All Activity

The administration's major moves include weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and rolling back numerous Biden-era regulations. View the full article

The Conservatives must choose between their US obsession and their electoral viabilityView the full article

Join us live and walk away with a clear roadmap for leading your SEO and content strategy in 2025. The post AI Search & SEO: Key Trends and Insights [Webinar] appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Welcome to Pressing Questions, Fast Company’s workplace advice column. Every week, deputy editor Kathleen Davis, host of The New Way We Work podcast, will answer the biggest and most pressing workplace questions. Q: How do I decide what to take off of my résumé? A: There is much debate about if your résumé really needs to be one page. But regardless of if it’s one page or two, there are some common elements you can cut to make your résumé easier to read and more effective. Here are a few: Work history that’s more than 15 years old This one isn’t cut and dry. You shouldn’t just delete everything before 2010. But here’s what to consider cutting or condensing. If you have been at your last (or current) position for fewer than five years, you can keep a few bullet points under each of your previous jobs dating back 10–15 years. But if a role on your résumé is from more than 10–15 years ago, your old responsibilities, tasks, and accomplishments are likely not very relevant anymore. The exception is if you are looking to make a career change and you have older relevant job experience. You can list your positions with just title and dates but add a couple of bullet points to the older related experience. Your cover letter (yes, you still should write one) is the best place to connect the dots for the hiring manager on how your older experience is related. Jargon, clichés, and hyperbole You should avoid unnecessary jargon, clichés, and hyperbole in all parts of your job search process, but your résumé is the most crucial place to trim it out. If your résumé is being read by AI, phrases like “seasoned solutions-oriented team player” won’t pass the keyword screens. Those words are similarly meaningless (and might actively work against you) if your résumé is being read by a real person. The best résumés follow the basic rules of good writing. Think of the golden rule of prose: Show, don’t tell. An easy way to do this is to replace adjectives with numbers and facts: Instead of “dynamic sales professional with a distinguished track record,” try “Closed over $1 million in new partnerships each quarter.” Your objective or summary and your mailing address I don’t know who ever thought an “objective” on a résumé was necessary. Your objective is to get hired, so anything you write here is just throat-clearing wasted space. Some people replace objective with a summary, which, in theory, can be useful for recruiters or AI that’s doing a quick scan. Most often though summaries are also useless because they are filled with meaningless buzzwords (see above). You’re better off formatting your résumé in an easy-to-scan way where your skills and accomplishments are clear. Including your mailing address is a relic of a time when applications were sent via snail mail and is an easy place to streamline. If you’re applying to an in-person job, however, you may still want to include the city you live in. The header space of your résumé should also include your email, phone, website/portfolio link, and one or two professional social media profiles, like LinkedIn. Fancy formatting, your photo, basic skills If you are early in your career and feel like you don’t have enough to fill the page, it can be tempting to pad your résumé by adding basic skills like “proficient with Microsoft office suite.” But skills like that are assumed and adding them can actually make you look less experienced. Don’t try to fill the space with colorful large fonts, formatting tricks, or your headshot either. White space is better and a simple format is easier to read, by both humans and applicant tracking systems. If you feel like your résumé is too thin, you may need to expand your definition of “experience.” (Here’s my advice on how to make up for lack of experience on your résumé.) Want more advice on what to cut from your résumé? Here you go: 5 ways to make your résumé more impressive without lying Many job applications are never read by a human. Here’s how to make sure your résumé gets seen 5 things you should take off your résumé right now View the full article

If AI lives up to its hype and we can “outsource” the thinking, planning, and strategy parts of our jobs, do we risk losing the skills that make us human? Research from the Center for Strategic Corporate Foresight and Sustainability found that there is “a significant negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities, mediated by increased cognitive offloading.” In other words, use AI too much, and your mental faculties take a nosedive. But there’s another way to think about the issue. Could AI actually improve our cognition by freeing up our mental bandwidth for higher-value work? Make time for strategic thinking I’ve worked at jobs in the past where I’ve begged my boss for the budget to purchase technology that would make work better and easier. If technology could do part of my job for me, I could spend more time on other things, things that typically fell to the bottom of the pile because they didn’t have an instant, tangible result. Thinking strategically about improvements I could make in my department, for example. I suspect most knowledge workers can relate. We compile reports, attend status meetings, and follow processes with endless tedious tasks. There’s rarely time for higher-level thinking. While technology improvements may have previously been a “no,” the response to AI has been a resounding “yes.” Perhaps it’s the promise of “10x everything” but CEOs are enamored with the potential of AI. AI as sparring partner For many people, this poses a threat. For others, it can create an opportunity. Farm out the redundant, tedious tasks to AI so we can focus on work that requires our unique expertise. Take coding, for example. Software can have millions of lines of code, which previously needed to be entered manually. Now, AI can handle much of the repetitive work. Human coders take on the role of orchestrators: the brains behind the operation, guiding AI agents to the correct result. Personally, I’ve used AI to expand my existing skills. I’m self-employed, so I don’t have any colleagues to bounce ideas off of if I’m stuck. I was working with an app recently, and couldn’t get it to do what I wanted. I turned to ChatGPT and asked for help. ChatGPT gave me incorrect information, which I recognized right away, based on my knowledge of the app. I prodded ChatGPT again, explaining why the previous answer wouldn’t work. ChatGPT replied, “You’re right! Here are some additional steps you need to take.” The instructions were, again, incorrect. However, the incorrect instructions were enough to spark an idea . . . and my idea worked. As a sparring partner, AI let me work through a problem that I otherwise wouldn’t have been able to solve on my own (at least not without a significant amount of trial, error, and frustration). My skills haven’t atrophied because of AI. Quite the opposite: AI takes over some of the boring work, and lets me focus on more creative work—the type of work only a human can do. The right use cases Even if the research currently suggests that AI negatively affects critical thinking abilities, that doesn’t have to be your experience. You can find the right use cases to remove the boring and tedious work from your day. Once you do that, use the additional time for impactful work that was always pushed to the back burner. Or spend the time learning something new that could help your career. The people who will experience skill atrophy are those who outsource everything to AI—and can’t recognize when work needs human oversight, decision-making, and experience. View the full article

