All Activity

Institutions everywhere are in crisis, but they will surviveView the full article

Sahil Lavingia has had just three jobs over a 15-year career in tech. The first was as the second employee of Pinterest. The second was by founding the startup Gumroad, a successful, famously lean company that makes it easy for content creators to sell digital goods. The third? As an unpaid contractor supporting the Department of Veterans Affairs in a role facilitated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a fact recently revealed in a Wired piece. One of these things is not like—and is far more controversial than—the others. But Lavingia, who chose not to speak to Wired but reached out to me after I drew attention to the piece, makes no excuses for his decision to join DOGE’s tidal wave of on-the-fly federal contractors. He says he’s able to work without pay because of Gumroad’s success—and that he is driven by a sense of mission. “The reason I did it is, I think, the impact I can have,” he explains. Lavingia says that in the private sector, technical employees can have between six and seven figures of financial impact over their lifetime. If they’re a successful startup founder like he is, maybe that number is larger. “But in the government, I really believe that I can have billions of dollars of positive impact just by being technically minded.” To hear it from Lavingia, the Elon Musk-backed DOGE was a shortcut in a direction he already saw himself going. Years ago, during the Obama administration, he applied to the United States Digital Service, the predecessor organization to DOGE, only to find the hiring process arduous. While he officially works for the VA, DOGE gave him an inroad into government work that didn’t force him to go through a complicated vetting process. “They just sent me to the VA,” he says. “They just kind of helped me find the job. Which is great—I’m proud of that.” Reflecting his tongue-in-cheek stance that DOGE is “a glorified temp agency for software engineers,” he got in through the side entrance, offering his services to the cause of government efficiency. “I’m basically taking Elon at his word,” he admits. Wait, doesn’t he run a company? Lavingia’s decision to moonlight—not exactly unheard of in DOGE circles—doesn’t necessarily tie to his primary gig. But he suggests that it might have inspired his recent decision to open source Gumroad. After all, it matches what he’s proposing with DOGE. “I think we should open source all the code that we write,” he says of his VA work. “And I think that if we did that, I’m not saying people will agree with us, but at least people will see what we’re doing.” His VA side hustle comes at a time when Gumroad itself is going through some major structural changes. Last year, the company rebranded its corporate structure as Antiwork, inspired directly by a popular Reddit community of the same name. As part of its restructuring, it began putting its various apps on GitHub, including Gumroad. (The announcement taking Gumroad open source had some odd timing, hitting on the same day as the Wired story; Lavingia claims it was unintentional and unfortunate.) In one sense, this was a positive move for tech fans who run web apps and other software on their own infrastructure. Now they have a new tool at their disposal, and Gumroad has pledged to make it easier for them to install and maintain its code in the coming months. But the launch raised questions, in part because the license wasn’t purely open source. With limits on the upside for commercial enterprises, tech users were skeptical. In response to the feedback, almost on a whim (“I just kind of woke up one day, and I was like, ‘Fuck it, let’s just do the thing’”), Lavingia decided to move the Gumroad code base to the MIT license. That license, which companies such as Netflix and Apple have used to support their empire building, essentially allows users to do what they want with code without any requirements or limitations on its commercial use. Unlike the equally well-known General Public License, it does not require the creation of open-source derivative works. There are technical reasons for the licensing decision that go beyond helping a few self-hosters. Gumroad is a prominent example of a complex code base built on the Ruby on Rails framework, something Lavingia claims there are only limited examples of in the commons. From an AI standpoint, he says, this creates a knock-on effect where providers of large language models are less helpful with Rails than with competing frameworks like React. Internally, Antiwork aims for Gumroad to get 100,000 stars on GitHub, a number he freely admits is arbitrary. “But what matters is it’s a good proxy—did we actually build something people use, fork, and get value from?” (It’s currently at 5,700 stars.) Lavingia says the timing of his work at the VA is coincidental, but it helped inspire his thinking about open sourcing. Simply put, in a climate where equipment is often purchased through a complex bidding process, federal agencies have more flexibility with open-source tooling. He uses the example of Drupal, an open-source content-management system that is ubiquitous throughout the government and enterprise, but has a reputation among tech enthusiasts of being an older framework. “People probably in startups would not say Drupal is their first choice, but what is really good about Drupal is that it’s MIT,” he says. “It’s open source, it has a lot of packages and extensions. And it’s probably no coincidence that the government runs on Drupal for a lot of its CMS needs instead of some commercial proprietary thing.” One could see an automation-minded coding whiz like Lavingia modernizing the VA’s stack around more efficient tools. But as the security-card mechanisms in many government-procured laptops highlight, federal agencies are a different beast. A startup lifer’s view of the VA Much of what has been written about DOGE—the push to get employees into sensitive systems, the aggressive attempts at layoffs, the weekly emails—has not endeared the work to the public, and Musk recently took a step back from the endeavor. What people have heard about DOGE, they don’t like. A recent New York Times poll analysis found survey respondents favored the idea of improving government efficiency, and even the idea of DOGE, but not the way it was being done. But hearing a first-person perspective of what’s happening on the ground from Lavingia is nonetheless revealing. He’s someone who has gone from being the big fish in a tiny pond to just another person in an agency that counts more than 400,000 employees on its payroll—though, as with elsewhere in the federal government, it is also seeing cuts. Now that he’s there, he says he finds himself surrounded by people who “love their jobs,” who came to the government with a sense of mission driving their work. “In a sense, that makes the DOGE agenda a little bit more complicated, because if half the government took [a buyout offer], then we wouldn’t have to do much more,” he says, implying software can replace departing employees. “We’d just basically use software to plug holes. But that’s not what’s happening.” Lavingia’s skills with automation, which have helped keep Gumroad lean, are what he hopes to bring to the VA. But when it comes down to it, what he’s found is a machine that largely functions, though it doesn’t make decisions as fast as a startup might. “I would say the culture shock is mostly a lot of meetings, not a lot of decisions,” he says. “But honestly, it’s kind of fine—because the government works. It’s not as inefficient as I was expecting, to be honest. I was hoping for more easy wins.” In contrast to DOGE’s shadowy reputation, Lavingia has made a case for transparency. Based on a pledge he received from Musk during a meeting, Lavingia has been open sourcing his VA work, creating tools that can generate org charts and detect compliance with the president’s executive orders. If you aren’t a fan of DOGE’s work, the open-source code, while useful for transparency, probably won’t make you feel any better about Lavingia’s work at the VA. The compliance code, for example, is effectively a Python script that hooks into OpenAI servers hosted on Microsoft Azure, detecting whether a federal agency’s communication references chief diversity officers, pronouns, or WHO (World Health Organization) partnerships. However, Lavingia makes it clear that DOGE has limits, especially thanks to the court decisions and palace intrigue that have removed much of its bite. Ultimately, he argues, it has become a way for roving engineers to get an up-close view of how government works—a “McKinsey for the government,” as he puts it. “I think DOGE both gets too much credit and too much blame,” he says. “Blame the people who actually have the authority to make the decisions. It’s like when people say billionaires are evil. I’m like, well, maybe—but really, the people at fault would be the lawmakers, right? I don’t know.” Lavingia strikes me as someone who genuinely cares about the work he’s doing, but who thinks about it like a software engineer. There may be a case for startup lifers to swoop in and out of government, sharing the latest technical innovations with a complex beast in dire need of more efficiency. But the move-fast-and-break-things style may simply be too swift and damaging when essential government services are on the line. A fork in the Gumroad? No matter how Lavingia sees things from a day-to-day perspective, the truth is that people who feel betrayed by Gumroad’s association with DOGE have a new reason to go with another creator-friendly tool. But it’s not the first knock against the service. Its traditional laissez-faire approach to content moderation—controversially, the site is the digital storefront of onetime Adult Swim sketch comic Sam Hyde, notorious for his alt-right ties—has long raised eyebrows. The company’s heavy use of automation has also created problems for users concerned about customer support. Evan Hildreth, a writer and programmer, recently expressed frustration with the platform’s changes, and his inability to reach a support person that wasn’t an LLM. Even with the licensing changes, he felt like he could no longer trust the platform. “The changes to email and memberships really shook my confidence in the product itself,” he said. (Lavingia says Gumroad is working to hire additional customer support staff.) And more recently, the platform has started to limit not-safe-for-work content, with Lavingia suggesting to TechCrunch last year that an unnamed supplier required the stricter approach. But even considering all that, Lavingia seemingly hadn’t taken into account one key aspect of open sourcing that the MIT license could allow: the potential of folks turned off by his moonlighting gig creating their own version of Gumroad by forking the code and continuing development independently. When I pose the question, he isn’t entirely opposed. He admits that the “brutal form of capitalism” the MIT license allows for might force Gumroad to compete a little harder—or, perhaps, become more community-oriented, like WordPress. “I kind of want that, almost. I want to move on with my life,” he says. “If someone launches Blueroad.com, or something worse on the right? Whatever.” While Gumroad—a small company with outsize impact on the creator economy—isn’t going away, going open source nonetheless seems like something Lavingia has been preparing to do for a while. “Gumroad is now 14 years old. So maybe the analogy is, ‘My kid’s going off to college, and it’s not my problem anymore,’” he says. “And maybe this means Gumroad will get even weirder in the future, right?” Given the current context, it’s already off to a weird start. View the full article

