All Activity

America’s mid-air dismantling of the global system of trade represents a one-time chance to competeView the full article

Google AdSense has been testing serving and displaying ads within AI Chatbots. Bloomberg reported Google has already begun testing this within AI search apps iAsk and Liner and plans to allow other AI Chatbot providers to include AdSense ads in their chat responses.View the full article

Nigel Farage’s party is bolstered by disillusionment in the country rather than its policiesView the full article

Google has confirmed that Apple will be adding its Gemini AI service to Apple Intelligence by the end of 2025, reports are saying. We knew this would happen but we should also expect Apple to add not just Gemini but other AI services to Apple Intelligence. View the full article

In early March, it was leaked that Google Ads will be rolling out channel reporting for Performance Max campaigns. Well, now it is official, Google said they are introducing "'­new'¬'­ channel-level'¬'­ reporting'¬'­ in'¬'­ Performance'¬'­ Max" plus, "full'¬'­ search'¬'­ terms'¬'­ reporting'¬ and'¬'­ more'¬'­ detailed'¬'­ asset'¬'­ reporting'¬'­ that'¬'­ show'¬'­ you'¬'­ all'¬'­ the'¬'­ metrics'¬'­ for'¬'­ individual'¬'­ assets.'¬"View the full article

Google is testing showing favicons logos in its shopping ads, in the carousel of sponsored product results. Ginny Marvin, Google's Ads Liaison, confirmed this with me on X last night.View the full article

Google is testing showing AI Overviews on the right hand side of the search results page. I am not sure if this is specific to local queries and a replacement of sorts for the local panel, I hope not.View the full article

Fall comes as The President’s tariffs knock consumer sentimentView the full article

A brand's approach to empathy, AI, and personalization offers key insights for CMOs aiming to drive impactful marketing campaigns and business growth. The post How CMOs Can Tell Stories To Manage Change [Case Study With Mondelēz International] appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Last week, President Donald The President sat for an interview with Time magazine to reflect on the first 100 days of his second term in the White House. The President, as he tends to do when discussing himself, let the superlatives fly. “I feel that we’ve had a very successful presidency in 100 days,” he said. “We’ve had people writing it was the best first month, and best second month, and really the best third month.” Although the fourth month has not yet concluded, I am confident I can guess how he’ll characterize it when the time comes. Normal people do not concur with his self-assessment, to put it gently. The President’s approval rating at the 100-day mark is the lowest of any newly elected president dating back to Dwight D. Eisenhower, who took office before the widespread availability of color television. More than half of voters say the country is headed “in the wrong direction,” which is generally not the sort of first impression that politicians aspire to make. Support for his trade war is hovering in the mid-30s, and that was before merchants began passing along the costs of tariffs to their baffled customers, who were suddenly getting hit with “import fees” that often cost more than the items in their carts. (Just in time for the shelves in big-box stores to start emptying out!) Even The President’s anti-immigrant agenda, traditionally a source of strength with his Republican base, is underwater these days: 53% of voters, including 61% of independents, disapprove of his handling of the issue, and almost half believe his deportations of undocumented people have “gone too far.” His penchant in recent weeks for illegally deporting U.S. citizens, too, including a toddler receiving cancer treatment, is unlikely to reverse this trend anytime soon. For any other president, numbers like these would be disastrous, and would prompt frantic hand-wringing about the continued viability of their policy agenda, to say nothing of their fitness to serve for 45 more months. But to date, the defining feature of The President’s second term has been his utter disinterest in what the polls, popular opinion, his advisers, fellow Republicans, and even the courts say about him. He seems to perceive his performance only through the distorted lens of a right-wing media ecosystem that amplifies voices that flatter him and filters out those that do not. The result is the most unabashedly venal presidency in recent memory—the beginning of a four-year victory lap during which The President intends to enjoy the perks of the office to the fullest extent, whatever the consequences for everybody else. No one would mistake The President as embodying the spirit of humble, selfless public service during his first term. But he has been even more cavalier about using the presidency to enrich himself this time around, and his hands-off approach to cryptocurrency in particular (on the campaign trail, he promised to make the U.S. the “crypto capital of the planet”) has been great for business. World Liberty Financial, a The President family-controlled crypto venture, has done a brisk trade since the inauguration, pulling in more than half a billion dollars in sales in recent months. He has dangled the promise of dinner at the White House to juice interest in the $2.7 billion market for his eponymous memecoin, most of which is controlled by members of his inner circle. And he remains the single largest shareholder in the The President Media & Technology Group, the share price of which jumped earlier this month after the company announced plans to expand into—you guessed it—crypto-adjacent financial services products in the near future. Not all of The President’s income streams are quite so sophisticated; you can still buy an ostensibly hand-signed The President Bible for $1,000, a price that does not include shipping. But his powers as president to manipulate markets and simultaneously dictate the government’s regulatory agenda (or lack thereof) makes this source of his wealth especially valuable. Bloomberg estimates the combined paper gains of The President’s crypto projects at close to $1 billion, which is a pretty nice return on an asset class that he was deriding as a “scam” as recently as 2021. In previous decades, a president splitting his time between making money, playing golf, and persecuting his political adversaries would read about his unpopularity in the newspaper every day, and hear about it on the news every night. Back in 2017, when The President routinely announced U.S. government policy while tweeting from the toilet, he was at least aware of which aspects of his agenda qualified as “controversial” with the public, because he could see real-time feedback from Democratic lawmakers and irate Krassenstein brothers alike. In 2025, however, there are no remaining institutions capable of checking The President’s apathy toward the plights of the people around him. The increasingly insular nature of conservative media—The President posts primarily on Truth Social, a platform built around his political movement, and occasionally on X, a cesspool of conspiracy theories curated by his wealthiest supporter—makes it rare for him to even encounter meaningful criticism, let alone digest and respond to it. Meanwhile, his administration is reshaping the White House press corps, elevating sympathetic reporters whose idea of a difficult question is asking The President whether Democratic politicians are merely wrong, or also treasonous. In his mind, legacy media outlets exist mostly to sue for billions of dollars anytime they have the temerity to report stories he doesn’t like. The upshot of all this is that The President effectively spends 24 hours a day in an information bubble of his own creation, surrounded by people who only tell him how great he is and what a great job he’s doing. He views skeptics of all types, from immigrants asserting their constitutional rights to corporate executives begging him not to sink the economy, as voices he can safely ignore, if not enemies whom he has an electoral mandate to humiliate and defeat. Those first-term hour-by-hour sparring matches with opponents are far less common now, in part because The President has the luxury of not knowing or caring what the haters are saying about him anymore. Perhaps the most unsettling lesson of The President’s first 100 days is that to the extent that he is willing to second-guess himself on anything, it is only when his financial interests are at stake. His decision in April to delay the planned implementation of most “reciprocal” tariffs is perhaps the most significant concession he’s made on his campaign promise to “tariff the hell” out of insufficiently cooperative trading partners. But he did so not because the reciprocal tariffs would constitute a self-inflicted financial disaster that could cost working families an average of $2,100 per year, according to the Yale Budget Lab, but because news of the tariffs triggered a sell-off in the bond market, which he described as “getting a little yippy.” In a remarkable coincidence, the value of The President’s investments in bonds could be close to half a billion dollars, according to The New York Times. The potential implosion of one’s own portfolio has a funny way of putting things in perspective. In his Time interview, The President downplayed his concerns about volatility in the bond market, his earlier admissions to the contrary notwithstanding, and said that he didn’t pause the tariffs “for that reason.” He then pivoted back to calling Joe Biden “the most incompetent president in history,” which is the same basic comms strategy my 4-year-old uses when I ask if her little brother is crying because she took his stuffed giraffe, and she responds by hiding it behind her back and asking me to read her a book. It is of course good that The President, at least for the time being, backed off a proposal that prompted JPMorgan to raise its projected odds of a global recession from 40% to 60%. But even though The President’s financial interests in this case happened to align with those of everyone looking nervously at their retirement accounts, what is best for normal people will rarely be best for an elderly television personality obsessed with holding down a spot on the fringes of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Every decision The President makes during his remaining time in office will be about doing what is best for himself and his friends, because his only interest in public service is and has always been about how much he can profit from it. View the full article