Career politician will also act as vice-chancellorView the full article

The technology industry is in the midst of a skills shortage—one that shows no signs of slowing. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that tech jobs will grow at twice the rate of America’s overall workforce, creating hiring shortfalls as organizations struggle to fill critical positions in IT, cybersecurity, and other vital areas. The emergence of AI has only exacerbated the issue, as organizations in nearly every industry are seeking employees who can help them better understand the technology and get the most out of their solutions. Even as AI becomes a part of everyday life, most organizations are still determining how best to utilize it—and how to limit the risks it may pose. Interestingly, these challenges mirror another (relatively) recent innovation: the cloud. Before cloud computing became commonplace, businesses with any sort of digital footprint needed to buy rack space or manage their own on-premises servers. That was reasonable for businesses with a high degree of technical expertise, but building and maintaining a climate-controlled server room wasn’t realistic for most companies. The advent of cloud computing democratized access to advanced computing capabilities—and AI is already having a similar impact. As businesses wrestle with managing and securing their AI deployments, they can look to the cloud for lessons and guidance on how similar challenges were tackled in the recent past. The Evolution of Cloud Adoption and Security Consider the cost of on-premises computing. Server rooms are expensive, as are the servers themselves. They also require a substantial degree of technical expertise to maintain, and employees with experience in that area understandably command high compensation. The emergence of platforms like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud changed all that, lowering the barrier to entry for advanced computing capabilities: businesses could eliminate the high initial investment associated with purchasing servers and building server rooms in exchange for a modest (in most cases) operating expense. Perhaps most importantly, it allowed businesses to work with reliable partners to get the most out of their cloud services, rather than relying on difficult-to-come-by in-house expertise. That said, securing the cloud still presents its own challenges. During the early days of the cloud, businesses often made the mistake of assuming that providers would handle any cybersecurity needs—a misconception that left them dangerously exposed. Today, the most common rule of thumb is that the provider is responsible for the security of the cloud itself, while the customer is responsible for the security of the data inside it. Essentially, the provider ensures attackers cannot exploit their systems to get to your data, but if poor password management, device security, or other data hygiene practices allow attackers to compromise your accounts—that’s on you. This delineation has helped businesses better understand where their potential risk factors lie when it comes to cloud security and mitigate them appropriately. Applying Lessons from the Cloud to AI It’s not hard to see the parallels between the cloud and AI. Like the cloud, AI has democratized access to resources that were previously difficult to come by for many organizations. The widespread availability of generative AI models like ChatGPT means organizations no longer need to hire costly AI engineers to create, manage, and fine-tune their own models. Instead, they can put an application layer on top of an existing model and deliver a compelling service to their customers at a relatively low cost of ownership. While this still requires a level of technical expertise, the barrier to entry is much lower—and organizations can move forward faster with smaller, more flexible engineering teams. The risks posed by this model mirror those posed by the cloud. When you upload data to the cloud, it is no longer under your direct control. The same is true of third-party AI models—when customers (or employees) input data into an AI-powered application, it’s important to know where the data is going, how it is being stored and protected, and how it is being used. With AI still in its relative infancy, the answers to those questions aren’t always clear—which means businesses providing AI functionality need strong AI governance practices in place to establish trust with their customers. For some businesses, that might mean offering customers the ability to opt out of AI features. For others, it might mean putting clear safeguards in place to prevent AI tools from accessing sensitive or confidential information. By demonstrating the ways in which they are limiting AI risk, businesses free their customers to evaluate the benefits of AI. Over time, most businesses migrated to the cloud because the efficiency gains substantially outweighed the perceived risks—and a similar pattern is already emerging when it comes to AI. In fact, it’s happening even more quickly this time. Since AI has use cases across nearly every business unit, the potential ROI is much easier to illustrate. While it’s true that every customer will have a different risk appetite, the trend is clear: eventually, nearly every business will decide that the rewards significantly outweigh the risks. By establishing strong governance practices and lowering the amount of risk associated with AI, businesses can help their customers reach that point more quickly. Freeing Customers to Embrace AI with Confidence While businesses and their customers are understandably concerned about AI risk, the history of the cloud provides a helpful road map for navigating those risks successfully. The risks associated with AI are not dramatically different from those associated with other technology—and businesses can mitigate them in much the same way. By establishing strong governance practices and implementing clear transparent policies regarding AI and its use, businesses can enable their employees and customers to embrace the potential of AI with confidence. View the full article