Real ID, the new format for driver’s licenses and state IDs in the U.S., shows how design can set federal standards while minimizing federal oversight. When Congress passed the Real ID Act in 2005 at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, it was an attempt to standardize minimum security requirements for state IDs and driver’s licenses nationwide, as well as make consistent the forms of identity recipients needed to show to get an ID. On the surface, it might seem like a simple ask, but in practice, the legislation butted up against privacy concerns and ideological opposition to federal overreach. About half of states opposed the law after it passed, and 13 passed laws to prohibit their states from complying, according to The Washington Post, including Arizona, whose governor at the time, Janet Napolitano, called it an “unfunded federal mandate.” The ACLU said it would “bring government into the very center of every citizen’s life.” IDs have a new standards manual It took 20 years and multiple deadline extensions to fully enact the law, which requires that applicants have two proofs of residency, proof of identity and legal residence, and a Social Security card or W-2 form that includes a Social Security number to be eligible. Even today, lingering anxieties over the idea of a federal ID can be found on the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) website. On its frequently asked questions page, the agency shoots down a question about supposedly building a national database. “Real ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card,” DHS says. “Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances. The purpose of Real ID is to make our identity documents more consistent and secure.” Real IDs, real design differences Under America’s federal system, issuing driver’s licenses is the responsibility of the state, but with Real ID, the federal government sets some design standards. The new IDs must contain certain personal information about the card holder, like legal name and birthdate, a machine-readable barcode, and physical security features of states’ choosing to prevent forgery, like holograms, hard-to-print patterns, or UV florescent ink. New IDs that meet these minimum requirements, or Real IDs, are identified with a star icon in the top right corner of the card front, but the law leaves some room for creative interpretation. It’s safe to say that some states incorporate the star icon in more interesting ways than others. While most states show the star icon inside a simple circle, there are a few standout designs for the tiny mark. California displays its star icon inside a grizzly bear, which is its state animal and also appears on its state flag. Maine, Michigan, and Nevada place the star icon within an outline of the state’s map. Ohio’s star symbol appears next to a green rendering of the state, and South Carolina similarly places its star next to a red illustration of the state. Washington is the only state to not use a star, and instead denotes its Real IDs with a U.S. flag. Real ID may be a federally mandated design standard, but it’s implemented in a decentralized way. By leaving IDs to the states but still ensuring they meet minimum standards, the law lets states design their IDs with confidence they’ll be recognized nationwide. View the full article

Even in this new era where hundreds of words are getting erased from U.S. government websites, one wouldn’t imagine a word like “retrofit” to be offensive, especially when retrofitting a building or a home can save lives and protect the pocketbooks and health of millions of Americans. And yet, retrofit programs appear to be on The President’s chopping block. The The President administration recently took aim at a housing retrofit program within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, whose funding was appropriated and approved through a bipartisan Congress. This retrofit program helped ensure that vulnerable Americans, many of whom are seniors, wouldn’t be too cold in the winter due to poor insulation, be burdened with unnecessarily high utility bills, be breathing in moldy or unhealthy air from failing heating and air-conditioning units, or be at significant risk the next time extreme weather rolls through. In response to the The President administration’s attempts to axe this vital service, last month a federal judge ruled that the program’s funding must be unfrozen and resumed. While this was a positive development, it was a preliminary injunction in effect while the court deliberated. The risk to retrofits—and to the health, well-being, and pocketbooks of millions of Americans—remains. That’s why in April, more than a dozen members of Congress sent a letter to HUD Secretary Scott Turner urging continuation of the program. The importance of retrofitting To date, this HUD program—which is called the Green and Resilient Retrofit Program, but could easily be renamed the Keeping Americans Safe and Healthy Program—has funded retrofitting projects for nearly 25,000 housing units across the country. That’s real impact that’s reaching millions of Americans. These are housing units where landlords might be reluctant to do the necessary weatherizing, insulating, and other efficiency upgrades, all of which would improve the health of residents living there, as well as lower their utility bills. By making grants and loans available to owners of affordable housing, they were incentivized to improve a property’s energy or water efficiency, indoor air quality, and resilience to heat waves. And as our country continues to face a housing affordability crisis, any and all public-private partnerships like this that lower the costs associated with housing should be welcomed, not eviscerated. The program had three simple goals: First, reduce energy and water use in multifamily properties that HUD assists. That’s a no-brainer, as efficiency has long been a bipartisan area of congressional consensus. It saves money for anyone paying an energy or water bill (usually renters with lower incomes) and is a much-needed offset, given the increasing unaffordability of monthly rent. Second, help multifamily properties be more resilient to extreme weather events and disasters. That should also be a given, as it’s far more expensive for taxpayers to clean up damaged housing after a disaster than it is to prevent damage in the first place. There has been bipartisan support in Congress over the years for this kind of preparedness to extreme weather. And since extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and ferocious—and more costly as a result—the necessary upgrades to make homes more resilient, such as flood-proofing, make a ton of financial sense. Third, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from multifamily properties. And here the program took a page of out the bipartisan conservationist playbook, as a cleaner and more efficiently built and operated property requires less carbon to construct, heat, and power it. There’s another benefit to these emissions reductions, too: Cleaner and less-polluting homes lead to thousands fewer premature deaths and hospital visits per year for Americans. And it brings with it tens of billions of dollars in new economic benefits that come from healthier and more productive Americans. The financial data is clear and compelling on this. Retrofitting housing, then, couldn’t be more American. It’s good for American businesses who are contracted to do the upgrades, and it’s good for the Americans who are going to live healthier lives, save money on their utility bills, and be more protected, safer, and secure during the next superstorm. Now, lest more retrofitting programs get the axe by the The President administration, it’s time for the U.S. courts to stand by congressionally appropriated program funding. It’s also time for American communities to stand up for public-private partnerships that are good for American businesses, health, and pocketbooks. It’s time to save the retrofits. View the full article

Many leaders view employee activism as a disruption or threat. They see it as something to contain, avoid, or manage behind closed doors. This perception isn’t surprising because activism challenges established hierarchies, questions the status quo, and introduces unpredictability into organizational life. Yet a 2007 study has shown that employees who feel heard are more engaged, innovative, and committed to their organization’s success. In contrast, when employees feel ignored or dismissed, trust and morale decline, and disengagement is likely to set in. Activism is one form of voice, and is often the last resort when other channels have failed. The business case for listening The rise of social media has heightened concerns. Employees can bypass internal channels and take their concerns public, often in real-time. This new visibility amplifies reputational risk and fuels executive fears of losing control over the narrative. Leaders worry about backlash from customers, investors, and regulators or the derailment of strategic priorities. What executives need to consider is that activism can actually be an early warning of cultural misalignment or emerging ethical tension. When leaders reframe activism as a potential strategic insight rather than a threat, they can uncover the opportunities it offers. For example, McKinsey’s research notes that organizations with high psychological safety, where people feel safe speaking up, are more likely to innovate, adapt to change, and outperform peers. How to avoid common pitfalls Leaders often make the mistake of trying to silence or sideline dissent. This can take the form of tightening communication protocols, minimizing concerns, or casting vocal employees as disloyal or disruptive. These tactics might quiet the noise temporarily, but they rarely address the underlying issues. More often, they damage credibility, erode psychological safety, and drive dissent underground—only for it to reemerge later (likely louder and more polarized). Another common misstep is failing to address the gap between stated values and lived experience. Activism often arises when employees perceive an inconsistency. This is when what the organization claims to stand for doesn’t match what it does in practice. To maintain credibility, leaders need to assess how policies, behaviors, and decisions align with the organization’s purpose on a regular basis. From dissent to dialogue: constructive responses To harness the insight, leaders need to respond thoughtfully and proactively. This begins by shifting from a defensive stance to one of curiosity and engagement. The following strategies can help: 1. Create safe, structured channels for discussion Before concerns surface on social media or in the press, employees should have clear, accessible ways to raise them internally. For example, town halls, anonymous feedback tools, or dedicated dialogue sessions. What matters most is that these forums are genuine, not tick-box exercises. When employees see that companies listen to their input, trust grows. 2. Lead with curiosity, not defensiveness When dissent arises, leaders often default to protecting the status quo or minimizing the issue. This instinct can escalate the conflict. Instead, leaders should ask: What are they really saying? Why now? What values or expectations are at stake? Constructive conversations start with a willingness to listen and understand—even when the message is uncomfortable to hear. 3. Cocreate solutions Where appropriate, involve employees in shaping the response. This collaborative approach builds shared ownership, improves solution quality, and signals a more inclusive, modern leadership style. It also helps move the conversation from complaint to commitment. Build leadership capability Engaging constructively with activism requires skill. Many leaders aren’t trained to manage dissent. Emotional intelligence, empathy, and influence are critical—but often underdeveloped—competencies. Investing in leadership development that strengthens these skills can help managers respond with confidence and care rather than fear or force. As Daniel Goleman advises, emotionally intelligent leaders can better navigate tension, build trust, and foster inclusive cultures. They recognize the value of differing perspectives and can engage in difficult conversations without becoming defensive. From risk to resilience In today’s complex and connected workplace, silence isn’t a sign of harmony—it may be a sign of disengagement. Vocal employees, by contrast, are often deeply committed to the organization’s mission and future. They speak up because they care. Leaders who recognize this have an opportunity to lead differently—more openly, courageously, and effectively. Reframing activism as a source of insight rather than a reputational risk allows leaders to strengthen not just company culture but strategy. Listening well, responding transparently, and acting with integrity are the pathways to progress. When organizations respond to dissent with defensiveness, they fuel division. When they respond with curiosity and courage, they build the foundations for long-term trust, innovation, and shared success. View the full article