Getting dressed for work in the morning can be complicated. Gone are the days of the office dress code. While most of us are happy that our bosses no longer dictate that we wear collared shirts, heels, or shift dresses to work, this means the burden of figuring out what is appropriate now lies squarely on our shoulders. As corporate culture has become increasingly more relaxed, with denim often replacing trousers, finding the right balance between formal and casual can be tricky. If you show up to work in a three-piece suit, you might look like you don’t understand your company’s values. But if you wear your favorite baggy jeans, you might come off as unserious. And looking out of place can have negative consequences on your career. Citizens of Humanity, a denim label, and Argent, a workwear brand, are deeply familiar with this sartorial confusion. Both brands regularly field questions about how to put together an outfit that will allow someone to look polished but also creative and unpretentious. “This is not a trivial issue,” says Sali Christeson, Argent’s founder and CEO. “Our goal is to make sure that women show up to work feeling confident, so they can do good work.” The brands have joined forces to create a Citizens of Humanity x Argent collection of garments called “Good Work” that epitomizes the modern work wardrobe. Thanks to Citizens of Humanity’s expertise, it is full of denim pieces that are elevated and elegant, telegraphing professionalism. But taken as a whole, the capsule is meant to be versatile, helping the wearer transition from formal moments to casual ones, since work today often requires moving between diverse environments. “With these pieces, we’re trying to give women a formula for getting dressed for the many different parts of their work life, which could mean going from a board meeting to a creative brainstorm in a single day,” says Amy Williams, Citizens of Humanity’s CEO. The pieces in this collection offer a useful blueprint for how to style denim for the office today. Consider The Cut and Color Jeans have become an office staple, but the key to finding the appropriate pair for a given occasion depends on the cut and rinse. If you’re anxious about appearing too casual, one good solution is to find jeans that are cut like traditional suiting trousers. For this collection, Citizens of Humanity developed a pair called the Beverly Trouser made from non-stretch denim that has an elegant drape and a wide leg silhouette. It comes in two shades—very dark blue and white—that also give them a more formal look, since they are reminiscent of traditional suiting. But there are moments when you might deliberately want to look more relaxed. In Williams’s case, this might be when she’s working with her designers or creative teams, who tend to dress more casually. So Citizens of Humanity has included the Ayla jeans in this collection. These are baggier than the Beverly, with a roomy leg that can be cuffed to give them more structure or left to pool a little to give them a more laid-back look. To give the outfit a more polished look, Williams says you might wear them with, say, a button-down shirt or a waistcoat. (The Good Work capsule includes a black one.) Consider Denim Dresses and Skirts One way to bring denim into office wear is to go beyond the jean altogether, and consider other kinds of garments. The Citizens of Humanity x Argent capsule includes the Farrow Denim Dress, which has a structured fit that accentuates the waist and buttons that go down the entire front. Another material, such as crepe, might make the outfit look more prim, but denim fabrication offers versatility. You could wear the dress with a blazer to the office, and wear it on its own for a more casual lunch or dinner. The Gwynn denim skirt is similarly versatile. It comes in a dark wash and reaches the calf, a length that is work appropriate. But it also has a stylish slit in the front, that also makes it easier to walk around in. The skirt can be easily dressed up or down. With a button-down, you could wear this to meet with a client; with a tank top, you could wear it on a casual Friday. What About Denim Jackets and Shirts? If you’ve been used to wearing blazers to the office, but find that they’re increasingly feeling too formal, a good swap could be a denim jacket. For the Citizens of Humanity x Argent collection, the two brands developed the Abra Work Jacket, a silhouette that is in vogue. It comes in a dark indigo rinse, which is reminiscent of a traditional navy blazer. But the denim material and the contrast stitching makes it undeniably inspired by heavy-duty workwear. The jacket front also has staggered patch pockets, which transform it into a statement piece. And if you feel like your traditional Oxford button-down shirt makes you look too dressy, you might consider replacing it with a denim shirt. The Harris shirt in this collection is oversize, with a high low hemline. Williams points out that there are many ways to wear this piece. You can layer it over a tank top. You can pair it with trousers. Or, if you want to stand out, you could wear it with jeans to create a full denim look. What if I want to be more dressy, but not too formal? The Citizens of Humanity x Argent capsule is designed to have an outfit for every occasion, including more formal ones. Here’s where Argent’s expertise comes in. For this collection, Argent reimagined one of its suits, comprised of its Chelsea blazer and Park trousers, in a denim blue linen. Both the material and the color give the suit a more breezy feel that allows you to blend seamlessly into relaxed or formal scenarios. Another way to dress up without looking overly starchy is to swap a blazer for a waistcoat. Argent designed a linen twill waistcoat in black that you can pair with matching black trousers or shorts. It comes with a matching blazer that can elevate the look, so you can wear the entire three-piece suit to a talk or a board meeting, then remove the blazer for date night. View the full article

Only 20% of the Top Producers in the National Mortgage News survey were under 40, while almost half were between 41 and 50, and 30% even older. View the full article

The images of Panera Bread’s new Croissant Clutch could be straight out of a fashion magazine. Highlighted against a warm, glowing orange-and-brown background, the accessory looks out of place in its web store alongside the company’s Mac N’ Cheese Pillow and “Just Baked” onesie. The fast-casual chain’s newest handbag—what it calls “carb couture”—is an insulated clutch that’s reminiscent of a croissant in both shape and fabrication, with pleats to evoke the buttery breakfast food’s flaky layers. According to Panera, it’s also the best possible way to carry around its new menu item, a melted, crispy croissant toasted sandwich, without it getting, well, too melty. It does not say, however, whether the clutch is washable, which suggests a wipeable, insulated to-go box would actually be the better lunch box for a toasted sandwich. But neither fashion nor marketing were ever much about practicality. “We are always exploring new ways to connect with our guests, from craveable meals to playful expressions of our brand—including this unique fusion of food, function, and fashion,” said Mark Shambura, Panera Bread’s chief marketing officer. An attempted internet sensation redux With the Panera Bread Croissant Clutch, the company seems to be reattempting the success of the Panera BAGuette marketing campaign two years ago—which went viral on TikTok and sold out. Twice. But while the clutch bag became available to customers on April 30, there hasn’t been as much of an overwhelming response compared to Panera’s first take on haute couture. The 2023 BAGuette was also a clutch, although in a classic baguette shape with an embossed P in a repeat pattern. Some described the style as a dupe of Fendi’s iconic baguette bag, which could’ve been key to its viral success. Panera told Fast Company its BAGuette bag garnered close to 3.5 billion impressions overall. Some BAGuettes are still available on eBay, all marked well over the original price of $39.50 (prices range from about $70 to $225). The BAGuette’s virality drove many users to bemoan the limited stock. One Tiktok user talked about the bag in the context of Kylie Jenner merchandise drops. “I have truly never been so sad about missing a release of something,” she said. Panera announced the BAGuette after its baguette sandwiches proved popular among customers, which became a menu item in January 2023. Similarly, the new Croissant Toast Sandwiches, available in two varieties, are the inspiration behind the new clutch. “With this launch, our goal is to spark conversation and drive brand awareness by creating a bold cultural moment,” said Shambura. “Following the viral success of our BAGuette bag, which sold out—twice—we’re excited to see how fans embrace this next chapter of ‘carb couture.’” Panera is certainly not the first to try to capture that elusive viral cultural niche. TikTok marketing, spending aperitif “TikTok Made Me Buy It” continues to be a catch-all phrase for viral marketing content on social media, and a sentiment that played a role in the major success of the BAGuette. Viral content takes off quickly and drives consumer spending, encouraging brands to try to stay ahead of the cultural curve. Some brands have made being “unhinged” their entire marketing strategy. Others have invested in killing off—then reincarnating—their icons. Panera has chosen a different route altogether. It’s understandable why Panera Bread would want to recapture that internet magic. After all, what’s an investment in a run of $40 bags compared to billions of impressions? However, we have yet to see whether the success of the BAGuette will rub off on the Croissant Clutch. Customers eagerly ate up the BAGuette, but there’s one question remaining: Are there any crumbs left? View the full article

