rosie Okumura got into scambaiting after her mother was tricked out of $500 by a pop-up on her computer. Now, she channels her acting skills—mimicking well-known voices like Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian—to waste scammers’ time while entertaining her audience. Her YouTube channel, IRLrosie, boasts most than 1.6 million subscribers, with another 1.2 million followers on TikTok. “I feel like teaching people how to avoid scams is better than helping someone who’s lost a ton of money, or putting myself in a dangerous situation,” Okumura said. Ashton Bingham and Art Kulik, the duo behind the YouTube channel Trilogy Media, also have 1.6 million subscribers—but they take their scambaiting offline. Their most-watched video, “Hunting a Scammer with Cops,” has amassed more than 5.6 million views since its 2022 release. In it, Bingham and Kulik team up with law enforcement to confront a “refund scammer” in person, armed with $40,000 in fake cash and a camera crew. With a subscription platform, Trilogy+, and a freshly signed deal for an unscripted TV show, scambaiting has become a profitable venture. Some scambaiters argue that by wasting a scammer’s time, they’re preventing real victims from being defrauded. But whether this tactic actually reduces online fraud is still debated. Research has also flagged ethical concerns, as some early scambaiters used racist, extreme, or even violent methods when confronting scammers. Still, for Okumura, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. “The best part is getting recognized at restaurants,” she told Mashable. “They will comp my bill!” View the full article

Some people, it seems, merely drift through life. While others appear driven and focused. Have you ever wondered why that is? Is it personality? Upbringing? Talent? Ambition? There’s no doubt that those factors play a role in how each of us approach life. But I think there is something more important, something available to all of us, that also motivates us to live intentional lives—and ultimately become the best version of ourselves. That potential can be found in the size of the dream we choose to pursue. You see, when the goals that we choose for ourselves are meaningful—when they matter deeply to our hearts and souls—they compel us and equip us to become better versions of ourselves. Therefore, getting clear on what is most important to us is an important step in self-development. We can drift through life pursing nothing. We can take small steps to accomplish small goals. Or we can live each day with passion and ambition to accomplish something lasting. There are two ways big dreams help us grow: 1. They almost always require our hardest work. And because of that, we are forced to improve and develop ourselves if we are ever going to meet them. 2. But even more important, our dreams and goals motivate us and shape us. When we pursue meaningful pursuits, work is no longer drudgery. Work becomes meaningful. Discipline and sacrifice are not activities to avoid. Our goals make them desirable—because our focus is on a prize worth giving everything for. In that way, we don’t become better versions of ourselves by accident or because someone required us to do so. That is always a recipe for disaster. We become better because the finish line is worth becoming better for. Unfortunately, not every dream brings out the best in us. If the biggest goals in our lives center on items that bring only fleeting or passing or temporary happiness, they may motivate us for a bit. But in the long run, our hearts and souls scream out to us that the pursuit is empty. Goals of accumulating money, possessions, or popularity can motivate for awhile. But often, at some point in our lives, we realize that we sold out our greatest potential for the fading trinkets of this world. When we are focused on self, comparison, leisure, or when we allow fear to dictate the size of our dreams, we end up chasing things that can never satisfy. And our development is stunted. There’s nothing wrong with being successful in a career or becoming the best employee or boss that we can possibly become. But we sell ourselves short when our dreams stop at comfort, status, or luxury. There are more meaningful dreams available to us: —Raising a family that can carry your values and legacy into future generations. —Solving problems that we see in the world. —Loving the people around us and contributing to society in a positive way. —Serving others, benefiting others, using our talents and gifts to help others. —Passing on wisdom and understanding to move people forward. —Bringing about the greatest good in the world with the one life that we have to live. These are the kinds of dreams that change us in the long-run. They shape our mornings, afternoons, and evenings. They shape how we spend our money and our hours. They redefine fulfillment and meaning. And in so doing, they compel us to become better versions of ourselves each day and every day. So dream bigger dreams for your life than possessions or money or status. The bigger the dream, the better version of ourselves we become. And everybody benefits from that. The post The Bigger Your Dream, The Better Version of Yourself You Become appeared first on Becoming Minimalist. View the full article