With 100 days back in office, it’s fair to say that President The President is leaving his mark. That hasn’t necessarily been a positive thing for the media or journalism, however, as the The President administration’s second iteration has been even more hostile to the press than the first, and it has many experts alarmed. Examples are myriad, and include (but aren’t limited to): The President banned Associated Press reporters from White House news conferences for refusing to rename the Gulf of Mexico. Lawsuits have been filed against ABC News and CBS, among others, with some having settled. The President’s Federal Communications Commission has threatened or initiated investigations into broadcasters. The administration reportedly wants to cut funding for NPR and PBS. The administration has tried to shut down Voice of America. And while presidential administrations often spar with members of the media—Richard Nixon, perhaps most notably, was also hostile to the press—the The President administration is taking this hostility to whole new levels, media industry experts argue. “What stands out to me is that this is a concerted, multipronged campaign against ethical journalists and the independent press,” says Caroline Hendrie, executive director of the Society of Professional Journalists. “We’re looking at this as a strategy of a death by a thousand cuts—take it all together, and we’re seeing an assault on transparency, accountability, and the public’s right to know.” The goal, Hendrie says, is fairly simple: Boost The President’s agenda and slap down any voice that pushes back against it. “They want to delegitimize anyone who contradicts his narrative or the narrative of the administration,” she says. Using the levers of government to not only influence coverage but also punish news outlets raises “more than red flags,” Hendrie adds. “It’s raising very legitimate alarms that our First Amendment free press rights are in danger in this country.” Part of a broader attack on expertise Gabriel Kahn, professor of professional practice of journalism at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Journalism, says attacks on the press coming from a sitting administration have “never been so blatant or severe, at least over the past 80 years.” However, Kahn says it’s important to think of the attack on the press as only one part of the issue. “You need to see the attacks on journalism and science and higher education as a part of the same piece,” he says. “It’s an attack on expertise, on independent thought.” He adds that many news organizations haven’t done themselves any favors in how they’ve responded to the administration’s treatment. Specifically, he cites some newspapers’ reluctance (or refusal) to endorse a presidential candidate during the 2024 election, the reining in of opinion writers, and the censoring of news stories to curry favor with the The President team. According to Kahn, “obeying in advance” and “kowtowing to the administration,” which is also happening at major universities and big law firms, risks doing more harm than good for media outlets. “Major corporate journalism interests have chosen the illusion of some sort of short-term relief over the long-term damage they’re doing to their brands,” he says. If there’s anything good that’s come out of The President’s treatment of the press, Kahn says, it’s that it has “highlighted how fragile the free press is. We’ve taken so much for granted for so long. [The administration has] demonstrated to the American people how important it is to have a free, independent press.” View the full article

The failure of business to join universities in the fight for academic research is short-sighted as well as cowardlyView the full article

The The President administration has made clear that it doesn’t want shoppers to see how much its new tariffs are costing them, based on its forceful reaction to one report yesterday. The dustup started with a relatively sparse story from Punchbowl News, a D.C.-based news outlet mainly focused on political scoops, which reported that Amazon had planned to show how much a product’s price is derived from tariffs next to its total price in website listings. The The President administration did not exactly respond to the idea of a price transparency label with an even keel. In a press briefing yesterday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon’s purported design update, which had yet to be confirmed, “a hostile and political act.” No matter DOGE’s supposed interest in transparency, the administration otherwise seems to find it a “hostile” idea. Following The President’s chastisement, Amazon denied the claim, stating that while its low-cost Temu competitor Amazon Haul had considered the idea of listing import charges on certain products, the company never considered listing tariff upcharges on its main site, and that such a plan “is not going to happen.” By jumping to condemn Amazon’s potential new feature, the White House as good as broadcasted that it’s worried about companies exposing how much the president’s tariffs are costing consumers, and it’s prepared to name and shame them to prevent that from happening. But its heavy-handed reaction also points to how, with just a few design tweaks, private companies could play against the administration’s self-inflicted political weak spot to gain consumer trust and influence the public messaging game on tariffs, if they’re brave enough. (Amazon wasn’t, and The President praised founder Jeff Bezos as having done “the right thing” following the company’s statement.) The widespread cost of The President’s tariffs The president’s tariff policies have produced massive ripple effects across the supply chain for many companies that manufacture overseas, and more can be expected. Already, the 145% duty on Chinese-made goods has caused cargo shipments into the U.S. to plummet by as much as 60% since early April, according to one estimate from the supply chain logistics firm Flexport. Since announcing his sweeping tariff plan in early April, The President has frequently suspended proposed tariffs and issued exemptions on certain goods following lobbying from tech companies like Apple and blowback from Wall Street, demonstrating that his plan is not exactly going off without a hitch—and leaving consumers confused about what’s actually getting more expensive. Retail giants including Adidas, Target, and Walmart have warned that prices could go up and shelves will begin to empty if the tariffs continue. Meanwhile, others that rely heavily or solely on Chinese factories have already bumped up their prices, including Amazon, Shein, and Temu, which all use cheap, Chinese-made goods to fuel their business models. Several upmarket brands, like Labucq, Jolie, and Dieux Skin have likewise announced tariff-based price hikes. The tariffs have proven to be a PR and approval ratings disaster for The President, who on the campaign trail promised voters he’d lower everyday costs but instead is culpable for raising them. According to a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, The President’s approval rating is currently 42%—the lowest on record for any newly elected president in more than 50 years. A CBS News/YouGov poll found that 69% of Americans believe The President is not focusing enough on lowering prices, while 62% believe that he’s spending too much time imposing tariffs. Based on this public reception, it makes sense that The President’s administration would want tariff-based price increases to remain intangible to American consumers. Amazon backed down, but more brands should show the receipts At the same time, from a consumer’s perspective, it’s difficult to keep up with how each company is being hit by the tariffs—and what the actual scale of incoming price increases might look like for everyday goods like toilet paper and groceries without direct comparisons at the point of sale. This trade policy decision has had costly consequences, and Amazon’s proposal could have been a simple, user-first solution to show the public the tariff receipts. Major retailers like Target and Walmart could clear up some of the confusion by doing exactly what Amazon has since declined to do: add a label to online listings (and even in-store items) spelling out how much The President’s tariffs have impacted the sale price for consumers. This simple gesture could serve as an effective political tool to shape public perception and shift policy on a key issue. And for brands, it would also communicate to consumers that price transparency matters more than the president’s whims. View the full article