On the campaign trail, President Donald The President made multiple promises to lower energy prices and electricity bills for Americans, but 100 days into his second term, energy prices are up—and expected to keep increasing. Experts say The President’s energy policies—like inhibiting renewables, canceling federal energy assistance programs, and enacting widespread tariffs—are to blame. “Under my administration, we will be slashing energy and electricity prices by half within 12 months, at a maximum 18 months,” The President said in August. “Energy is going to bring us back. That means we’re going down and getting gasoline below $2 a gallon, bring down the price of everything from electricity rates to groceries,” he said in September. (Though at times he did hedge: “If it doesn’t work out,” he also said in August, “you’ll say, ‘oh well, I voted for him and he still got it down a lot.’”) At the 100-day mark, though, average gas and electricity prices are up, some Americans have already seen their energy bills increase, and there’s “potential for much more harm,” says Charles Harper, senior policy lead for the power sector at Evergreen Action. Average prices are up—and The President policies will raise them more The President recently claimed that gas prices dipped below $2 a gallon in some states, but that’s not true. The national average price of gas is currently $3.17 a gallon, 5 cents higher than a month ago—and tariffs are set to spike gas prices soon. U.S. refineries make gasoline from crude oil, which is produced here but also imported—predominantly from Canada and Mexico. The U.S. imports about 4 million barrels of Canadian oil per day. (We also import what’s called “finished motor gasoline” from other countries, primarily Canada.) Average electricity prices are also up, to $0.181 per kilowatt per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s a slight uptick from both January and February, and the highest price on record. Though The President ran on a platform of “energy dominance and unlocking American energy,” Harper notes, “he hypocritically has tried to kill some forms of energy that are the lowest cost.” Wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity to build, and also the fastest to deploy. Yet The President has taken aim at these energy sources, suspending funding for clean energy projects and issuing orders to stop projects already underway, including for an offshore wind farm that would power more than 500,000 New York homes. In a list of “energy resources” he says we need to increase, The President specifically excluded wind, solar, and battery power. The President cut low-income energy assistance In the first 100 days of The President’s second term, low-income Americans, in particular, have been hit with extra energy charges because of his actions. When The President paused funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as part of his “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, that affected the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps more than 6 million low-income households across the country cover their energy bills. Without those funds, about 2,000 low-income households in Alabama saw an immediate $100 added to their utility bills, in just one example. By April, states were missing out on about $400 million in LIHEAP funding that had yet to be distributed by the federal government. The President and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have fired LIHEAP’s staff as they try to kill the program entirely. That’s expected to raise energy bills for millions of Americans, meaning low-income households will be less able to pay those bills, or less likely to adequately heat and cool their homes. Previous cuts to LIHEAP have seen these effects play out. In 2023, Congress cut $2 billion from LIHEAP’s budget, and utility debt increased by 8.4% over the next year; 22% of households also kept their homes at unsafe temperatures in 2024, compared to 19.8% the year prior. Tariffs will keep increasing gas and electricity costs The President’s tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada aren’t only affecting consumer goods; they’ll also raise energy prices. Just how much depends on where you live, but Midwest states are expected to be hit the hardest. The President enacted a 10% tariff on Canadian energy imports and 25% on Mexican energy imports, which could raise gas prices by as much as 50 cents per gallon for people in the Midwest, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Canada and Mexico supply more than 71% of crude oil to U.S. refineries across the country (nearly 60% of all U.S. crude oil imports come from Canada alone). Canada has also threatened retaliatory tariffs, including a 25% surcharge on electricity sold to Michigan, Minnesota, and New York. Tariffs on steel and aluminum could also make new grid infrastructure and energy projects more expensive. The President’s push for fossil fuels may backfire Much of The President’s campaign promises and early term actions aim to increase fossil fuel production. But that won’t necessarily help energy prices or U.S. households’ energy bills—or even fossil fuel companies themselves. The President has said he wants to bring back retired coal plants, but those plants closed because they were no longer economically viable. Putting them back online would be an expensive undertaking that would also increase electricity prices once they’re up and running. The President has also looked to increase exports of liquified natural gas (LNG), and has approved licenses for new LNG projects. But increasing LNG exports actually increases domestic energy prices. Because that natural gas is being sold abroad, it makes it subject to global price fluctuations, and means exports aren’t addressing local demand. (When Russia invaded Ukraine, for example, European countries bought more LNG from the U.S., sending prices skyrocketing for Louisiana residents.) Thanks to rampant tax breaks, LNG projects can also cost local communities millions of dollars. The President’s actions have further increased uncertainty for fossil fuel companies. He has aimed to boost fossil fuel production by fast-tracking the approval process for new projects, and has said he wants oil prices to drop to $50 a barrel—but that price is considered too low to be profitable. Oil and gas companies aren’t clamoring to drill both because they don’t want to overproduce and flood the market, and because fears of a recession are causing uncertainty about the future. “This ‘Drill, baby, drill’ agenda his administration has been pushing is not bearing out in practice,” Harper says. “Many oil and gas companies benefit from a lower supply of energy and corresponding higher prices because they have higher profit margins on every barrel of oil that they sell, and they are really resistant to increasing production.” Oil and natural gas, including LNG exports, are both global markets “that are subject to the whims of other countries and global demands,” Harper adds. That means it’s impossible to isolate America from global price volatility. Clean energy could be a different story, because it’s generated domestically—but as previously noted, The President is hampering clean energy projects rather than pursuing them. All of these actions will only continue to raise energy prices for Americans, Harper says—and, he notes, they’re also all “self-inflicted wounds done by the new administration.” View the full article