Effective leadership isn’t a one-size-fits-all endeavor. It requires adaptability, self-awareness, and a deep understanding of when to step in and when to step back. Leaders often struggle to find the right balance between empowering their teams and maintaining strategic oversight. But there’s a way that you can do both. By adopting the practical 2×2 leadership framework that I’ll get into in this article, leaders can assess their approach based on two critical dimensions: Degree of Empowerment and Degree of Strategic Altitude. The leadership quadrants When you map out leadership approaches across these two dimensions, four distinct quadrants emerge. Each quadrant represents a different leadership style, and understanding when and how to apply each can help leaders optimize their impact. Control hub (operational overreach) This quadrant is appropriate when employees lack the necessary skills, experience, or confidence to perform tasks independently. It’s crucial in high-stakes situations that require precision and compliance, like crisis management or regulatory adherence. Leaders should adopt this approach when they’re training new employees or when they need to take immediate corrective action to prevent costly mistakes. Potential pitfalls Overindulgence in this quadrant can lead to micromanagement, which stifles employee creativity and autonomy. When leaders insist on controlling every aspect of a task, employees may feel disengaged and undervalued, leading to high turnover rates and low morale. However, avoiding this quadrant when you genuinely need it can result in poor quality control, increased errors, and project derailment due to a lack of oversight. Maria, a project manager at a fast-growing tech company I’ve consulted with, is leading the rollout of a new software update for a major client. Given the complexity of the project and the tight deadlines, she feels the need to oversee every aspect, from development timelines to QA testing. Despite having a capable team, Maria conducts frequent check-ins, requests detailed reports, and personally reviews code before deployment. Initially, Maria’s approach ensures that the project stays on track and meets the client’s stringent quality standards. But as the project progresses, her team begins to feel micromanaged, leading to frustration and burnout. Experienced developers feel undervalued, and morale begins to decline. Maria realizes that while tight oversight was necessary at the project’s start, gradually transitioning to a more empowering leadership style could have built trust and improved team morale. She implements a phased approach, which allows senior developers to take ownership of specific modules while she shifts focus to higher-level strategic issues. Guided autonomy (empowered operators) This quadrant works best when employees have a solid foundation of skills but still require occasional guidance to refine their capabilities. It’s effective for developing talent and allows employees to build confidence while benefiting from the leader’s strategic input. Leaders should apply this approach when the team needs to complete moderately complex tasks that require periodic support. Potential pitfalls Overindulging in this quadrant can potentially make employees overly dependent on the leader, which slows down their growth and initiative. Leaders might also avoid this quadrant due to discomfort with providing critical feedback, which can allow performance issues to go unchecked. Jason, a sales director, is coaching a group of midlevel sales managers tasked with expanding into a new market. They have a good grasp of sales fundamentals but lack experience in handling high-stakes negotiations with enterprise clients. Jason decides to provide them with structured mentorship, offering periodic guidance while still giving them room to develop their negotiation skills. He schedules biweekly coaching sessions, where he reviews their progress, provides feedback on their approach, and shares best practices. However, Jason struggles to provide direct corrective feedback because he fears it might demotivate them. As a result, some managers continue to struggle with closing deals, leading to missed targets. Jason realizes that empowerment doesn’t mean avoiding difficult conversations. By balancing encouragement with constructive feedback, he can help his team refine their skills without undermining their confidence. He starts incorporating role-playing exercises and clear, actionable feedback into his coaching sessions. Strategic steering (visionary control) This approach is ideal when the organization or team needs clear strategic direction while requiring oversight to ensure alignment with long-term goals. It’s particularly useful during times of change, such as mergers, expansions, or new strategic initiatives. Leaders should engage in strategic steering when they need to provide vision while maintaining control over key decision-making areas. Potential pitfalls Overindulgence in strategic thinking might disconnect leaders from ground-level realities, which leaves employees without practical guidance. Avoiding this quadrant may result in a lack of long-term vision, which leads to shortsighted operational decisions. Emily, the founder of a successful e-commerce startup I’ve coached, wants to expand to international markets. She dedicates most of her time to crafting the company’s long-term strategy and forming partnerships with global distributors. However, in doing so, she becomes detached from day-to-day operations, assuming her management team can handle internal processes. Over time, operational inefficiencies emerge, with increasing customer complaints about delivery times and product quality. Employees feel directionless as their efforts are not aligned with the founder’s ambitious vision. Emily realizes the importance of balancing strategic oversight with operational involvement. She implements regular strategy check-ins with her leadership team to ensure alignment between the company’s long-term goals and daily operations, bridging the gap between vision and execution. Strategic empowerment (empowered governance) This quadrant works best for high-performing teams that demonstrate consistent results and align well with the organization’s strategic goals. Leaders should utilize this approach when their primary focus is on shaping organizational culture and long-term planning while trusting their teams to handle daily operations effectively. This quadrant is particularly valuable for fostering innovation and employee ownership. Overreliance on delegation can lead to a lack of awareness of operational challenges, potentially causing misalignment with organizational goals. However, avoiding full delegation altogether might stifle innovation and growth. Alex, a regional President at a multinational corporation with whom I’ve worked, has built a highly capable leadership team. Trusting their expertise, he adopts a hands-off approach, allowing them full autonomy over department operations. He shifts his focus to high-level industry trends and shapes the organization’s long-term vision. Initially, this approach fosters a sense of ownership among his managers, and innovation flourishes. However, over time, small inefficiencies begin to accumulate. Without periodic oversight, teams start to work in silos, and communication gaps result in misalignment with company objectives. Alex learns that he needs to accompany empowerment with structured accountability. He starts to introduce quarterly strategic alignment meetings to ensure all departments remain connected to the broader organizational goals, while maintaining the autonomy that drives innovation. Great leadership requires a dynamic balance of empowerment and strategic altitude. By understanding and applying this quadrant framework, leaders can better align their leadership style to their team’s needs, which drives both individual and organizational success. Whether on the dance floor or the balcony, the key is to know when to step in and when to step back. View the full article

Google Analytics real time reporting seems to be lagging again this morning. I woke up to a ton of complaints on social about the real time reporting reports in GA4 are simply not working as expected.View the full article

BROOKWOOD, Ala.—The The President administration has announced it will aim to fast-track the permitting and environmental review of a major coal mine expansion in central Alabama as part of a larger effort to accelerate the construction of what the government has labeled “critical mineral” infrastructure. While administration officials said the change is aimed at “significantly reduc[ing] our reliance on foreign nations,” coal produced as part of Warrior Met’s expansion in Alabama is almost entirely exported overseas to support foreign steelmaking markets, according to the company. Warrior Met’s Blue Creek mine expansion, set to be one of the largest coal build-outs in Alabama history, is one of 20 planned developments deemed “transparency projects” by the administration over the last two months. The mine expansion will be placed on the federal government’s permitting dashboard as it moves its way through the regulatory and permitting process. The projects’ inclusion on the dashboard authorized under the 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST) will, according to the The President administration, “make the environmental review and authorizations schedule for these vital mineral production projects publicly available and allow all of these projects to benefit from increased transparency. “The public nature of the dashboard ensures that all stakeholders, from project sponsors and community members to federal agency leaders, have up-to-date accounting of where each project stands in the review process,” the administration said in its announcement. “This transparency leads to greater accountability, ensuring a more efficient process.” During the Biden administration, the so-called FAST-41 dashboard was used to fast-track projects aimed at benefiting tribal nations, as well as various projects advancing renewable energy, coastal restoration, broadband, and electricity transmission sectors. The program was created as a means “to enhance transparency and increase the efficiency of the permitting process,” the Biden administration said at the time. With a new president, though, the programs designated to participate—and the policy priorities they represent—have now changed. The The President administration has already signaled its support of the Alabama project. In April, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum visited an existing Warrior Met mine outside Tuscaloosa and took a windshield tour of the Blue Creek facility currently under construction. During that visit, Burgum emphasized the administration’s stated commitment to fossil fuel production and said that its actions would “unleash American energy.” He did not acknowledge Warrior Met’s checkered safety and environmental record or that nearly all of its product—metallurgical coal—is shipped overseas for foreign steelmaking operations, not used in the U.S. “We sell substantially all of our steelmaking coal production to steel producers outside of the United States,” a recent Warrior Met corporate filing said. “For the three months ended March 31, 2025, our geographic customer mix was 37% in Europe, 43% in Asia, and 20% in South America.” The planned expansion of Blue Creek involves a major build-out of Warrior Met’s ability to mine for underground coal using the longwall method, a particularly destructive form of mining in which large machines shear walls of coal, leaving vast, empty expanses in their wake. Land above those empty caverns sinks, causing what is often permanent damage to the surface and structures there. Longwall mining has devastated communities in Alabama and beyond. In March 2024, an Alabama home exploded above a longwall mine with a different owner after methane—a gas released during mining—seeped into the residence and ignited. The resulting blast killed an Alabama grandfather and seriously injured his grandson. Since then, the community above the Oak Grove mine in western Jefferson County has continued to crumble, with homes’ foundations cracking as the longwall mine expands below. Earlier this year, just as President Donald The President was announcing efforts to promote “clean, beautiful coal,” a West Virginia woman was hospitalized after a methane explosion in her home atop a longwall mine left her seriously injured. Workers from the mine beneath her home had stood behind The President during his White House announcement. Once completed, Warrior Met’s Blue Creek expansion will increase the company’s coal production by 60%, providing additional supply for overseas steelmaking markets hungry for metallurgical coal that can meet production needs. Taxpayer-funded support for the facility may top $400 million. The company has also asked the federal government to allow it to mine publicly owned coal as part of the Blue Creek project. The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced last year that it would conduct an environmental assessment related to Warrior Met’s Blue Creek project and, specifically, its proposal to mine 14,040 acres of federal minerals underlying privately owned land in Tuscaloosa County. Warrior Met’s applications to lease the coal rights propose the extraction of approximately 57.5 million tons of recoverable public coal reserves. Initial government scoping documents indicated that any environmental assessment of the Blue Creek project would include an analysis of its impact on climate change, both direct and indirect. Since those initial documents were released, however, federal guidance on the inclusion of climate change considerations in government decision-making has been in flux. A day-one executive order by The President, for example, disbanded the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, which was established pursuant to a Biden executive order. The order said “any guidance, instruction, recommendation, or document issued by the IWG is withdrawn as no longer representative of governmental policy.” That guidance had emphasized the importance of government analysis of the social cost of carbon, a way of putting a dollar figure on the economic damage that comes from emitting a ton of carbon dioxide. The The President White House has said without evidence that the concept “is marked by logical deficiencies, a poor basis in empirical science, politicization, and the absence of a foundation in legislation.” Public comments on the project already submitted to BLM included concerns around greenhouse gas emissions and Warrior Met’s contribution to the climate crisis. “Please do not approve any new or expanded coal mining,” one commenter wrote. “The climate crisis is already deadly and rapidly getting worse. There is an overwhelming international consensus on the severity of this crisis and the urgent need to phase out the use of harmful fossil fuels.” The draft environmental impact statement for the Blue Creek project, originally set to be released sometime in the fall, is now scheduled to be published on May 30, according to BLM. — Lee Hedgepeth, Inside Climate News This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News. It is republished with permission. Sign up for their newsletter here. View the full article