Nearly every day of President Donald The President’s first 100 days in office, his administration came out with new attacks on the environment. On a single day in March, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to roll back more than two dozen environmental regulations, affecting everything from mercury pollution at coal power plants to fuel efficiency standards for cars. On the same day, it shut down its environmental justice offices and made plans to limit the Clean Water Act. To help make it easier to follow the barrage of rollbacks, the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is tracking the actions online. It’s not clear yet what will survive lawsuits and actually stick, though the policy decisions are already having real-world consequences. Here’s a partial look at what’s happened so far. April 28: The The President administration “released” the scientists who were working on a national report about how climate change affects the United States. The report, required by Congress, has been published every four years since 2000. April 24: The President issued an executive order to fast-track permits for deep-sea mining, which environmental groups say could cause irreparable harm to marine ecosystems. April 24: The Department of the Interior announced a new “emergency permitting” approach that would fast-track approval for some energy projects from a period of one to two years to just two weeks, skipping most of the standard process of environmental review. (Wind and solar projects don’t qualify for the accelerated process; it’s aimed at fossil fuels.) April 23: The The President administration eliminated the Office of Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, which was responsible for global climate diplomacy. April 22: The The President administration announced plans to cut hundreds of jobs at the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, an office focused on helping communities that have suffered the worst impacts of pollution. April 21: The EPA announced plans to cancel around $40 million in grants aimed at protecting children from toxic chemicals, including pesticides and PFAS (“forever chemicals”). April 18: The White House announced a list of mining projects for expedited approval, including a copper mine in Arizona that Native American tribes say is on sacred land and could cause environmental damage, including draining scarce water resources. April 18: The Department of the Interior announced a new program to expand offshore oil and gas drilling. April 17: The Department of the Interior announced plans to cut $10 billion for clean energy projects. April 16: The The President administration proposed a new rule redefining what it means to “harm” wildlife under the Endangered Species Act. Habitat destruction, one of the leading causes of extinction, would no longer be considered harm. April 16: The The President administration took the first steps to roll back former President Joe Biden’s protection of millions of acres of public lands in the West and in Alaska. April 15: The Department of Energy issued a rule to repeal water efficiency standards for showerheads. April 15: The EPA gave the worst-polluting coal power plants exemptions from new limits on toxic pollution, including mercury, which is especially dangerous for children. April 15: The EPA announced plans to get rid of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires major polluters to track and report climate emissions. April 11: The The President administration announced plans to end climate research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including data used to predict hurricanes. April 9: The President issued an executive order that aims to erase hundreds of existing environmental and public health rules; this is undoubtedly unconstitutional. April 9: The President issued an executive order requiring agencies to add “expiration dates” to energy and environmental regulations. April 9: The President issued an order that aims to block states from enforcing their own climate laws. April 9: The The President administration cut nearly $4 million in climate research funding at Princeton University, saying the research promoted “exaggerated” climate threats and blaming it for increasing climate anxiety. April 8: The President issued executive orders to boost coal power, including opening up federal land to new mining and potentially forcing some coal plants to stay open when they were planning to close. April 5: The The President administration reportedly plans to stop states from limiting the use of PFAS (known as forever chemicals) in consumer goods. April 4: The The President administration canceled the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, which gave grants to communities to prepare for floods, wildfires, hurricanes, and other disasters. (One example of a project that lost what the administration called “wasteful” and “woke” funding: upgrading culverts in DeKalb County, Georgia, to keep roads usable during heavy rain and flooding.) April 3: The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued an “Emergency Situation Determination” that opens up more than 100 million acres of national forests to more logging. April 2: The The President administration fired all staff members working on the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, which was designed to help families afford heating and cooling. March 20: The President issued an executive order to increase mining on public land. March 19: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delayed the process of listing the monarch butterfly as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. March 19: The Department of Energy granted conditional authorization for the LNG export terminal in Louisiana, which will pollute local communities and dramatically add to climate pollution. March 17: The President signed a law repealing a fee on oil and gas companies for excess emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The fee would have had the same effect on pollution as taking 8 million gas cars off the road. March 17: The EPA announced plans to gut its science office and lay off more than 1,000 scientists. March 14: The EPA stopped enforcing pollution regulations at energy facilities. March 12: The EPA announced sweeping plans to dismantle more than two dozen air quality and carbon pollution regulations. That included an attack on the “endangerment finding,” which makes it possible to regulate climate pollution like CO2 under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described it as “driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” March 12: The EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced plans to revise the definition of “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act, threatening to strip protection from streams, wetlands, and other water sources that supply communities with drinking water and support wildlife. March 12: The EPA announced that it was shutting down its environmental justice offices, which worked on projects like helping rural communities prepare for flooding or install sewage systems. March 10: The EPA announced the cancellation of $1.7 billion in environmental justice grants. March 3: The The President administration ordered thousands of new EV chargers to be disconnected at federal buildings. March 1: The President labeled imported wood a “national security risk” and issued an executive order to dramatically expand logging in U.S. public forests. February 19: The Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a memo to remove 10 climate-related words and phrases from its documents, including climate resilience and changing climate. February 18: The The President administration fired hundreds of FEMA workers while disasters were ongoing in states like Kentucky and West Virginia. February 18: The EPA froze access to $20 billion in grants under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which supported projects like solar farms and EV chargers. (Even after a judge ordered the release of the money, the intended recipients still couldn’t access it.) February 14: The The President administration fired more than 1,000 National Park Service workers. Workers were later rehired, but the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, is currently looking for ways to make cuts again. February 14: The President issued an executive order to create a “National Energy Dominance Council” led by fossil fuel allies that excludes wind and solar power. February 6: The The President administration ordered states to suspend a $5 billion program to build a network of new EV charging stations. January 31: The The President administration scrubbed climate-related language from government websites. January 31: The President officials released billions of gallons of water from dams in California, claiming incorrectly that it could have prevented the Los Angeles-area wildfires, and giving California farmers new worries about water shortages. January 28: The EPA dismissed members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and Science Advisory Board, two groups that offer expertise on air pollution standards. January 28: The Department of Transportation started the process of weakening fuel economy standards. January 21: The President issued an executive order to end the American Climate Corps, a program that was designed to train thousands of young people to work on jobs like solar installation and wildfire prevention. January 20: The President issued an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. January 20: The President revoked executive orders from Biden that protected certain areas of federal water, opening up sensitive habitats to offshore oil and gas drilling. January 20: The President issued an executive order called “Unleashing America’s Energy” that aims to revive the abandoned Keystone XL pipeline, fast-track fossil fuel development, limit incentives for buying electric vehicles, and roll back efficiency standards for appliances. For the full list—and to follow new attacks on the environment from the The President administration—check out NRDC’s tracker. View the full article