Tom Broughton, the founder of the British eyewear brand Cubitts that has recently landed in the U.S., wants to make you a set of glasses that you’ll be able to wear your entire life. “They could outlive you,” he says. That’s a radical notion these days. Over the past three decades, as fast fashion has become the norm, the price of eyewear has come down alongside the price of clothes and shoes. Brands like Zenni and Warby Parker market their glasses as a fashion statement that is so affordable, you can change them up whenever you want. You could wear a different pair every day of the week. Broughton finds this approach to eyewear problematic for many reasons. For one thing, 250 metric tons of eyewear ends up in landfills every year, by some estimates. This is an environmental catastrophe since most eyewear today is made of acetate, a kind of plastic that will not biodegrade and contribute to the microplastics crisis. But more broadly, as a lover of glasses (or spectacles, as he calls them) he believes glasses have a way of expressing your identity and shaping how you appear to the world, so there is something beautiful about having a pair that lasts your life. With Cubitts, Broughton is trying to bring this philosophy to life. The company has a more laborious handmade process than its competitors, to create a more durable pair of glasses, and each frame comes with a lifetime of servicing and repair. Now the company is doubling down on this approach by allowing customers to create custom lenses that are personalized to the shape of their face, ensuring that they are perfectly suited to a lifetime of wear. Customers can now get a fitting for custom lenses in store, and the company is also developing an app that will collect customer measurements digitally so they can create custom frames online. The app will be released in the next few months. A Spectacles Historian In his early teens, Broughton became obsessed with eyewear. More specifically, he fell in love with the rock star Morrissey’s glasses. In the 1980s, Morrissey, the lead singer of the iconic band The Smiths, wore large black frames that Broughton found irresistible. So Broughton got himself a pair of similar frames and wore them proudly to school, even when chunky frames weren’t yet popular. “I remember turning up to school in them when I was 14,” he says. “I felt like I was the coolest person ever, rightly or wrongly. Maybe people were laughing at me behind my back.” In his late teens and early twenties, Broughton became fascinated with the history of spectacles. He began collecting old pairs he found at antique shops, and learning as much as he could about them. This history made him long for the days when a pair of glasses was a valuable possession that people cherished throughout their life. For much of human history, there was no way to correct poor eyesight, so many people went through life with blurry vision, unable to fully take in the world around them. Then, over the course of the last two millennia, inventors discovered that they could use crystal, polished quarts, or glass globes to magnify text. In the 1200s, Europeans developed the first eyeglasses made of quartz, framed in wood that you could hold up to your face to see things more clearly. Throughout the Renaissance, scientists continued developing spectacles to correct vision, but it wasn’t until the 18th century that they developed a pair with arms that would rest over the ears, making them more stable and hands-free. But until very recently, corrective glasses were very expensive. Even a century ago, when they were widespread, most people only had a single pair they would wear over the course of a lifetime. “Their spectacles were a precious, life-changing tool,” Broughton says. “But their spectacles also became associated with them and how they presented themselves to the world.” This is no longer the case. Eyewear is now very inexpensive to produce. Companies realized they could make spectacles out of plastic, which is a very cheap material. And since the 1980s, most of the world’s eyewear has been mass-produced in China, where labor is inexpensive. Now you can now get a pair for as little as $30. And while Broughton thinks it is wonderful that corrective eyewear has been democratized, so that everybody who needs it can now get it, it’s possible that the industry has swung too far, transforming glasses into something that is disposable. “We’ve stopped seeing spectacles as the incredible invention that they are,” he says. Spectacles That Last a Lifetime Broughton hadn’t planned on becoming an entrepreneur. He studied behavioral economics and applied statistics, and eventually worked at Spotify. But in his spare time, he continued to pursue his passion for spectacles. He learned how to craft frames out of acetate and metal by hand, and began creating spectacles for his friends. “I would cycle around London with little measuring tools, knock on people’s doors and take their measurements,” he says. In 2012, while he was still at his day job, he launched Cubitts, creating custom lenses. The business quickly took off. Even though there are many competing eyewear brands on the market, people seemed to like Broughton’s approach that treated spectacles as something special. His customers took a long time to choose the perfect frames that they felt reflected who they were and how they wanted to appear to the world. Cubitts launched online and opened its first store in King’s Cross in London. The company also came to the United States, opening two stores in New York last year. The brand is known for its chunky, statement-making glasses, in the vein of the pair Morrissey wore, and they aren’t very expensive. The average Cubitts pair costs $200. Through its branding, the company emphasizes that even though the glasses are stylish, they’re not meant to be trendy. Throughout the store and the website, Cubitts makes it clear that the eyewear is meant to last a lifetime. The company makes each pair by hand using a lengthier process than its competitors, including using parts that are easier to replace if they break. For instance, it uses a premium hinge that connects the frame to the arm (that goes behind the ear) that makes it easier to fix. Cubitts has a policy of offering a lifetime of repairs, rehabs, and reglazing of their frames. When a prescription changes, they put in new lenses for free (many retailers offer this service, for a fee). But Broughton believes that creating eyewear that lasts a lifetime isn’t just about durability. It’s also about helping customers find a pair that they love and that fits them perfectly. Cubitts offers each pair of glasses in small, medium, and large sizes to fit faces of different sizes. But the company is now investing in technology to create custom frames that are perfectly suited to the customers’ face. The company has developed a system that allows customers to come into the store to take measurements of their face, identifying everything from the size of their nose to the shape of their face to the distance to how far back their ears are. (The company is also working on an app that will allow people to take these measurements at home, so they can create custom frames virtually. This is likely to roll out in the next year or so.) Then, when the customer pick a style of lenses they like, Cubitts will custom-make them to suit their facial proportion. He’s found that this has been particularly appealing to Black and asian customers who sometimes struggle to find eyewear that fits the dimensions of their face, since most eyewear is designed around caucasian features. But all customers, regardless of ethnicity, like being able to find a pair that can be designed to look perfectly suited to their faces, so they are aesthetically pleasing and also don’t pinch the nose or the ears. Ultimately, Broughton hopes that this technology makes customers love their spectacles even more, and want to hold on to them for longer. And even though Broughton himself has access to an endless supply of different frames, and is sometimes tasked with testing out different models, he generally sticks to a round frame he has become attached to. “I’ve become rather attached to my spectacles,” he says. “They’re part of me now.” View the full article

In recent years, the FDA has approved dozens of gene and cell therapies that can potentially cure rare diseases like sickle cell disease and spinal muscular atrophy. But many patients still can’t access these treatments because insurers have refused to cover them. That reluctance is understandable, unfortunately. Widespread use of these multimillion-dollar therapies would bankrupt many health insurers. But the solution isn’t to deny lifesaving drugs to patients. Rather, it is to deploy creative financing solutions that deliver these therapies to sick Americans without collapsing the insurance system. The sickle cell dilemma Consider, for instance, the dilemma posed by sickle cell disease. About 100,000 Americans suffer from the condition, in which a genetic defect causes red blood cells to become crescent-shaped and impede circulation, leading to severe pain and shortened lifespans. Two therapies approved by the FDA show great promise, but are each priced above $2 million, reflecting the decades of research and development costs required to bring them to market and the relatively small patient population. Shockingly, $2 million may not be out of line, given the number of lives to be saved and the years of suffering to be averted, not to mention the improvements in workforce productivity for patients and their caregivers, and cost-avoidance of chronic disease management for sickle cell disease in the future. Curing the condition once and for all could actually save money in the long run, compared to managing the disease year after year and only slowing, not stopping, the patient’s decline. Even the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which argues that many pharmaceuticals are wildly overpriced, has concluded that these treatments would “achieve common thresholds for cost-effectiveness” at a price exceeding $2 million. Yet few insurers can afford the up-front cost of these cutting-edge therapies. Commercial insurance companies would similarly struggle to afford the treatments for dozens or hundreds of patients in their risk pools state by state. Simply put, the health insurance system was designed to pay for statins and surgeries, not miracle cures with seven-figure price tags. The mortgage model Giving patients widespread access to these cures will require going outside the traditional insurance system, and facilitating partnerships between manufacturers, payers, and financial institutions, including banks and private equity. For example, right now, sickle cell chronic disease-and pain-management for just one patient can cost upwards of $50,000 per year. For Medicaid, which covers about 50% of U.S. sickle cell patients, these costs could add up to $2.5 billion annually. But if banks partnered with Medicaid, they could finance sickle cell gene therapies in bulk for a discount, say $1.7 million, then Medicaid would amortize the loan over several decades, the same as mortgaging a multimillion-dollar house. At a federally subsidized interest rate of 1%, Medicaid would pay $50,000 per patient per year over 40 years. In other words, the government would effectively pay the same annual price for gene therapies that cure patients up-front as it currently spends just to manage the condition in perpetuity. But after 40 years, Medicaid would have paid off the loan. Banks get a safe, government-backed investment; manufacturers are paid quickly and can scale production; and patients enjoy decades of good health. Outcomes-based contracts The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is embarking on a voluntary program between the makers of sickle cell gene therapies and state Medicaid offices to expand access, but it is limited to contracts that take the states off the hook if a treatment doesn’t work as intended. So-called outcomes-based contracts are rife with complexities and are unlikely to lead to widespread access for sickle cell patients. Similarly, employer-sponsored health plans’ coverage of gene therapies is erratic. If private equity partnered with these health plans at publicly traded companies, the up-front cost of paying for treatment in working-age populations could be amortized over time, predictably increasing the value of the company’s shares. Consider that healthier employees lead to gains in top-line productivity and fewer chronic conditions in a company’s risk pool that could potentially lower premiums. This means a greater return for private equity, one that makes their large up-front investment worthwhile. Everyone wins Traditional insurance simply wasn’t designed for a 21st-century world where we have the tools to completely cure diseases by altering patients’ genetic code. But with regulators’ permission, financial institutions could introduce tools that reduce the long-term costs of chronic conditions, improve public health, and generate predictable financial gains. View the full article