Bible designs tend to be variations on a theme—tissue-thin paper and unforgiving font sizes, owing to the 783,000 words crammed into a single normal-sized book (the average novel, by comparison, clocks in at 70,000–100,000 words). Cheap faux-leather covers. A bookmark ribbon, maybe. If you’re a person of faith, it’s perhaps not the most fitting frame for what is defined as the literal word of God. If you’re a design zealot, it’s heretical object quality. If you’re both, well—prayers. The Bible is a book utterly ripe for a redesign. So Dylan Da Silva did just that with his Byble project, which released a bespoke hypermodern 11.5-pound edition of Genesis (the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament) last fall, and this week is launching its next volume, Matthew (the first book of the Christian New Testament). “Our mission, I guess, is simple—craftsmanship beyond words,” Da Silva says. “Crafting products so beautiful, they elevate the experience of reading the most powerful book ever written.” The Genesis Da Silva is not a designer, nor does he work in publishing. Rather, he comes from a property development background. Around 2022, the Sydney-based Da Silva was pondering how he could build a business around something of great meaning to him. He realized that while many people own a Bible, they generally don’t display it. And given that we live in a consumer society driven by aesthetics, he saw an opportunity to craft something new in that blank space. While he lacks visual design creds, he has experience with architectural design, and the Bible is very much a structural design challenge owing to its system of numbered verses and chapters. Da Silva wanted to keep the focus exclusively on the text (here, the King James Version—“the word is beautiful enough as it is”), so he decided not to feature any illustration or photography, and instead offer a solution that was purely typographic, which he developed with a partner in Greece over the course of two years. Another key goal was to design a system that would allow for a deeper reading of the Bible. To that end, he is breaking the Bible’s many books out of the larger whole and into single volumes, starting, naturally, with Genesis, which dominates the spine and cover of the first release in a debossed Grotesk. Da Silva drew inspiration from the Gutenberg Bible, with its distinct columns and margins and occasional typographic flair, and also sought to home in on particular moments for readers in pull quotes, translucent overlays, and bold all-caps spreads (the brand dubs these “yield” moments, thus the “Y” in “Byble”). It has the effect of slowing the books down and allowing text to breathe in an otherwise daunting 783,000-word experience. “We obsess over every detail, every page, every layout,” he says. “Ultimately, we are accessible to the reader.” OPENING A DOOR In addition to the new text presentation, Da Silva went wild on the production specs for the 13×10-inch volumes. Rather than fragile gossamer pages, he brought in a hefty 220 gsm stock. Hardcovers with silkscreened fabric. Typographic edge painting. Each book is available in two colorways—in the case of Genesis, black or green, the latter being a tip of the hat to the Garden of Eden. And for Matthew, white and red, the latter signifying the blood of Christ. All this production value comes at a cost: Currently the Byble costs $149, which has rankled some commenters on social media. “Our cost to produce is quite expensive,” Da Silva says. “The margin is not massive; it’s a standard margin for a business. … I think we’re reasonably priced. I knew there was always going to be a pushback.” Following Matthew, Da Silva is focusing on eight of the other most popular books of the Bible—Psalms, Proverbs, Exodus, Romans, Mark, Paul, John and Revelation. He wants to have five or six out by the end of the year, and then keep launching more from there, with special editions mixed in. His target audience? The devout, of course, but also design lovers and those who the Byble aesthetic could resonate with in new ways. “The goal for us is really reaching that younger generation who might be curious to learn more, who might think that the Bible is boring, or religion is boring,” Da Silva says. “We’re trying to open up a door for them.” View the full article