It’s been just 100 days since Donald The President was inaugurated for his second term as president, but it’s already clear that the tenor of this term is much different than his first—and The President has been carefully curating an image to match. Since taking office on January 20, The President has taken an aggressive approach to the presidency. On just his first day in office, he signed a whopping 26 executive orders, including several to eliminate federal DEI efforts and one aimed at granting pardons for January 6 rioters. That initial 24 hours proved a harbinger of what was to come. In the following 100 days, The President’s administration has taken a flurry of extreme steps, including slashing 260,000 federal jobs through Elon Musk’s DOGE; ramping up deportations and the surveillance of immigrants; and unleashing a global trade war through a series of harsh tariffs. For many Americans, it’s been a confusing period of social and economic upheaval. It has been difficult to predict what the President might do next, and how he’ll respond to backlash. But within these first 100 days, there is one through line that’s become clear: The President is trying to give his public image an overhaul. The first 100 days of his presidency has seen The President adopt a darker, sterner image that aligns with his no-holds-barred leadership strategy and appeals to his ultraconservative base. One need only look to four new portraits of the President to prove it. An official portrait inspired by a mug shot Portraiture of President The President has proven to be a fairly transparent window into the way he is branding his second term. The first glimpse at his new strategy came before The President even officially took office. Days before January 20, the world got a first glimpse at The President’s official inaugural portrait via his administration’s chief photographer, Daniel Torok, who posted the image to his X account. In the photo, The President stares down at the viewer with one eyebrow cocked in a stern, borderline angry expression. A bright artificial light illuminates the center of his face, leaving dark shadows on his profile. The framing comes almost uncomfortably close to his face, giving the unsettling impression that the viewer is standing just inches away. The headshot is a striking departure from past official presidential photos. These portraits, (viewable in the Library of Congress’s digital archives) have a few near universal features dating as far back as Nixon’s presidency. Each past president is framed at a straight angle that cuts off at the mid-chest; the photos are lit with even, neutral lighting, and the subjects are smiling broadly. In an interview with Fast Company back in January, Rhea L. Combs, director of curatorial affairs at Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, shared that subtle choices like these are generally used by presidents to lend them a friendly, down-to-earth appearance. It’s a precedent that traces all the way back to early depictions of George Washington. In 2017, The President himself largely followed these conventions. The official portrait from his first term frames The President at a more traditional, level angle, and he’s shown smiling into the camera in an evenly lit room. Next to his 2025 portrait, the difference is like night and day—and the departure is no coincidence. Through a series of comments on X, Torok confirmed that The President’s new portrait was inspired by the president’s mug shot, taken before The President was found guilty on 34 felony counts in a criminal hush money trial last May. Despite the guilty verdict, The President went on to use his mug shot as a political tool on the 2024 election campaign trail, including turning it into rally posters, selling pieces of the suit worn in the photo, and even printing the image on a line of mugs and T-shirts. (Merch has long been a major lever of image control for the president.) Torok openly admitted to using the mug shot as inspriation for the official portrait. The portrait felt calculated both to serve as rage bait for The President’s detractors and to bolster his image in the eyes of his conservative following. During his campaign, The President strongly aligned himself with members of the “manosphere,” an online community of male influencers like Andrew Tate, Adin Ross, and Logan Paul, who, to varying degrees, tend to glorify the concept of a certain brand of toxic masculinity (often alongside anti-woman rhetoric.) For The President, the official portrait was the perfect stage to debut a new personal brand that puts this unrepentant machismo front and center. A callout six years too late About two months into his presidency, amidst a war in the Middle East and massive unrest as a result of his new tariffs, The President took the time to double down on his new image by coming after a portrait that hung in the Colorado State Capitol. The President logged on to Truth Social on March 23 to demand that a portrait of him be removed. The President’s timing seemed odd, considering that it had been six years since the painting was first displayed. “Nobody likes a bad picture or painting of themselves, but the one in Colorado, in the State Capitol, put up by the Governor, along with all other Presidents, was purposefully distorted to a level that even I, perhaps, have never seen before,” The President wrote at the time. He went on to add that he was calling on Colorado Governor Jared Polis to “take it down.” The portrait, painted by artist Sarah Boardman, depicts a younger The President in soft lighting, with a rounded jawline and wearing a neutral, almost contented expression. While The President chalked up his disapproval to finding the portrait unflattering, it’s difficult to miss how the painting represents a vastly different The President from the more intimidating version he’s presenting with his new official portrait. His direct message to Polis showed that The President is willing to go out of his way to control how the public views him, even in ways that might seem inconsequential. “Walking around looking at images of yourself all day long” The The President administration took the President’s updated image to another level in April, when it swapped a minimalist portrait of former president Barack Obama in the White House’s East Room for a pop-art painting of President The President raising his fist after the assassination attempt last year on the campaign trail. Several historians told The New York Times that they were startled by the move, considering that it’s almost unheard of for a sitting president to place artwork of themselves in the White House (typically art of a former president is added after their term.) “It just seems tacky,” Ted Widmer, a presidential historian at the City University of New York, told the publication. “It feels different from our tradition of venerating the distinguished holders of the office from both parties—and going in a new direction of walking around looking at images of yourself all day long.” Beyond the peculiar choice to add the portrait in the first place, its contents are also bizarre for a placement in the White House. The painting depicts The President surrounded by Secret Service, pumping his fist in the air as rivulets of blood run down the side of his face—a depiction of a moment which The President and his campaign used for promotional material. Alongside his inaugural portrait, this choice of White House art was another carefully vetted opportunity for the The President administration to project his revamped image of strength. The President 2.0 catches on It’s evident that the The President administration has been carefully curating a darker, more aggressive public presentation of the President in both photos and artwork during these first 100 days of his presidency. One unexpected outcome of this The President 2.0 rebrand, though, is that some publications seem to be following the administration’s artistic lead. Last week, Time magazine sat down with the President to discuss the 100 day milestone—a reprise of a similar article run by the publication back in 2017, during his first term. Time chose to represent both articles with a close-up headshot of the President, which it posted as a side-by-side carousel on Instagram. While the 2017 photo is relatively warm-toned and brightly lit, the 2025 version is distinctly cooler and darker. Like The President’s new inauguration portrait, Time’s updated headshot of the President includes deep, prominent shadows on the sides of his face, as well as an almost stormy background. It’s an image that feels both foreboding and bleak. The President’s new image appears to be making its way into the public consciousness. And as his term continues, it’s likely that the The President administration will continue to develop this sterner version of The President through new imagery. In the meantime, these four portraits underscore an enduring theme for The President. To the President, public image is a matter of winners and losers. In his interview with Time, The President took reporter Eric Cortellessa to the East Wing to view the painting of him that’s been installed there, which sits across from another portrait of Obama. “100 to 1, they prefer that,” the President said of his portrait. “It’s incredible.” View the full article