For the first time in more than 20 years, Amazon’s logo got a touch-up. In fact, all of its logos got a touch-up. The small but subtle changes are part of a company-wide brand system refinement, bringing together more than 50 Amazon sub-brands across categories like pharmacy, groceries, and on-demand streaming under a single brand umbrella. Typography was key to making it all work. A pair of bespoke fonts, Amazon Logo Sans and Ember Modern, tie Amazon products and services together with a unified brand voice that has flexibility for different contexts. This is a brand that’s everywhere, from cardboard boxes to music to prescriptions, and needed to adapt to convey boldness and excitement in use cases like entertainment, but trustworthiness in its healthcare divisions. Koto Studio, the creative agency that worked on the brand system and refresh, started the endeavor by thinking of Amazon’s master brand logo as a type specimen, not just a mark. (Though they did plump up its arrow to give it a deeper “smile.”) The team refined the letterforms in the logo, which eventually became the foundation for a font. “The biggest challenge was the sheer scale,” Koto New York executive creative director Arthur Foliard tells Fast Company of the Amazon brand refresh. “Amazon’s brand had become visually fragmented. Every product or service seemed to have its own logo. It was a sea of arrows with no clear system or structure.” Under the new brand system, the Amazon family of sub-brands, house brands, and core services, from Amazon Basics to Amazon Kids, now have a unified logo system set in the new proprietary Amazon Logo Sans. Ember Modern is a new version of the typeface Amazon originally designed for Kindle screen. Koto updated it with characters for 366 languages and seven weights so it can be used globally in instances like high-impact headlines or for text-heavy, long-form reading. It’s a typeface designed for versatility. They also updated the company’s color palette to standardize its main brand color, Smile Orange; tweak its blue to a more saturated, digital-friendly shade; and give each sub-brand its own bright, expressive color scheme. Amazon Fresh, its grocery delivery business, uses shades of green to communicate freshness, while Amazon One Medical, its primary care provider, uses a turquoise green reminiscent of scrubs. “Historically, Amazon teams moved fast, spinning up businesses and logos on the fly to meet customer demand,” Foliard says. “That agility was great, but it sometimes led to brand fragmentation.” Going forward, the agency left the company with an automated “[amazon]:name” command to generate future consistent logos instantly, plus a full logo architecture to define what needs a logo and what doesn’t. With its new brand system and font book, Amazon is better positioned to express its brand and sub-brands across a growing number of categories. If Alexa is the audible voice of Amazon the brand, Amazon Logo Sans and Ember Modern are the brand’s voice in print. View the full article

Who shaped your career? Think about the people who guided, challenged, and helped you grow into the professional you are today. Do you think that artificial intelligence could have replaced their support? AI is revolutionizing mentorship by offering tailored learning, progress tracking, and administrative support. But AI has its limitations. AI cannot replace human intuition, empathy, and the ability to challenge mentees in a nuanced way. In today’s workplace, mentorship has never been more critical and complex. A new generation of employees is looking for new ways to learn and develop, and mentoring is at the top of their list. And they are not afraid to turn to AI for support. A recent Deloitte report revealed that eight out of ten employees believe AI can support their professional growth through tailored learning opportunities. That’s not just a statistic—it’s a clear signal. People are asking for mentorship that leverages the best of both worlds: technology and human connection. They also want it customized to their individual needs. What AI can do for mentorship AI is reimagining how we mentor, with tools like adaptive learning platforms can tailor learning experiences to specific needs, skills, and pace. It can also analyze data for skills gaps, suggest discussion topics, and provide summaries and progress reports. Virtual collaboration software is also making it easier than ever to connect, guide, and support mentees. These tools simplify time-consuming logistical and administrative burdens and free up time for deeper conversations. What AI can’t do for mentorship Here’s the catch: While AI can streamline mentorship, it can’t replicate the trust, empathy, and intuition that define a truly impactful mentoring relationship. People are not cookie-cutter, so having a one-size-fits-all solution rarely works. Only a human mentor can offer intuitive, nuanced guidance. AI cannot inspire and push mentees beyond their comfort zone in the same way a human mentor can. In our book, Financial Times Guide to Mentoring, Peter Brown, PwC’s global workforce leader, shared, “The use of generative AI in a mentor-mentee relationship is a classic case of where technology can be used to augment but not replace human beings. . . . As brilliant as it is, Al is unable to provide, for example, the emotional connection, empathy, and nuanced advice—all these innate, human qualities can’t be replaced by it.” What mentors provide that AI never will Meaning and motivation AI is extremely useful in developing mentoring matches based on specific variables, crafting bespoke learning paths, identifying areas for growth, and even personalizing the mentoring experience. It can suggest topics for discussion and ways to start the conversation, as well as summarize those conversations and the key takeaways at the end. It can also recommend relevant resources for further learning. It’s a powerful resource, but it’s the human mentor who interprets those insights, provides context, and motivates mentees to take meaningful action. Personalized and nuanced feedback To maximize impact, mentors should go beyond AI-generated insights by asking powerful, thought-provoking questions that challenge assumptions and encourage self-reflection. AI might give recommendations, but a mentor can contextualize them based on real-world experience, share personal stories, and help mentees see the bigger picture. AI cannot interpret nonverbal cues, but human mentors can, which allows them to adapt their feedback. Human mentors also inspire action by holding mentees accountable, celebrating their progress, and nudging them toward growth in ways that AI simply cannot. Empathy and trust AI can give you scripts of what to say, but it lacks genuine emotional intelligence. If you didn’t get a job, had a paper rejected, or lost a major client, it’s the mentor who will give you a safe space to be vulnerable, process your feelings, and use them to rebuild. Only a human mentor can truly listen and create a space where a mentee feels heard and supported. To build trust, mentors should focus on active listening and acknowledge disappointments without rushing to offer solutions. Instead of saying “You’ll get the next opportunity,” ask, “How are you feeling about this? What can you learn from this experience?” Moral and ethical guidance While AI might work in a black-and-white world, the rest of us live in a world of gray, filled with uncertainty. AI makes decisions based on the past, while our morals and values are what guide us toward the future. AI processes information based on historical decisions, but can’t make value-based judgments in complex scenarios, which is something humans face every day. We need to apply moral judgment to our everyday decisions. As a mentor, don’t just offer answers; help your mentee develop their own ethical compass. Ask them, “What type of leader do you want to be?” or “Which option will help you sleep at night?” These types of reflections build the critical thinking skills AI can’t replicate. It also prepares mentees to be ethically responsible leaders who can make sound decisions during periods of uncertainty. Encouragement beyond comfort zones AI can optimize learning and offer learning paths, but on the days you are tired, have a fight with your significant other, or are stuck in traffic, it’s the human mentor who can offer encouragement, nudges, challenges, and stretch assignments. When a mentee is stuck—either due to frustration, exhaustion, or self-doubt—the human mentor is the voice in their head that reminds them why they started. If you notice that your mentee is having an off day, ask “What’s one small thing you can do today so that you feel a sense of accomplishment?” or “When you look back at this moment, what do you want to see?” An appropriate challenge or stretch assignment, wrapped in encouragement by a mentor, can rekindle a mentee’s motivation in a way that AI can’t. At its core, mentorship is about relationships, not reports and data points. Trust, listening, and genuine curiosity are what make a mentoring partnership successful. AI can enhance what we do and save us time, but it’s how we ultimately show up as mentors—fully present, thoughtful, and invested—that’ll leave a lasting impact. AI is reimagining mentorship by expanding what’s possible, but it won’t replace the essence of what makes mentoring work: the human connection. As mentors, we have the opportunity to use these tools to amplify our impact and save us time, while doubling down on the skills that only humans bring to the table—trust, empathy, and presence. View the full article