Ambition is one of the most defining forces in human affairs—a psychological engine that propels individuals beyond the realm of survival into the arena of creation, disruption, and transformation, and significantly predicts educational attainment, career success, job performance, and income. At its core, ambition is the refusal to accept the status quo, the internal pressure to stretch personal limits and societal boundaries. In a way, the best way to understand ambition is as the inability to be satisfied with one’s accomplishments. Ambition fuels leadership by pushing individuals to take responsibility, imagine alternatives, and mobilize others toward a vision. Ambition underwrites entrepreneurship as the catalyst for risk-taking, persistence, and the stubborn belief that a better way is not only possible but necessary. Without ambition, innovation stalls; with it, people challenge orthodoxy, break conventions, and solve problems that others resign to fate. Across disciplines, from science to art to politics, history’s breakthroughs are seldom the product of complacency—they are the residue of restless, ambitious minds. The world, to a large extent, is the output of ambitious people. It is shaped by those who couldn’t sit still, who weren’t content with inherited limitations, and who felt compelled to act on their ideas, no matter how unlikely or unpopular. From the first controlled fire to the latest generative AI models, progress has never been evenly distributed—it has been driven by individuals and groups with an outsized appetite to leave a mark. Ambition transforms dissatisfaction into momentum, and imagination into infrastructure. It explains not just who rises to lead or invent, but why civilizations expand, technologies leap forward, and cultures evolve. While it must be tempered by ethics and collective concern, ambition remains an irreplaceable force in the story of human progress. Everything in moderation And yet, like all powerful traits, ambition is best expressed in moderation. Too little, and individuals drift—untethered from purpose, passive in the face of opportunity. Too much, and ambition can metastasize into obsession, crowding out humility, collaboration, and even moral judgment. When ambition becomes unbounded, it stops serving the individual and begins demanding sacrifice—of relationships, values, and long-term well-being. It can distort self-perception, encouraging people to see themselves not as contributors to a shared cause, but as lone heroes in a zero-sum contest. Teams suffer when ambition eclipses empathy: the pursuit of personal achievement starts to undermine trust, cooperation, and psychological safety. A competitive drive that ignores others’ needs doesn’t just alienate colleagues—it weakens the very foundation of high-functioning organizations. Unchecked ambition often bleeds into greed, an insatiable hunger not just to succeed, but to dominate. As Gordon Gekko infamously said, “Greed is good”—a provocative mantra for the high-octane world of finance, but a dangerous philosophy when applied indiscriminately. Greed erodes the social contract. It justifies exploitation, tolerates unethical shortcuts, and treats people as a means to an end. In leadership, this can result in toxic cultures, short-term thinking, and spectacular failures. Companies driven solely by ambition without constraint may grow fast, but they often implode faster—toppling under the weight of hubris, burnout, and scandal. The WeWork Case Adam Neumann, cofounder and former CEO of WeWork, is a textbook example of how unbridled ambition can lead to spectacular collapse. Neumann started with a compelling vision: to “elevate the world’s consciousness” through a coworking space company that promised to redefine the way people live and work. His charisma and relentless ambition helped WeWork grow at breakneck speed, attracting billions in venture capital and inflating its valuation to nearly $47 billion at its peak. But Neumann’s ambition quickly outpaced operational reality. He expanded into housing (WeLive), education (WeGrow), and other ventures with little strategic coherence. Reports surfaced of erratic behavior, conflicts of interest, and a corporate culture driven more by Neumann’s personal mythos than sound governance. In 2019, when WeWork attempted to go public, its financial inconsistencies and Neumann’s questionable leadership style came under scrutiny. The IPO failed, Neumann was forced to resign, and the company’s valuation plummeted. His ambition wasn’t the problem in itself—it was that it became delusional, detached from execution, and ultimately corrosive to the company’s sustainability. Neumann exemplifies how visionary drive, without discipline or humility, can become a liability rather than an asset. In short, the healthiest ambition is grounded in purpose, tempered by self-awareness, and balanced by a commitment to collective success. It lifts everyone, not just the one climbing the fastest. So, while it’s generally better to have than to lack ambition, here are three proven ways in which an excess of drive or motivation can harm your career and negatively impact others. 1. Ambition can inhibit people’s prosocial drive When the desire to “get ahead” outweighs the instinct to “get along,” ambition can corrode social cohesion. In team environments, overly ambitious individuals may hoard credit, prioritize visibility over contribution, and treat colleagues as competitors rather than collaborators. This undermines trust and psychological safety—two bedrocks of effective teamwork. For example, a rising executive who constantly angles for the spotlight may alienate peers and demoralize subordinates, even if their individual output is impressive. Over time, the cost of such interpersonal friction outweighs the benefits of raw performance. In the long run, organizations thrive not on lone stars but on networks of mutual respect and cooperation—both of which ambition can quietly erode if left unchecked. 2. Ambition can amplify antisocial traits like narcissism, aggression, and entitlement While a healthy dose of drive can motivate people to aim high, excessive ambition can inflate the ego and distort moral reasoning. Narcissistic leaders, for instance, often begin their ascent with impressive confidence and vision—but as their ambition grows, so does their sense of superiority and disregard for others. This can lead to toxic behaviors like manipulation, bullying, or a refusal to accept criticism. Take the case of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos: her ambition to revolutionize healthcare was laudable, but her unwillingness to admit failure or accept limits led to deception and collapse. When ambition aligns with antisocial traits, it stops being a virtue and becomes a liability—both for the individual and the system they’re part of. 3. Ambition can harm personal relationships, wellbeing, and life outside work Ambition often demands trade-offs, but when those trade-offs become sacrifices, the consequences can be severe. People driven by intense professional goals may neglect family, friends, and self-care—believing that success justifies the costs. This mindset is especially common in high-stakes environments like consulting, finance, or tech startups, where long hours and relentless competition are normalized. Over time, the neglect accumulates: relationships fray, health deteriorates, and a creeping sense of emptiness can set in—even after major achievements. A partner who misses birthdays for business trips or skips vacations for product launches may eventually find the corner office far lonelier than expected. True success requires integration, not imbalance—something ambition doesn’t always encourage. Research consistently shows that moderate levels of ambition—as opposed to extremely high or low levels—are most beneficial for long-term well-being, work-life balance, and sustainable career success. In the famous words of Seneca, “It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor.” A more sustainable strategy Indeed, people with a healthy dose of ambition tend to have clear goals, a sense of purpose, and enough drive to stay engaged and motivated. But unlike the hyper-ambitious, they are less likely to sacrifice personal relationships, sleep, or mental health in pursuit of constant advancement. They are also more likely to value balance, practice self-care, and define success in broader terms than just titles or paychecks. This makes them not only happier individuals but often better colleagues and leaders. Moderately ambitious individuals are also more likely to stay grounded in reality. They can be ambitious without being delusional, motivated without being obsessive, and confident without being overbearing. As a result, they tend to make better long-term decisions—for themselves and others. Rather than chasing every opportunity or competing with everyone around them, they focus on meaningful progress, both professionally and personally. In a world that often glamorizes extreme ambition, it’s worth remembering that the good life is rarely lived on the edge of burnout—and that sometimes, aiming for enough is the smartest and most sustainable strategy of all. It is also clear that de-emphasizing ambition—or the importance we give to it—could help in many areas of life, including business. For example: 1. We tend to overrate ambition, especially when selecting leaders In many organizations, leadership potential is judged through the lens of visibility, assertiveness, and a hunger for advancement—classic signals of ambition. We rarely pause to ask whether that ambition serves the group, or merely the individual. As a result, we often confuse confidence for competence, and ambition for ability. Research consistently shows that traits like humility, integrity, and emotional intelligence are more predictive of effective leadership than raw drive or self-promotion. Yet job interviews and promotion processes still reward those who “lean in,” speak up, and outperform peers—often selecting the loudest rather than the wisest. This opens the door to narcissistic leaders who crave power for its own sake. As Plato warned, “a person who wants to govern should not.” 2. Ambition is frequently mistaken for talent, even in roles that demand competence over charisma Think of professions where precision, reliability, and expertise are paramount—pilots, surgeons, financial advisers. In these roles, would you rather entrust your life or money to someone highly ambitious, or someone quietly excellent? In reality, you often can’t have both. The most ambitious professionals may focus more on personal brand-building and career climbing than on mastering their craft. Yet our hiring and evaluation systems tend to reward the ambitious candidate: the confident speaker, the impressive résumé, the person with a five-year plan to reach the top. This obsession with upward momentum blinds us to quiet competence. Ironically, many of the best performers are not those obsessed with “being someone,” but with doing something well. 3. Finally, ambition is often directed at the wrong goals—those that serve ego more than others Many high achievers are not driven to make things better, but to be seen as better than others. Their goals are status-enhancing, not impact-driven: more power, more wealth, more recognition. This kind of ambition justifies any means—cutting corners, sidelining colleagues, or exploiting loopholes—so long as the outcome advances their image. In this light, ambition becomes less a force for progress and more a zero-sum race for supremacy. Organizations and societies pay the price: innovation stalls when energy is spent on internal jockeying, teams fracture under self-serving leadership, and trust erodes. True ambition should be oriented toward contribution, not domination. But too often, we reward the latter and wonder why so many leaders fail to elevate anyone but themselves. When Enough is Enough Ambition is a powerful tool, but like any tool, it can become dangerous when misused or overvalued. In a world that equates relentless drive with virtue, we risk promoting the wrong people, building the wrong cultures, and pursuing the wrong goals. We forget that ambition is not inherently noble—it simply magnifies what already exists. In the right hands, it catalyzes innovation, service, and progress. In the wrong ones, it fuels ego, exploitation, and eventual collapse. The challenge, then, is not to reject ambition, but to recalibrate our relationship with it: to stop treating it as an end in itself, and start seeing it as a means to something greater. This requires a collective shift in how we define success—not as the ability to outshine others, but as the capacity to uplift them. We need to stop conflating ambition with leadership potential, charisma with competence, and visibility with value. It’s time to reward the quietly excellent, the others-focused, and the impact-driven. The future will not belong to those who climb the fastest, but to those who climb with purpose—and bring others with them. As my colleague and friend Amy Edmondson and I have argued, ambition may drive history, but only wisdom, humility, and integrity ensure that it drives us somewhere worth going. View the full article

Decision is aimed at boosting collaboration as companies roll back pandemic-era policiesView the full article

Continuing from the “year of yeehaw,” professional bull riding is having a moment on TikTok. Since the beginning of this year, Professional Bull Riding (PBR)—the largest bull riding league in the world—has gained 650,000 followers across its social media platforms, Mashable recently reported. That’s just 200,000 fewer than they gained throughout all of 2024. Mitch Ladner, PBR’s social media lead, told Mashable’s Christianna Silva that most of this growth comes from followers between the ages of 18 and 35. On PBR’s TikTok, which is nearing 3 million followers, many recent videos tap into viral trends and audio—with a cowboy twist. “Aligning our chakras,” one caption reads, but instead of a sound bowl, it’s a can of Monster Energy and a meat stick. “Whoever is in charge of your page is so Gen Z chronically online coded, and I LOVE IT,” reads a comment beneath a recent video. The sport itself—with rides lasting a maximum of eight seconds—was practically built for short-form video. The goal is simple: Stay on the bull using just one hand and both legs (touching the bull with the second hand means disqualification). Now it’s finding fresh traction with a new TikTok audience. Cowboy culture, too, is enjoying a broader resurgence. From fashion trends like “coastal cowgirl” and “cowboy core” to Beyoncé’s Grammy-winning Cowboy Carter album and tour, 2024 earned its “year of yeehaw” nickname. Today, cowboy hats and boots are everywhere. Pinterest reported an 8,700% spike in searches for “country glam” in 2024, while searches for “Western style outfits” rose 418%. A RealReal report also showed searches for vintage Levi’s denim and fringed leather up nearly 70%. Still, we may not have hit peak cowboy. In January, a PBR event sold out Madison Square Garden for three consecutive days—the first time in nearly 20 years, according to Mashable. Founded in 1992, PBR is leaning into its Gen Z moment. “Our mantra is: Be cowboy,” PBR CEO and Commissioner Sean Gleason told Mashable. “It doesn’t matter where you live, what you drive, how you dress, the color of your skin, or your gender. If you live honestly with integrity, hard work, and an appreciation for the history and heritage of America, you’re a cowboy.” View the full article