Barbara Bouza went from architecture to Imagineering and back again. A trained architect who spent nearly 19 years working on building projects for the world’s largest architecture and design firm, Gensler, Bouza made an unconventional career pivot in 2020 when she became president of Walt Disney Imagineering, the famed division of the Disney corporation focused on theme parks, experiences, and future technologies. After four years of navigating pandemic closures, updating theme parks around the world, and debuting new cruise ships, she’s now coming back to her roots in architecture and taking on a new role as executive director of market strategies and growth at the architecture and engineering firm CannonDesign. With this unique background, she has some ideas about how the architecture industry can broaden its approach by creating multifunctional spaces where people can live, work, and play. Her time at Imagineering has shown her that designing places for people requires thinking about the wide range of different users of a space—whether within the confines of a theme park or in more of a real-world setting like a workplace or an educational facility. But a theme park is also a real place. Going from working on architecture projects for Gensler to theme park projects for Disney was less of a jump than most people would think, Bouza says. “You go out to a job site at a park for an attraction, and it’s very similar. Similar consultants, similar contractors, but not so much steel that is straight. It is all over the place because we’re turning people upside down. But they’re the same ideas around safety and quality,” she adds. “The process is very similar, but with a lot more disciplines integrated.” The approach, though, is much different than the way a traditional architecture firm works. Within Imagineering, Bouza says there were between 100 and 120 different disciplines that might get involved in any given project. She sees the opportunity for an architecture firm like CannonDesign to include more types of expertise on its projects. Hiring Bouza is part of the firm’s strategic long-term vision to diversify the services it offers clients, beyond the few years it takes to design and build a building. “The silo-ization in the profession is a missed opportunity to really address some big problems with our clients,” says Brad Lukanic, CannonDesign’s CEO. He says Bouza will help the firm figure out what new design services it can offer, and help clients to “articulate a very cohesive vision for things that really aren’t known yet because technologies are evolving, and experiences are evolving.” There is some precedent for Bouza’s career shift. In 2023, Bob Weis, Bouza’s predecessor at Imagineering, made a similar jump to architecture, joining Gensler as its global immersive experience design leader. Bouza’s new role won’t be about bringing Imagineering into architecture, but rather exploring the ways that architecture and design services should be changing to meet new client demands. She says that requires thinking more expansively about how a place can serve people and create a venue for new ideas. “Being at Disney was like getting a PhD in this idea that there are other aspects of what we call the built environment,” she says. Pulling on her Imagineering experience of developing a new cruise ship, Wish, and launching World of Frozen at Hong Kong Disneyland, Bouza says she learned a lot about designing for the varied experiences of every participant in a space, from the families on vacation to the performers roaming the theme park to the maintenance crews working behind the scenes. She also embraces the immersive nature of the Disney approach and sees ways that architecture projects can do more to engage their users beyond the basics of the design brief. “[Imagineering] is so story driven. And that’s one area that I really want to see more in architecture,” she says. “I think the storytelling out there can be very strong. I think the execution of the work is strong. But I think where we really need to look is the science behind it, because guest behavior, consumer behavior, is really evolving.” After years building very different kinds of projects, Bouza says she’s happy to be back in the architecture world. “It’s like riding a bike,” she says. View the full article