This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager. It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go… 1. My boss was upset I wanted to leave when our A/C failed Last year, my coworker spent the majority of an eight-hour Saturday shift in a public building with no operable bathroom. She reported a sewage backup to our boss and the answering service of the facilities department responsible for maintaining the toilets, but her calls for help went unanswered. This was on my mind last Saturday, when our building’s A/C failed. I put in the same calls, but the only response I got was my boss asking me to let her know if it gets any hotter. A little before noon, I texted back: “It’s hotter! If help is on the way, let me know. Because otherwise, I am not going to come back from my lunch break. It’s just too hot to finish out my shift.” My boss called back and told me that if I did not come back from lunch, others would almost certainly follow until there would not be enough staff to keep the building open. And also, she could not even start the approval process to close the building until the temperature rose another five degrees, a temperature that represents an OSHA violation. So I had to come back from lunch to finish my shift. I appreciate the tough position she is in, and I get that the most expedient way for her to do her job is to demand that I do mine. But my job involves air conditioning! And the last time a similar situation happened, she left my coworker stranded! As far as I know, she did not even try to summon help or start the building failure approval process even though the situation then was much more dire. In the end, a repairman did arrive and cool us down so I was able to happily finish my shift. But my boss is very unhappy because I threatened to leave. Was there a better way for me to handle this? It’s hard to know without knowing what kind of temperatures we’re talking about. OSHA doesn’t require specific temperatures, but they do recommend 68-76° F — so if your boss was saying she couldn’t close the building until it got to 77° … well, that doesn’t seem that outrageous (in fact, 78° is supposedly the best eco-friendly thermostat setpoint in the summer). That said, temperature is very personal (my husband might expire at that temperature) and if you’re too hot to comfortably work, you’re too hot to comfortably work, and explaining that wasn’t out of line. Ultimately I think it really depends on (a) how much of your concern was based on knowing no one had been responsive to your coworker’s bathroom situation last year and worrying this would be the same, versus (b) your actual temperature/level of discomfort. If your concern was the former rather than the latter, telling your boss that you didn’t plan to come back from lunch based on something you feared might happen but hadn’t actually happened yet was overkill … although in that case it would have been fine to say, “There’s a point where it won’t be feasible for people to stay and work, so if that happens we’ll need to leave early.” But either way, your boss being “very unhappy” over this is a bit much. 2. Does board member’s comment mean I’m about to get a big raise? I work in a nonprofit where the staff and the board really get along and generally have friendly relationships. Tonight, I ran into a member of the executive committee at my nephew’s track meet. She’s a realtor by trade, and while we were chatting, she said, “So, you’ve been in this city for a while, have you thought about buying a house?” I laughed and basically said, “You know what my salary is. What are you on and can I have some?” Her response was something cryptic about waiting for review season. Now, my boss had recently mentioned something about moving me from an associate in my department to potentially leading a small team, which I assumed would come with a pay bump, but definitely not one that moves me from “my car is 15 years old and I’m dreading the day it bites it” territory to “able to afford a house” territory. On one hand, this is great news. On the other, this was a cryptic suggestion about a number that is probably not official yet, and I have no idea if what I’m even imagining she means is what she actually means (like most cities, it costs a lot less to get a house in some parts than others). So my question is, how do I not get too attached to this idea? I’m afraid that she’s set my hopes too high and my new number won’t measure up. Or maybe things change and I don’t get the promotion after all. Before this conversation, I was perfectly happy at the salary I’m at for the job that I do in the city where I live. Now I’m just anxious. Please help! Put it out of your head entirely. There’s a decent chance that she was speaking to you as a real estate agent rather than a board member, and al estate agents like to encourage people to buy property. “Wait until review season” does not necessarily mean “you are about to get an enormous pay bump that will put buying a house within reach.” It could just mean “maybe you’ll get a raise, but I have no idea whether that will change anything meaningful about your ability to buy property” (as she doesn’t know your expenses, whether you have a partner whose income will go toward a house too, etc.) … or it could be a semi-uncomfortable “yeah, our salaries are low, hopefully you’ll get a bump soon” … or it could mean nothing at all and just be a pleasant nicety with no meaning attached to it. Frankly, she shouldn’t be intimating anything about any potential raise outside of official channels, and there’s a good chance that she didn’t mean to for you to take her remark as seriously as you did (even though it’s understandable that you did!). That could all turn out to be wrong, of course. Maybe you’re about to get a huge raise! But you’re much better off attributing no meaning to her comment, and then letting it be a happy surprise if that does happen. 