In Texas, parts of Houston are sinking at a rate faster than 10 millimeters—or about two-fifths of an inch—per year. Parts of Dallas and Fort Worth are sinking more than 5 millimeters per year. While that may sound small, it adds up: Every few millimeters that a city sinks can cause cracks in roads or tilt building foundations, and make that region more vulnerable to extreme flooding. And those Texas cities aren’t alone: Twenty-five other major cities—from New York and San Francisco to Boston and Oklahoma City—are also sinking, according to a new study, putting more than 34 million people at risk. Cities can sink for a few reasons. Buildings are heavy, and so sometimes the ground below them can settle and constrict, especially if they’re built on top of sand. Erosion or natural land and tectonic movements can come into play, too. But the most common cause for cities sinking lower and lower—a process known as subsidence—is groundwater extraction. Across the county, half of the U.S. population relies on groundwater for drinking, irrigation, or industrial uses. When cities pump that water from the ground below, the land then compacts and settles down, bringing the city, and the structural integrity of its buildings roads, and bridges, with it. “Land subsidence is often invisible—until it isn’t,” says Manoochehr Shirzaei, a geophysicist at Virginia Tech and coauthor of the study, published today in the journal Nature Cities. “It undermines building foundations, damages roads and pipelines, and compromises flood defenses. . . . It’s a quiet hazard, but its effects accumulate, potentially amplifying damage during storms or earthquakes.” All 28 major U.S. cities are shrinking For their study, Shirzaei and his team focused on the 28 most populous U.S. cities, which cover nearly 12% of the country’s population. Previous studies about subsidence often focused just on coastal regions or individual cities, ignoring the widespread urban risk. Researchers used satellite-based radar measurements to create high-resolution maps of those cities’ sinking land. The researchers expected to see subsidence in places like Houston and New Orleans. Houston has long been one of the fastest-sinking cities because of groundwater mining and oil and gas extraction; and New Orleans is built on top of soft, marshy land, with a drainage system that runs through the city. But they found subsidence in all 28 cities they examined—including Chicago, Columbus, Seattle, and Denver. “The widespread nature of the hazard was striking,” Shirzaei says. In 25 out of the 28 cities, at least 65% of the urban area is sinking. In some cities, that’s even greater: Chicago, Dallas, Columbus, Detroit, Fort Worth, Denver, New York, Indianapolis, Houston, and Charlotte saw the most widespread subsidence, with about 98% of their areas affected. Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston saw the highest rates of subsidence, from about 5 millimeters to as much as 10 millimeters per year. Climate change, subsidence, and what cities can do Subsidence comes with a range of risks. In cities that are already prone to flooding, like New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., it can make floods even worse because more land is closer to sea level. That means when cities sink, they’re more vulnerable to climate change’s impacts. “Our study found that the cities with the highest rates of subsidence have also experienced numerous major flood events in the past two decades,” Shirzaei says. But at the same time, climate change can exacerbate subsidence, by increasing droughts and also the demand for groundwater. Cities still have time to act, Shirzaei says. They can slow this rate of sinking, or even reverse subsidence, by enacting regulations around groundwater use, managing aquifers better, and updating building codes to take soil movement into account. Cities should also adopt monitoring systems, integrate this risk into their urban planning, and retrofit any infrastructure that may be vulnerable. The key is that these responses must be tailored to a specific city—its ground makeup, its infrastructure, and its subsidence causes. “What works in San Diego won’t work in Memphis,” Shirzaei says. View the full article

Scam calls are turning the world on its head. The Global Anti-Scam Alliance estimates that scammers stole a staggering $1.03 trillion globally in 2023, including losses from online fraud and scam calls. Robocalls and phone scams have long been a frustrating—and often dangerous—problem for consumers. Now, artificial intelligence is elevating the threat, making scams more deceptive, efficient, and harder to detect. While Eric Priezkalns, an analyst and editor at Commsrisk, believes the impact of AI on scam calls is currently exaggerated, he notes that the use of AI by scammers is focused on producing fake content, which looks real or on varying the content in messages designed to lure potential victims into malicious conversations. “Varying the content makes it much more difficult to identify and block scams using traditional anti-scam controls,” he tells Fast Company. From AI-generated deepfake voices that mimic loved ones to large-scale fraud operations that use machine learning to evade detection, bad actors are exploiting AI to supercharge these scam calls. The big question is: How can the telecom industry combat this problem head-on before fraudsters wreak even more havoc? SCAMMERS ARE UPGRADING THEIR PLAYBOOK WITH AI Until recently, phone scams mostly relied on crude robocalls—prerecorded messages warning recipients about an urgent financial issue or a supposed problem with their Social Security number. These tactics, while persistent, were often easy to recognize. But today’s AI-powered scams are far more convincing. One of the most alarming developments is the use of AI-generated voices, which make scams feel disturbingly personal. In a chilling case from April 2023, a mother in Arizona received a desperate call from what sounded exactly like her daughter, sobbing and pleading for help. A scammer, posing as a kidnapper, demanded ransom money. In reality, the daughter was safe—the criminals had used AI to clone her voice from a social media video. These scams, known as “voice cloning fraud,” have surged in recent months. With just a few seconds of audio, AI tools can now create an eerily realistic digital clone of a person’s voice, enabling fraudsters to impersonate friends, family members, or even executives in corporate scams. Scammers are also using AI to analyze vast amounts of data and fine-tune their schemes with chilling precision. Machine learning algorithms can sift through public information—social media posts, online forums, and data breaches—to craft hyper-personalized scam calls. Instead of a generic IRS or tech support hoax, fraudsters can now target victims with specific details about their purchases, travel history, or even medical conditions. AI is also enhancing caller ID spoofing, allowing scammers to manipulate phone numbers to appear as if they are coming from local businesses, government agencies, or even a victim’s own contacts. This increases the likelihood that people will pick up, making scam calls harder to ignore. TELECOM’S COUNTEROFFENSIVE: AI VS. AI As fraudsters sharpen their AI tools, telecom companies and regulators are fighting back with artificial intelligence of their own—deploying advanced systems to detect, trace, and block malicious calls before they ever reach consumers. 1. Call authentication and AI-based fraud detection To combat spoofing, telecom carriers are leveraging AI-powered voice analysis and authentication technologies. In the U.S., the STIR/SHAKEN framework uses cryptographic signatures to verify that calls originate from legitimate sources. But as scammers quickly adapt, AI-driven fraud detection is becoming essential. Machine learning models trained on billions of call patterns can analyze real-time metadata to flag anomalies—such as sudden spikes in calls from specific regions or numbers linked to known scams. These AI systems can even detect subtle acoustic markers typical of deepfake-generated voices, helping stop fraudulent calls before they connect. 2. Carrier-level call filtering and blocking Major telecom providers are embedding AI-powered call filtering directly into their networks. AT&T’s Call Protect, T-Mobile’s Scam Shield, and Verizon’s Call Filter all use AI to spot suspicious patterns and block high-risk calls before they reach users. The GSMA’s Call Check and International Revenue Share Fraud (IRSF) solutions also provide real-time call protection by verifying legitimacy and combating calling line identity spoofing. For context, GSMA’s IRSF Prevention leverages first-party International Premium Rate Numbers (IPRN) data and an advanced OSINT (open-source intelligence) platform to deliver real-time, actionable fraud intelligence. It tracks over 20 million IPRNs, hijacked routes, and targeted networks—helping telecoms proactively combat IRSF and Wangiri fraud. 3. AI-powered voice biometrics for caller verification Another promising line of defense against AI-generated fraud is voice biometrics. Some financial institutions and telecom providers are deploying voice authentication systems that analyze more than 1,000 unique vocal characteristics to verify a caller’s identity. Unlike basic voice recognition, these advanced systems can detect when an AI-generated voice is being used—effectively preventing fraudsters from impersonating legitimate customers. REGULATORS ARE CRACKING DOWN, BUT IS IT ENOUGH? It’s one thing to tighten regulations and stiffen penalties—something many government agencies around the world are already doing—but effectively enforcing those regulations is a different ball game altogether. In the U.S., for example, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has ramped up penalties for illegal robocalls and is pushing carriers to adopt stricter AI-powered defenses. The TRACED (Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence) Act, signed into law in 2019, gives regulators more power to fine scammers and mandates stronger anti-spoofing measures. Internationally, regulators in the U.K., Canada, and Australia are working on similar AI-driven frameworks to protect consumers from rising fraud. The European Union has introduced stricter data privacy laws, limiting how AI can be used to harvest personal data for scam operations. However, enforcement struggles to keep pace with the speed of AI innovation. Scammers operate globally, often beyond the jurisdiction of any single regulator. Many fraud rings are based in countries where legal action is difficult—if not nearly impossible. Take, for example, countries like Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos, where organized crime groups have established cyber scam centers that use AI-powered deepfakes to deceive victims worldwide. Operators in these scam centers frequently relocate or shift tactics to stay ahead of law enforcement. They also operate in regions with complex jurisdictional challenges, further complicating enforcement. Scammers thrive on fragmentation and exploit vulnerabilities—whether that’s a lack of industry coordination or differing regulatory approaches across borders. These regulatory bottlenecks underscore why telecom providers must take a more proactive role in combating AI-driven fraud, rather than relying solely on traditional frameworks which—while helpful—are not always efficient. That’s where the GSMA Call Check technology, developed by German telecom solutions provider Oculeus, could play a vital role. “The GSMA’s Call Check services provide a simple, fast and low-cost mechanism for the exchange of information about scam phone calls as they occur. This technology is rooted in the cloud, making it future-proof and global in a way that other methods being contemplated by some nations will never be,” Commsrisk‘s Priezkalns says. FAR FROM OVER Without question, the battle against AI-powered scams is far from over. As former FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel noted last year: “We know that AI technologies will make it cheap and easy to flood our networks with deepfakes used to mislead and betray trust.” The good news is that the telecom industry isn’t backing down. While scammers are using AI to deceive unsuspecting individuals, the industry is also leveraging AI to protect customers and their sensitive data—through automated call screening, real-time fraud detection, and enhanced authentication measures. But according to Priezkalns, technology alone isn’t enough to protect people. For him, deterrence—driven by the legal prosecution of scammers—is just as important as technological solutions. “It needs to be used in conjunction with law enforcement agencies that proactively arrest scammers and legal systems that ensure scammers are punished for their crimes,” he says. One thing is certain: Scammers and scams aren’t going away anytime soon. As Priezkalns points out, people will continue to fall for scams even with high-intensity public awareness training. But as AI continues to evolve, the telecom industry must stay a step ahead—ensuring it becomes a force for protection, not deception. And with tools like the GSMA’s Call Check, that future is within reach. View the full article