A smarter robots.txt can stop SEO issues before they start. Clean up WordPress crawl paths, block noise, and point bots to what matters. The post WordPress Robots.txt: What Should You Include? appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

In the days before a recent ballot referendum in Seattle that would determine the future of social housing in the city, large tech companies spent big. Amazon and Microsoft, both of which are headquartered in the Seattle metropolitan area, each donated $100,000, and opponents of a tax to fund social housing spent a combined $780,000 in the lead-up to the February 11 vote. Despite this, the vote on a corporate tax to fund the city’s social housing authority won, with 63% of voters supporting it. In 2023, voters had already resoundingly approved the social housing authority, agreeing that a new entity would be created to acquire and construct mixed-income housing and keep it permanently affordable and under the city’s ownership. But this February, voters were asked to return to the polls to determine how to fund the authority—or whether it would be funded at all. The first question on the ballot asked if voters approved of funding the new authority using payroll taxes. Next, voters had to choose whether they wanted a new 5% payroll tax on individual compensation above $1,000,000, paid by companies, or to use an existing payroll tax that mostly funds affordable housing. The new tax could bring in $52 million of funding each year for social housing. The second option would appropriate $10 million a year for five years that had already been set aside. The city’s big tech companies had no interest in paying a new tax. In addition to contributions from Amazon and Microsoft, Seattle’s Chamber of Commerce donated $40,000 and T-Mobile donated $20,000 to derail an additional tax on companies. But according to Tiffani McCoy of House Our Neighbors, a Seattle nonprofit that has been one of the lead supporters of the social housing authority, the influx of spending actually hurt Big Tech’s case. “Frankly, Amazon donating was a godsend for us,” McCoy says. “We capitalized on the fact that Amazon and Microsoft were dumping in $100,000, and we made clear to voters that these corporations don’t want you to have social housing.” McCoy says the campaign to fund the social housing authority with a corporate tax sent mailers, paid for digital advertising, and made social media posts that played up the tech companies’ donations. Supporters also held a rally in front of Amazon’s Seattle headquarters. “There’s a lot of resentment toward tech billionaires who are part of the The President regime here in Seattle,” she says. The win suggests a way forward for organizers on the local level to take the housing crisis into their own hands. Persistent federal inaction and recent drastic attacks to HUD have provided motivation. “We needed to The President-proof our housing sector,” McCoy says. “And I think that helps because there’s mass opposition to what he’s doing.” The vote also showcased a groundswell of resentment toward Big Tech that has been percolating among voters. The authority will initially be modest in its ambitions, as it won’t have funding to develop housing anywhere near the scope or scale of the private market. The plan is to build or preserve 300 units a year, once funding comes in, according to the social housing development authority—but it will own those units and will be able to issue its own debt. The first step, proponents say, is to make sure the money actually comes through. What will Seattle’s social housing authority do? The initial ballot referendum to build a social housing authority in Seattle passed in February 2023 with 57% of the vote. It created a public development authority, a type of government-owned private entity that can take out debt by issuing bonds. The term “social housing” has been used broadly in recent years to refer to types of housing that are not subject to the speculative market, including public housing, forms of subsidized affordable housing, and housing owned by community land trusts. Seattle’s referendum referred to social housing as “publicly owned and financed mixed-income housing intended to be permanently affordable.” According to the housing authority’s charter, that means it will acquire or build housing and rent it to people making between 0% and 120% of the area median income, with rents never exceeding 30% of a tenant’s income. The median income for a family of four in Seattle is about $160,000, according to the Seattle Housing Authority. That means families in properties owned by the authority could be paying between $0 and about $4,700 a month, depending on their income. Since the authority’s properties are not meant to be resold, it could provide a modicum of stability to lifelong renters as they age. Market-rate properties are meant to increase in value every year, but seniors with fixed incomes don’t see their pay increase as they age. For decades, working Americans in general haven’t seen their pay increase significantly. The authority’s charter also creates a mediation provision for tenants to prevent evictions: According to the charter, “residents MUST be afforded opportunities for restorative justice conflict resolution prior to being subject to eviction procedures.” “There’s not the pressure of somebody’s investment that is in cross purposes to their ability to stay there,” says Julie Howe, a Seattle Social Housing board member. The authority will issue its own debt in the form of bonds and create a revolving loan fund, lending itself money for construction and acquisition that would be paid back through rents, with higher rents subsidizing lower rents. Debt is a large and under-discussed factor in the cost of housing, as developers often price units to pay back loans. By using its own funds for construction, the authority will be able to reduce interest payments that can cause rents to balloon. The authority will be governed by a board with 13 members, including 7 appointed by the Seattle Renters’ Commission, an advisory board that consults with the mayor and city council. They will be mainly focused on the authority’s fiscal responsibilities and making sure it remains aligned with its mission. While public housing is notoriously underfunded in the United States, the result of a bipartisan aversion to government-owned housing, McCoy says the mixed-income approach that Seattle is taking with its own development authority might prove more sustainable, as it doesn’t require as much direct subsidy. The authority’s approach is also less convoluted than building housing using Low Income Housing Tax Credits, which requires multiple layers of financing on top of the federally issued credits. But there still needs to be a dedicated revenue stream to staff the development authority, to purchase and construct housing, and to issue bonds. The state law establishing