3. When a beloved figure is laid off, is fan outcry helpful or hurtful? I’m hoping to hear your take on a situation from my doll collecting hobby. Mattel and Barbie are some of the biggest names in this space, and in a recent round of Mattel layoffs, a beloved Barbie doll designer named Bill Greening was included. The community reaction was immediate — people were sharing corporate contact information, people declaring on social media they wouldn’t add to their collection unless he was reinstated, etc. There’s even a change.org petition to get him rehired with 2,600 signatures. I know that fan-related businesses come with a whole series of unique challenges, but collector dolls are a relatively small piece of Mattel’s business. Obviously there’s a lot going on over there the community isn’t privy to — there were over 100 employees laid off, but Bill is the one with the active community relationships that have rallied in support. In your opinion, is this community outrage likely to be more helpful or hurtful for Greening’s future employment opportunities, either with Mattel or with another toy company? If this is hurtful, can you think of positive ways for the community to support him? I don’t know enough about the situation to comment with any nuance, but in general this kind of thing doesn’t tend to hurt people’s future ability to get hired and can sometimes help, by demonstrating community enthusiasm for the person and creating an opening for another company to capitalize on that fan base. It’s unlikely that the original employer will reinstate him based on the outrage (and presumably they were aware of his fan base before deciding to lay him off) but it’s not out of the realm of possibility either. (Although if you were Bill, would you go back if they offered? If they did offer, though, he’d be in a good position to try to negotiate something extra out of it.) 4. I’m applying for a job at my husband’s company — when should I mention it? I received an interview request today for a position I’m very interested in — at my husband’s employer. He’s been there going on 13 years, and one of the reasons I applied for the role in the first place is the positive experience he’s had as an employee there. The position I applied for is completely unrelated to what he does, and we wouldn’t even be working in the same office building (or in the same town, for that matter — the company has a pretty substantial presence in our area). But my home address is on my resume, and one of the first things that pops up when you Google either of our names is our wedding announcement. Do I mention anything during the initial interview? I’m not trying to hide anything from the interviewer, but it also doesn’t feel like it would be super helpful to volunteer information about my spouse when it might not be necessary. Complicating things slightly is the fact that the role I’m applying for is within HR. If the job wasn’t in HR, I’d say to bring it up at the offer stage — as a sort of covering-your-bases FYI, so that it doesn’t look weird that you never mentioned it and in case they have any policies that would make that a problem (which is unlikely given the very separate jobs, but it’s better to find out before accepting if they do). But with the job being in HR, you should mention it earlier, since being in HR increases the chances that it might be something they wouldn’t allow. Given that, I’d mention it in the first interview so that you don’t waste your time if it’s a no-go, framed as, “I wanted to mention my spouse works in the X division. I don’t foresee that being an issue for us, but since the job is in HR, I want to flag it now in case that would pose any concerns for you.” 5. “Couldn’t care less” vs. “could care less” This isn’t an office question but more of a clarification. I have several times noticed letter writers using the phrase “could care less.” I was under the impression is should be “couldn’t care less” because that announces that I am at the lowest level of caring. By saying somebody “could care less,” it means they are not quite at rock bottom, but I don’t think that is the message the writer is trying to convey. Am I wrong? You are correct; the expression is properly “couldn’t care less,” for the reason you said. However, the scone is out of the barn on that one; “could care less” has been used for so long that in practice they’ve become interchangeable. (Here is Merriam-Webster agreeing with me.) View the full article