The average person changes jobs every two years and nine months, according to a survey by the career advice website Career Sidekick. If you work for 40 years, that translates to about 15 jobs—and 15 resignations. While the conversation can feel difficult, it’s important to be thoughtful about how you say goodbye, says Melody Wilding, author of Managing Up: How to Get What you Need from the People in Charge and human behavior professor at Hunter College in New York City. “A lot of people boomerang back to a company, team, or manager in a fairly short time,” says Wilding, who is also a contributor to Fast Company. “Having strong relationships with leaders and colleagues could also be a good for getting a reference, LinkedIn recommendation, or referrals to new roles.” Delivering a resignation, however, can involve heightened emotions. Resentment, frustration, burnout, and fatigue may have caused you to seek a new role or company, yet you likely have a desire for civil, diplomatic, and tactful conversation, says Wilding. “Sometimes those two things can be at odds,” she says. “You’re not only dealing with your own emotions, but you’re also trying to project other people’s reactions. Is my boss going to be upset or ask that I leave right away? The desire to get [the conversation] right and secure your future can put pressure on you.” Do the pre-work Wilding advises doing some pre-work before you deliver the news that you’re quitting. Be ready that the reaction may not be positive, especially if you’re involved in sensitive work, she says. “They may say, ‘Thanks for your two-week notice, but actually you can be done today,’” she says. Before you exit a team and possibly lose access to your work, Wilding recommends taking stock of what you’ve achieved in your role. “This isn’t about stealing anything that’s company IP or proprietary,” she says. “It’s updating your résumé, putting together a case study that you may want to reference in the future, updating your LinkedIn profile, and writing some posts based on what you did while you still have access to all of it.” Next, put together a transition plan. While it sounds intimidating, it simply needs to be a rundown of your projects and their stages. You could also put together a guide for standard operating procedures, about how you do certain things. Wilding suggests including contact information or different stakeholders so the person who assumes the job can easily take over. “Putting together a transition plan is valuable because it shows that you’re thoughtful and solution-oriented,” says Wilding. Prepare for the conversation After you’ve done the pre-work, prepare for the conversation, which should be done in person and not through a written platform, says Wilding. “Virtual can be fine over Zoom, but you want it to be in real time so the person can hear your tone of voice, and your sincerity can come through,” she says. “Too much can be lost over email or messenger.” A good rule for managing up is to not let the people above you be negatively surprised, and it applies to leaving, too. Wilding says if you go into your one-on-one and the news completely sideswipes your manager because they didn’t see this coming, they’re probably going to have a much stronger negative reaction. Instead, set the stage by saying, “Today in our one-on-one, I’d like to put aside five or 10 minutes to give you an important update that I have.” “At least they know something’s coming,” says Wilding. “You don’t have to disclose ‘I’m telling you that I’m leaving,’ but you can say, ‘I wanted to discuss my trajectory here’ or ‘I want to talk about my next steps in the organization.’ It gives them a heads up that can be crucial.” Skip to the chase Most people feel some nerves when they share news that they’re leaving. While it can be tempting to make small talk, Wilding recommends fighting that tendency and jumping to the chase. “Frame it from your perspective,” she says. “You can say, ‘I’ve made the hard choice that it’s time for me to move on. [This date] will be my last day in this role.’ You can be honest and say, ‘This wasn’t an easy decision for me’ or ‘I thought about this a lot. I know it will be hard for the team.’ You don’t have to apologize. Keep it focused on your situation and what is right for you and your career.” This isn’t time to have a feedback conversation about the difficulties in the role, adds Wilding. “Break the news and focus on moving forward,” she says. Next, talk about how you will transition out of the role and leave the team in a good place. Having your transition plan ready provides the perfect tool for refocusing the conversation if it starts to get emotional. “If they say, ‘How could you do this? This is such terrible timing,’ you can say, ‘I understand, and that is not my intention. What I think would be helpful is if we focus on how we implement this plan,’” says Wilding. “It gives you something tangible to keep circling back to.” It’s important that you feel emotionally grounded going into this conversation, adds Wilding. “This is not the type of conversation you want to squeeze between two other meetings, when you may be rushing from one thing to the next,” she says. Also, don’t feel like you need to keep talking. “When we get uncomfortable, we tend to over explain,” says Wilding. “If you’ve had a good experience, you can say, ‘I’ve enjoyed my time here.’ If it wasn’t the greatest experience, you can say, ‘I’ve learned a lot from my experience here,’ which is true even if you work somewhere where it’s been difficult. Then say, ‘On this date, I’ll be moving to this company or this new team and then be quiet. When we inject strategic silence into a conversation, it projects more confidence than just rambling.” Think about external communications It’s also important that you shape the narrative that’s being told about why you’re leaving and make sure it’s an accurate story instead of letting people fill in the gaps. Ask to be part of the communication roll out, especially if you have clients, vendors, or cross-functional partners that need to be notified, says Wilding. “Ideally, hand over a transition message,” says Wilding. “Or, at the very least, be proactive about saying to your manager and HR that you want to be part of that communication.” Wilding also recommends writing a post about what you learned during your time there or gratitude for your team. You can use that as a jumping off point to share what you’re doing next. Throughout the process, keep your interactions healthy and strong, says Wilding. “In most industries, it’s a very small world,” she says. “Don’t bad mouth anyone. Even if you don’t end up working directly with the same people, you may have shared colleagues who come up in conversation. Put things in the past and move on. You want to be able to have a network of weak ties for the future so you can reach out for a referral, expand your network, and provide references or recommendations for others.” View the full article

Vincent Clerc says changing supply chains fast using trade war is ‘very unrealistic’View the full article

Their worries center on fears the new duties could impact their personal finances, according to a new survey from home-equity investment platform Point. View the full article

Greg Creed spent 25 years at Yum Brands, including more than a decade in leadership roles at Taco Bell, before he retired from the company in 2020. He offered this unsolicited advice after a rough quarter for McDonald’s, in which same-store sales fell over 3%, the company’s worst drop since the pandemic. The problem, Creed asserts, is that McDonald’s isn’t chasing menu options that its customers will crave. And without a menu that elicits a strong reaction—either positive or negative—from diners, McDonald’s is just “being beige.” “Nothing as a brand is worse than being beige,” Creed wrote in a recent LinkedIn post. “It upsets no one, but let’s be honest: No one loves beige.” In the company’s first-quarter earnings report, McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski cited uncertain economic and geopolitical conditions as reasons for the sales slump. Traffic to McDonald’s fell more than expected, even as the company leaned into its value messaging. Still, McDonald’s has raised prices as inflation persists. “We’re not immune to the volatility in the industry or the pressures that our consumers are facing,” Kempczinski said. Comparatively, though, Taco Bell is killing it. In the first three months of the year, sales are up 9%. Traffic is up too, regardless of customer income. These numbers were a bright spot for Yum Brands, also the parent company of KFC and Pizza Hut, which reported mixed results in the first quarter. “I know this is a tough operating environment for everybody else in the industry,” Yum Brands CEO David Gibbs said during his company’s recent earnings call. “It just is probably an environment that favors Taco Bell, and that’s what you’re seeing there, firing on all cylinders.” From his position on the outside, Creed can only speculate on what’s happening. But his hunch is Taco Bell’s success comes from its willingness to aggressively push new menu items, like its crispy chicken nuggets, a former limited-time offering that just made it onto the menu for good. It’s not that McDonald’s can’t innovate, Creed says, it’s that the company’s structure—where he guesses operators have more input on menu items than the marketing department—is slowing it down. “I always thought of McDonalds as an operating company,” Creed said via email. “Whereas I used to say when I ran Taco Bell, that we are a marketing company that just happens to sell Mexican-inspired food.” Process aside, Kempczinski expects McDonald’s fortune to turn. Like Taco Bell, it’s adding more fried chicken to the menu with this week’s nationwide launch of fried chicken tenders called McCrispy Strips, and plans to lean hard on its value offerings to reach a stretched consumer. The biggest co-sign of Creed’s analysis, though, comes from current Taco Bell CEO Sean Tresvant. In response to Creed’s LinkedIn screed, he wrote: “Nuggets (pun intended) of gold, Greg.” View the full article