For as much as the design industry exaggerates the narrative and drama around unboxing a product, Kind is one of the few brands in which the packaging really does serve the customer experience. Its clear window advertises the natural ingredients: nuts, chocolate, and minimal sugar. The wrapper offers literal transparency into what you’re putting into your body. Of course we know now that plastic is as bad for our environment as it is for our biology. And Kind has spent more than two years reimagining its iconic plastic packaging as a paper wrapper that it hopes to eventually put around the hundreds of millions of bars it sells each year. Developed by Printpack, the company worked to source the right paper and fine-tune its structure—ensuring it’s both protective of food and feasible for assembly line production. “There’s an expectation from our consumer that we are delivering sustainable solutions,” says Kerri Clark, VP of Packaging R&D at Kind. “So I think the threshold that we have to meet is a bit higher.” Developing a better wrapperThe plastic Kind bar packages of today are technically recyclable in much of the U.S., but not through convenient curbside recycling. “We can’t get the consumer to take extra steps, to go to another place to drop things off. It’s a really big ask,” Clark says. “So the paper track is about driving circularity, and improving recycling rates on our Kind bar wrapper.” Swapping plastic for paper isn’t so easy, though. For starters, plastic is highly durable against puncturing and creates a strong seal against the environment. Meanwhile, Kind knows its bar can have sharp edges where it’s cut, and that their product isn’t just bought and then consumed at home. People bring them along as a snack, often shoving them deep into a bag to extract it hours later. “What we don’t want to do is solve one problem but then create another by having a product that’s not usable to the consumer and creating food waste,” Clark says. Plastic also runs easily through high-speed assembly lines, and it has just the right permeability to protect the product from oxygen and moisture without actually requiring a vacuum seal. Nuts, in particular, will go rancid if exposed constantly to air. “[Plastic] has been engineered for all these years for these performance characteristics,” Clark notes. “There’s a reason a lot of food packaging is plastic.” The other reason, of course, is one of cost. Technically, Kind’s paper packs are more expensive for Kind to produce than plastic, which the company considers a short-term cost it will swallow rather than pass along to consumers. Kind makes clear that it holds no patents or other IP on the packaging, which they hope other companies will adopt to drive down price. “This isn’t the paper you’re going to go buy at Office Max to put in your printer. It’s not the paper that we’re going to use for stuffing and an Amazon shipper. So part of what we need to do is to make sure that these things have a chance to be scaled,” Clark says. “It’s really shifted the thinking. I think for most big CPGs [consumer packaged goods], it used to be so much about competitive advantage and exclusivity. With sustainability, it’s the opposite again.” Unwrapping a paper Kind barThe solution Kind and PrintPack developed still feels like a Kind bar. But instead of revealing the nuts within through a window, the bar is printed right onto the wrapper. That wrapper feels lovely in your hands—with a heavy weight that reminds me of a fancier, hand-wrapped confectionery you might get at a fine café or bakery. The paper actually needs enough fiber inside to be a circular material, and I’d argue it feels all-around more premium as a result. (It’s actually a bit more bulky than the plastic pack, too, which leads to some interesting psychology around the portion size.) Tear open the pack, and you’ll feel a waxy interior. This is a plastic-free, FDA-approved water-based coating that, in lieu of plastic, creates a barrier protecting the bar from the aforementioned air and water. To validate the packaging before launch, Kind ran a few tests. It used digital modeling to simulate the performance of the pack. It employed accelerated testing, subjecting the bars to high humidity and heat in attempts to stress the packaging to its limits fast. And the company has also simply wrapped up bars and put them into storage, and checks on them periodically to see how they’ve aged. The company also ran a direct-to-consumer (DTC) pilot project with the packs in 2023. “We’re really taking this test-and-learn approach—where we’re going to try some things, we’re going to make sure that we’re not going to have those negative trade-offs on shelf life and product quality and the eating experience,” Clark says. “But also, does the consumer understand that it’s still a Kind bar? Do I need to literally see the product, or does [our motto of] ‘ingredients you can see and pronounce’ mean that I know what’s in this?” And for Kind, that question is of paramount importance, so it will be tracking sales closely to see if the new packaging impacts its shelf appeal. For now, the new paper packs are part of a limited test that will run through October 1, launching exclusively at Whole Foods Market stores in Arizona, Southern California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Assuming they perform well, the paper packs could make their way to all Kind bars within a few years. View the full article