Google pushed back against news reports of shrinking Search demand, pointing to "overall" search query growth and feature adoption The post Google Disputes News That Search Engine Use Is Falling appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Indian assault that killed dozens sparks groundswell of support for retaliation from IslamabadView the full article

The agreement is expected to be unveiled later on ThursdayView the full article

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go… 1. My old employer wants me back I recently switched jobs from an in-office position to a fully remote position due to it being a better fit for my life. When I resigned, my work made it extremely hard for me to leave. They offered me fully remote (when previously they would not allow me to even work from home when my kids were sick) and a $20,000 salary bump. I was exasperated with the whole situation and decided to stay the course with my new gig. Fast forward a month and they are contacting me weekly asking me if I’m ready to come back yet — everybody from the billing manager to the practice manager. I mentioned to my practice manager that while I missed and enjoyed the work at their office, I enjoyed my new hours, remote work, and pay equally. She asked me what it would take for me to come back and told me to make my terms, which I did. I then received an email from the practice owner saying he was delighted at the prospect of my return and would be agreeable to fully remote, but wanted to know if I could come down on my salary ask. I asked for $41.35 an hour. I’m currently at $36.50 + overtime and bonuses and my current employer pays 100% on health/dental/vision for myself and my children, a four-month fully paid maternity leave, and a ridiculous amount of other perks that I have never seen employers in the U.S. offer. It is a unicorn job. However, if the money was right at my old position, I would consider going back. Am I in the wrong for expecting them to do more than just match my current compensation package when I feel like I would be making sacrifices to go back? They are not set up for fully remote. Fully remote with them would mean I can work from home but I still have to drive into the office every day to do pickups and drop offs. It would mean I still couldn’t take a laptop with me and work from wherever I wanted. It would also mean I couldn’t move out of the state, which is something I have been wanting to do for a long time. For all these reasons, I think they should exceed my current compensation by a fair amount. When he asked me to go lower, I went down to $40 but said that was my firm stop. I haven’t heard back from him since and this was three days ago. Did I offend him or do you think he’s trying to see a way to budget that hourly into the mix? I doubt you offended him, although maybe he realizes it’s a lost cause. (And if you did offend him by plainly stating what you would need to consider the offer, then it’s good that his quest is a lost cause.) But more importantly, it doesn’t sound like you should be considering going back at all, even if they do meet your terms. You’re not obligated to work for them again just because they really, really want you to. You have a set-up right now that sounds superior in multiple ways and even if your old job matches your salary request — in fact, even if they matched all the other benefits of the new job, which they’re not going to — it still would be an inferior situation for all the reasons you listed. Moreover, there’s no guarantee that they wouldn’t decide a few months after you returned that having you be fully remote wasn’t working after all and pressure you to work from the office again. You left because this job made it clear they weren’t enthusiastic about offering what you wanted. You found a job that was. Unless there’s something really problematic at the new job that you haven’t mentioned, it’s not in your interests to try to negotiate this! You left; don’t go backwards. (Also, for what it’s worth, having all those people contact you to ask if you’re “ready” to go back is pretty weird! If it was that important to them to keep you, they had plenty of chances to do it before you decided to leave. They chose not to.) Related: my company made a counter-offer to keep me — and now is attaching strings to it 2. Should I report inappropriate teacher behavior several years later? I recently went through a child protection training that is pretty standard for teachers. Part of that training described appropriate communication, and it sparked a memory from a few years ago when I first began teaching. A student told me that he and a teacher would stay up all night texting and all through weekends. He even showed me his phone and the text chain from the evening before that was hundreds of messages long over a four-hour period from 1-5 am. He told me they did this all the time. I thought it was a little strange but in my naïveté as a young, new teacher, I assumed this teenaged boy was close to this (female) teacher. After this training and with some wisdom, I can see how inappropriate this is and how it is potentially predatory. I am wondering, should I report this now, so many years later? I know her boss, and she has told me that she is always concerned over this teacher’s boundaries with students. Also, she has a school phone since she is a coach, and the messages were sent from it. I feel uncomfortable sitting on this info but I am not sure how to proceed. Yes, you should report it, particularly since this was only a few years ago, not decades ago. You can say, “I was uneasy about it at the time but after taking a child protection training, I realize this is something I should report.” The teacher’s behavior was absolutely inappropriate. At a minimum she has a massive gap in her knowledge about safe boundaries to protect kids, and at a non-minimum it’s grooming and predatory behavior. It’s something the school needs to know about and address. 3. “Thanks for the sympathy but I don’t really need it” My wife’s mother passed away last week. She was a complicated person who struggled with mental illness, and many of her relationships with family members were strained. I’ve never met my mother-in-law; she was invited, but did not attend our wedding. My wife had been estranged from her mother most of her adult life, but had recently gotten back in touch. My leadership and team at work were amazing when I let them know that I’d be intermittently unavailable the following week for out-of-state travel and funeral activities. My manager even requested details of where to send flowers. The thing is, I view this week as more of an obligation and show of support for my wife with her family, versus a time to process devastating grief for a beloved family member. What’s the best way to say, “Thanks, but I’m not really that sad. Feel free to continue to email me with work stuff, and don’t bother sending flowers”? It sounds heartless without the backstory, but I also don’t feel comfortable ambushing my unsuspecting team with my wife’s family drama. The only reason that I needed to take nearly a full week off was because the funeral was located in a small town with no fast/convenient way to get there. What’s the best way to approach this situation where: (1) I don’t want to take advantage of my team’s good will, which may have been offered under the assumption that this situation is more emotionally impactful than it really is; (2) I’d rather bank that good will and cash it in at some point in the future when I really need it for a more devastating/impactful personal disruption. I don’t think you need to explain it! There’s a very wide range of closeness to in-laws, and people are generally aware that anyone in your shoes could be having a response anywhere from “devastating personal loss” to “here to support my spouse.” You can certainly say something like, “I appreciate it! She’s not someone I knew well, so for me this week is really about supporting Jane” … but I don’t even think that’s necessary, and you’re not taking advantage of (or using up) anyone’s good will. 4. Hiring manager offered me a lower-level job than I applied for I recently applied for a role one level up on a new team that’s currently building itself up. I completed an internal HR screen and an interview with the hiring manager that seemed to go well. The next week, the recruiter told me that the hiring manager saw potential in me, but also saw gaps in experience that meant she wanted to bring me in the same role at a lower level — the level I currently am at. I asked for time to think it over, then sent a follow-up email the same day asking if the hiring manager herself could detail what gaps she saw in me. No response as of yet. What are the potential reasons for a manager to offer this? Do they genuinely believe that I’m not actually qualified at the level I applied for, but just qualified enough for one level down? Are they trying to save money? Are there potentially some internal politics going on in regards to my years of experience? Do they have better candidates with more experience? If so, why not just offer to them instead? Is the hiring manager expecting to shift the work around to reflect the lower level (and salary)? Is this usually successful? Are there other reasons on the hiring side that I’m not seeing? This offer honestly left a bad taste in my mouth; I think I would’ve been more willing to consider it had the hiring manager herself proposed it to me with some detail around exactly what gaps she saw. Please let me know if I’m missing something. The most likely explanation is what they said it is: the hiring manager likes you but thinks your skills and/or experience aren’t at the level of the original role and you’d be a better fit for the job she did offer. Sure, it’s possible that there are some politics around your years of experience (like if other people on the team have been told they’re not ready to move up until they have more experience than you have), but it’s just as likely not to be that and instead is exactly what they said. I don’t know exactly how your email asking about the gaps was worded, but ideally you would have just asked for a conversation with the hiring manager to learn more about the differences in the job being offered, and as part of that conversation could have asked where she thought your skills needed to develop in order to be ready for the higher-level position. That’s a good conversation to have anyway, because you do need to know the differences in the two roles. (I’m hopeful that your response didn’t come across as just “justify these alleged gaps,” which could seem off-key as opposed to “can you help me understand the differences in the two roles,” but it would depend on the exact wording.) 5. I’m paid 25% above market but want to change jobs I’m facing a bit of a first-world dilemma — one I recognize I’m lucky to have. Due to a combination of circumstances, I’m currently earning about 25% above the market average for someone in my role and with my level of experience. The problem is, I’m miserable in my job and really want to make a change. Unfortunately, no other opportunities are offering a similar salary, so I’m left with a tough choice: stay in a well-paying but unhappy role, or take a significant pay cut for the chance at greater job satisfaction. I’d really appreciate any advice you or your readers might have. I’m not based in the U.S., so benefits like health insurance don’t factor into the decision. Yeah, being paid significantly above market rate can make it really hard to leave. Assuming you have an idea of what you could expect to be paid if you change jobs, can you try living at that salary level for a while to see how you feel about it? Hell, open a separate bank account to put the “extra” money in so you’re not tempted to see it as yours. Maybe you’ll realize it’s perfectly doable and you’ll feel more comfortable switching jobs, or maybe it will make you realize you’d rather stay where you are. Either way, it should help to test out the change before deciding. The post my old employer wants me back, hiring manager offered me a lower-level job than I applied for, and more appeared first on Ask a Manager. View the full article

The broad rise in the share of underwater loans across the country this winter came as borrower distress grew and home prices pulled back in some regions. View the full article

Bond giant says Wall Street should ‘believe’ the president’s threats to restore big leviesView the full article

Steven Wood accuses the Hayek family of sidelining minority shareholders in Swatch Group as he campaigns for board seatView the full article