During his campaign, President The President made a lot of promises about what he would do during a second term. One of those promises was to roll back the civil and social rights of transgender people. And in his first 100 days in office, The President has been delivering on expelling transgender rights from the U.S., unlike with other promises like improving the economy. Starting from his first day in office, The President has attacked the trans community from all angles—in rhetoric and in policy. He has removed workplace protections for trans people and disallowed gender-affirming medical care. In just a few months, here’s what The President has done to turn back the clock for the trans community and transgender rights. An executive order to recognize only two genders On The President’s first day, he signed a flurry of executive orders. Among them was an order declaring that the U.S. government will now only recognize a person’s gender assigned at birth. It also set forth that the U.S. would recognize only two genders, male and female. The order states: “‘Gender ideology’ replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true.” The executive order meant that the U.S. would not recognize transgender, nonbinary, or intersex people, or even the idea that gender can be fluid. With the order, the State Department has ceased to issue passports with an “X” in the gender category, forcing trans individuals to return to using a gender category that doesn’t align with their identity. Banning trans Americans from military service The President banned transgender Americans from serving openly in the military, rolling back Biden-era protections. The move didn’t come as a surprise, given that The President had spoken frequently about the plan during his campaign. “If you want to have a sex change or a social justice seminar, then you can do it somewhere else, but you’re not going to do it in the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, Space Force, or the United States Marines—sorry,” The President said at a preelection rally. An estimated 15,000 transgender individuals are currently serving in the U.S. military. Lawsuits against The President’s order have already been filed by transgender active-duty members of the military, as well as those attempting to join. Last week, The President asked the Supreme Court to allow the enforcement of a ban on transgender people in the military as those legal challenges continue. Gutting DEI and allowing for workplace discrimination The The President administration quickly gutted DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies from federal organizations. The move is likely to hit the transgender community hard, as hiring discrimination is rampant for the group. But the administration also made specific moves to target trans individuals in the workplace. On January 29, the Office of Personnel Management sent a memo to federal organizations explaining that agency heads should place any workers whose jobs entail “promoting gender ideology” on leave. It called for the closing of all programs that support the concept that gender exists on a spectrum. It also banned all workers from using pronouns in email signatures, and media that may “inculcate or promote gender ideology.” Banning gender-affirming medical care In a January 28 executive order, The President banned gender-affirming medical care for individuals under the age of 19. “It is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures,” the order says. Not only did the order attack trans children, but it also targeted care providers, asserting that federal funds would be restricted from doctors who provide gender-affirming care. A federal judge temporarily blocked the enforcement of the order aiming to shut down access to gender-affirming care. Banning trans individuals from using their preferred bathrooms The President’s January 29 order also attacked transgender individuals using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. It directed agencies to designate bathrooms “by biological sex and not gender identity.” In an interview with Time magazine, which named The President 2024’s Person of the Year, the then-president-elect said, “I don’t want to get into the bathroom issue. Because it’s a very small number of people we’re talking about, and it’s ripped apart our country, so they’ll have to settle whatever the law finally agrees.” View the full article

Around the world, farmers are retooling their land to harvest the hottest new commodity: sunlight. As the price of renewable energy technology has plummeted and water has gotten more scarce, growers are fallowing acreage and installing solar panels. Some are even growing crops beneath them, which is great for plants stressed by too many rays. Still others are letting that shaded land go wild, providing habitat for pollinators and fodder for grazing livestock. According to a new study, this practice of agrisolar has been quite lucrative for farmers in California’s Central Valley over the last 25 years—and for the environment. Researchers looked at producers who had idled land and installed solar, using the electricity to run equipment like water pumps and selling the excess power to utilities. On average, that energy savings and revenue added up to $124,000 per hectare (about 2.5 acres) each year, 25 times the value of using the land to grow crops. Collectively, the juice generated in the Central Valley could power around 500,000 households while saving enough water to hydrate 27 million people annually. “If a farmer owns 10 acres of land, and they choose to convert 1 or 2 acres to a solar array, that could produce enough income for them to feel security for their whole operation,” said Jake Stid, a renewable energy landscape scientist at Michigan State University and lead author of the paper, published in the journal Nature Sustainability. The Central Valley is among the most productive agricultural regions in the world: It makes up just 1% of all farmland acreage in the United States, yet generates a third of the nation’s fruits and vegetables. But it’s also extremely water-stressed as California whiplashes between years of significant rainfall and drought. To irrigate all those crops, farmers have drawn so much groundwater that aquifers collapse like empty water bottles, making the earth itself sink by many feet. Farmers can’t make their crops less thirsty, so many have been converting some of their acreage to solar. The Central Valley is ideal for this, being mostly flat and very sunny, hence the agricultural productivity. At the same time, farmers have been getting good rates for the electricity that they offset and send back to the grid. Now, though, California has adopted standards that reduce those rates by 75% on average. For a farmer investing in panels, the investment looks less enticing. “The algebra or calculus—or whatever math discipline you want to reference—it just doesn’t work out the same way,” said Karen Norene Mills, vice president of legal advocacy at the California Farm Bureau, which promotes the state’s agricultural community. Also, the study found that by fallowing land for solar panels, food production in the Central Valley dropped by enough calories to feed 86,000 people a year. But, Stid said, markets can adjust, as crops are grown elsewhere to make up the deficit. By tapping the sun instead, Stid added, growers can simultaneously help California reach its goals of deploying renewable and reducing groundwater usage. The tension, though, is meeting those objectives while still producing incredible quantities of food. “That is always our concern about some of these pressures,” Mills said. But this isn’t an either-or proposition: Many farmers are finding ways to grow some crops, like leafy greens and berries, under the panels. The shade reduces evaporation from the soil, allowing growers to water less often. In turn, a wetted landscape cools the panels, which improves their efficiency. “This is the compromise that’s going to allow for both energy independence and food security,” said horticulturalist Jennifer Bousselot, who studies agrisolar at Colorado State University but wasn’t involved in the new study. Farmers are also turning livestock loose to graze under their panels. Their droppings fertilize the soil, leading to more plant growth and more flowers that support native pollinators. “The grass, it’s so much more lush under the panels, it’s amazing,” said Ryan Romack, founder of Virginia-based AgriSolar Ranch, which provides grazing services. “Especially when the sheep have been on site long-term, you can really see the added benefits of the manure load.” Then, if a farmer decides not to replace the solar panels at the end of their lifespan—usually around 25 or 30 years—the soil will be refreshed with nutrients and ready to grow more crops. Even if a grower simply lets them sit for decades without any management, the fallowing can restore the soil’s health. “We really see solar as a collective landscape,” Stid said, “that can be sited, managed, and designed in a way to benefit both people and the planet and ecosystems as well.” —By Matt Simon, Grist This article originally appeared in Grist, a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Sign up for its newsletter here. View the full article

You can't add EEAT to a site, but you can create the conditions that lead to the signals Google equates with it The post Reimagining EEAT To Drive Higher Sales And Search Visibility appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Over the years, I’ve likely wasted thousands of dollars on forgotten subscriptions—and I’m not alone. A 2022 survey by research firm C+R found that 42% of Americans had paid for subscriptions they’d forgotten about. It’s easy to lose track, especially when payments are scattered across credit cards, debit cards, PayPal, and app store accounts. Here’s how to track down and cancel those forgotten charges. Subscription management apps: Rocket Money, Hiatus, Trim Dedicated services are among the most effective tools for finding and canceling forgotten subscriptions—and potentially switching to cheaper or free alternatives. But they come with a trade-off: To work, these tools require access to your personal financial data, which can be used for marketing and may compromise your privacy. The more companies that hold your data, the greater your risk in the event of a breach. If that’s a concern, don’t worry—we’ll explore lower-risk options farther down. I tested three services: Rocket Money, Hiatus, and OneMain Trim. All three can identify old subscriptions for free. Rocket Money and Hiatus also offer to cancel them for you—for a fee. These services connect to your financial accounts using Plaid. While Plaid doesn’t share your login credentials, it does access other types of data. In 2022, the company settled a $58 million class-action lawsuit related to its data practices and agreed to limit what it stores and delete certain user data—a process it said was already in progress. Rocket Money identified seven of my nine active subscriptions, including an Apple bundle. It offered to cancel five of them—if I subscribed to its “pay-what-you-want” plan, offering me a range from $6 to $12 per month after a seven-day free trial. The plan also includes budgeting and expense-minimizing tools. Some services, like Apple, require manual cancellation, it said, as Rocket Money can’t act on a user’s behalf in all cases. However, Rocket Money’s privacy policy allows it to use a broad range of personal data for marketing its sister companies, including Rocket Mortgage. The company says it doesn’t share financial data like transaction history or account balances with affiliates, but it does share other personal details for advertising purposes. (Rocket does have an opt-out for residents of states that require it: California, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, Oregon, Texas and Virginia.) Hiatus uncovered five subscriptions, including those from Apple. It could cancel two if I signed up for its Premium plan: I was offered the choice of from $10 to $21 per month (or $48 per year). This plan includes access to other financial tools. The company says it doesn’t sell personal data to third parties without consent, but it didn’t respond to multiple requests for clarification. Trim, which focuses specifically on subscription tracking, stood out for its clarity and privacy stance. It found all nine subscriptions and had the cleanest, most intuitive interface. While it doesn’t cancel subscriptions on your behalf, it provides clear instructions and links to do so. Trim’s privacy policy states it doesn’t share data with third parties, though it does share some information with its parent company, OneMain. Users can opt out of advertising. Despite lacking automated features, Trim offered the best overall balance of accuracy, privacy, and affordability. Manual Methods to Find Subscriptions If you’d rather not link your financial accounts, you can manually weed through charges to them. Even if you use a management service, a manual check can catch what it may miss. Listings on mobile devices To find subscriptions on Android devices, go to the Google Play app home screen, tap your avatar at the top right, then tap Payments & Subscriptions > Subscriptions. On iPhones and iPads, go to Settings, click your name, and click Subscriptions. Stored browser logins and password managers Check saved website login data for more clues. In Google Chrome on a computer, click the three-dot menu icon in the upper right, then Passwords and autofill > Google Password Manager. In Apple’s Safari, click Safari > Settings > Passwords. If you use a password manager like 1Password or Dashlane, check them, too. Emails from subscription services You will often get emails from services you subscribe to, such as welcome messages or updates to privacy policies. Search for text like “free trial,” “terms,” “welcome,” “privacy policy,” “your account,” or “update” for clues. How to cancel subscriptions yourself If you’re not using a subscription management app (or if it can’t cancel all accounts for you), try searching the web for something like “cancel subscription new york times” (which worked). Or ask a chatbot. I prompted ChatGPT with: “How do I cancel a [name of service] subscription? Provide links to the relevant account pages where possible.” It found the right links for Apple, ChatGPT, Evernote, Flickr, Google, Hulu, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, and missed only MIT Technology Review. The step-by-step instructions were right or close to right in most cases. Canceling all your unwanted subscriptions could take half a day—but the savings will likely be worth the time. View the full article

When a SpaceX Super Heavy rocket launches at the Boca Chica launch site on the Texas Gulf Coast, car alarms wail, dogs bark for miles, and astronomers as far away as Puerto Rico have said they can see and hear the rocket as it takes flight. Witnesses have said it sounds like “the loudest thing I’ve ever heard,” with sound waves “whipping over your body; it feels like it’s almost pushing you back sometimes.” At peak volume, it’s as loud as a gunshot, even though it’s 73 football fields away. That’s not the only impact on this coastal area on the southeast tip of Texas, according to local environmental groups. Birds, animals, and other wildlife have been damaged by nearby rocket launches, claims Mary Angela Branch, a board member of Save RGV, a nonprofit environmental justice group that has opposed efforts by SpaceX to expand and increase launches near important wetlands and protected parkland. SpaceX has previously denied the accuracy of these environmental claims. “It’s a dead zone now,” said Branch, who has had a home in the area for nearly a decade. “It’s the saddest thing, since it was a very underappreciated area. You’d see herons, ducks, butterflies, birds, and egrets on the tidal flats. There is nothing there now, it’s just brown and dead.” Another organization, Defenders of Wildlife, has chronicled habitat destruction from falling debris and wildfires. (The organization, which has sued the FAA and SpaceX, declined to comment for this story.) Advocates like Branch and local environmental groups fear damage could increase when Starbase becomes not just a company facility and launch site—but its own town. Local voters—a majority of whom work for SpaceX—will be voting on whether to incorporate Starbase, potentially turning the company’s Texas base into its own municipality. Early voting has already begun, with election day on May 3. A New York Times analysis of the voting population found that most of the electorate are men with no voting history in Texas and an average age of 27. The proposal is expected to pass. The company has been quiet about the reasons it wants to create what amounts to a 1.5-square mile company town. Repeated attempts to contact SpaceX for this story were unsuccessful. But some local advocates like Branch suggest it might help the company increase its launch cadence and expand its footprint on the Gulf Coast. (The Boca Chica site launched rockets a handful of times last year.) Elon Musk’s work with DOGE and deregulation, as well as the potential for lucrative new contracts with the federal government, might give the company billions of dollars and an appetite for more launches and new facilities. There’s an assumption that giving SpaceX control of a town would mean an expansion of the firm and its workforce, especially as the town grows. Municipalities have the right to annex property, which might be used to grow Starbase and add more land for housing and manufacturing. SpaceX had tried a land swap with a surrounding state park, but the company backed out of the negotiations without giving a reason. A Bloomberg reporter speculated that they may have found a different way to expand their operations. “Cities can have zoning and other authority, but I haven’t thought through how this could impact the area,” said Cyrus Reed, Legislative and Conservation Director for the Sierra Club’s Lone Star Chapter. In a letter sent to officials in Cameron County, which includes Starbase, facility manager Kathryn Lueders wrote that incorporation will “streamline the processes required to build the amenities necessary to make the area a world-class place to live—for the hundreds already calling it home, as well as for prospective workers eager to help build humanity’s future in space.” The company is already building a $15 million retail complex and $100 million manufacturing and industrial site. Local advocates aren’t as excited. “I don’t think SpaceX’s goal is to become a municipality to have stricter environmental regulations,” Branch said. Currently, a law in front of the Texas legislature would grant municipalities the ability to close beaches for spaceship launches. The authority would likely only apply to SpaceX and their activities in Boca Chica. It was defeated the first time it came up for a vote in committee, but Branch said it could still be passed before the Legislature adjourns on June 2. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Surfrider Foundation successfully opposed the bill’s passage before. “These public officials are showing that they are bought and paid for by Elon Musk and SpaceX,” read a statement Josette Angelique Hinojosa, co-founder of the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, sent to The Texas Tribune. Branch said incorporation won’t change regulatory oversight of launches, and it’s unlikely the new municipality would be able to write its own regulations. But she’s worried about the likely increase in launches, regardless of whether or not the incorporation takes place: SpaceX has petitioned the FAA to increase its annual launch allowance from 10 to 25, and the agency has yet to rule. Expansion may not be as easy as simply winning the incorporation vote, said Neil Carman, the Sierra Club’s Texas Clean Air Program Director. The process would take about a year to be successfully chartered as a new city. But he said that, once complete, the process will likely help Starbase quickly approve new housing. It’s a move that also comes with a cost, Carman said. Cities are required to construct water utility plants and wastewater treatment plants, which will cost millions and require state approvals and permitting, and local neighbors in the county could delay the process. That could slow down Starbase expansion. But water infrastructure may also be an investment SpaceX eventually needs to make. According to ​​Craig Nazor, a Sierra Club conservation chair, the company’s launch-cooling system uses potable water imported from nearby Brownsville. It will need to expand to meet more frequent launches. Doing so may be easier with local government control. “Building this and a sewer system will be an environmental challenge in the area,” Nazor said. “Controlling the road, once jurisdiction is established, coupled with the increase in launches, will also likely permit them to close the road at other times, as needed, when moving equipment to the launchpad, which uses the same road that provides access to the beach.” Branch sees this incorporation vote as a larger effort by SpaceX and other companies to build more spaceports along undeveloped parts of the Texas coast. She’s worried more expansion, and a larger SpaceX foothold on the coast, will only lead to more environmental degradation. “They want to privatize our beach, and close us off,” Branch said. View the full article

Electoral system may throw up unexpected results, with voters seeming less driven by party differencesView the full article