public development authorities does not allow them to impose taxes. And the 2023 ballot referendum was limited to creating the authority; a dedicated funding stream was always going to require a second ballot measure. Some opponents of the social housing authority, which includes not just big tech but affordable housing developers, believed that the new ballot measure was an opportunity to relitigate whether the authority should be established at all. “They’re really looking for a do-over,” McCoy said prior to the February vote. Taxing the wealthy Rather than opposing the authority outright, opponents opted to put option 1B on the ballot to essentially recreate the affordable housing system that exists in Seattle, with no new funding. That option would have effectively made the social housing development authority moot: the city’s affordable housing fund that it would have pulled from can only go toward people making 80% of the area median income or lower, which means that the authority would not be able to cross-subsidize rents. According to Howe, the board member, this would have put the agency in conflict with affordable housing developers who rely on the existing funding stream. “That would essentially go against how we were founded,” Howe says. Suresh Chanmugam, a tech worker organizing with the group Tech for Housing, says tech companies don’t mind Washington having one of the most regressive tax codes in the nation. Because the state has no income tax, most taxes are derived from consumer sales and property, regressive taxes where poorer people have an effective tax rate much higher than the wealthiest. Chanmugam believes rich companies use the lack of an income tax as a pretext to pay their employees less than they would in other states. He says that dozens of members of the Tech for Housing coalition knocked on doors, tabled at farmers markets and phone banked across the city. “When people hear, ‘Hey, do you want to tax companies to fund social housing?’, people say yes, because there’s near universal appeal in Seattle for making big businesses pay their fair share in taxes,” Chanmugam says. He says he personally spoke to about 300 voters while canvassing and only received pushback from one or two people. It makes sense that tech workers have opposing priorities to their employers: While tech workers are typically high earners, many would benefit from the social housing authority, which would ensure that people making 120% of AMI, or around $190,000 for a family of four, would pay only 30% of their wages toward rent in units it owns. That would greatly offset any pass-through cost put on their wages by tech companies. According to campaign finance records, Microsoft and Amazon were tied for the highest donations to the campaign for option 1B—using existing tax—at $100,000 each. It’s not the first time that spending from tech companies has backfired in Seattle. In 2019, Amazon and the Chamber of Commerce supported a slate of City Council candidates, most of whom lost. The corporate tax was also opposed by the mayor; ads for option 1B, which would use existing funds, had pictures of his face on it. One opposition mailer included the mayor’s face and signature and the message, “I strongly urge you to vote for Prop 1B. We need to build and operate social housing the smart way. 1B uses existing city funds, and has all the voter accountability and transparency that 1A doesn’t have.” The mailer notes that 1A “builds homes for the poorest city residents.” Only two current city council members support the corporate tax, according to McCoy. “Our city council has taken a very reactionary turn,” McCoy says. But the campaign used the political opposition to their advantage, citing the mayor’s stance in opposition mailers and messaging. Money being held up Despite the measure’s success, supporters say the city is still lagging on funding the authority. The new payroll tax is retroactive to January 1, 2025, but the city told supporters of the corporate tax the system to bill for it will take a year to build out, so that money won’t be available for the authority until early 2026. In the past, the city has used an “interfund loan,” borrowing money from its existing funds to process a new tax right away. McCoy says the city didn’t initially appear willing to take similar measures to pay for the social housing authority—though the mayor’s office later contacted the authority to discuss a bridge loan. A spokesperson for the mayor’s office says the city offered the loan to the authority to keep it afloat until the payroll tax revenue comes in next year. “We have not determined the amount of the bridge loan yet, and any funding would require approval from the City’s Debt Management Policy Advisory Committee and the City Council,” the spokesperson said in an email. Additionally, the original February 2023 ballot measure required the city to pay for staff for the authority for 18 months, but supporters say the city has only paid for 12 months. The spokesperson at the mayor’s office says that the city had disbursed all $850,000 of its contractually obligated startup costs, with the final payment on March 4. Roberto Jimenez, CEO of Seattle Social Housing (SSH), told Shelterforce Next City, “The mayor interprets the charter and contract differently than does SSH. I believe we will reach agreement.” Jimenez says his recent conversation with the mayor’s office was positive. He says the authority has already started looking at opportunities to purchase housing. That includes real estate deals that have stalled because buyers have had trouble accessing financing. He says construction is getting harder to do because of rising interest rates and the uncertainty of The President’s tariffs. But ideally, the authority will be in a position to build small and midsize housing that larger developers now avoid because larger multifamily buildings are more financially feasible. But first the money needs to arrive. “Things could happen very quickly if the money gets freed up,” he says. “The challenge that we’re facing right now is we don’t have the resources to hire staff yet, and we don’t have the resources to really pursue analysis of these real estate options.” Despite the hostility to the social housing development authority and its funding mechanisms from the political class, voters have now affirmed that they want it, twice. “I think people don’t need to be afraid of it,” Jimenez says. “I think it’s an alternative form of housing that makes a lot of sense and has worked around the world. And it’s becoming much more utilized in the U.S. over the last couple of years. You’re going to see a lot more of it.” —By Roshan Abraham, Next City This story was originally copublished by Next City and Shelterforce. View the full article

When Formula 1 superstar Lewis Hamilton announced in December that he would be leaving the Mercedes team for Ferrari after 246 Grands Prix, 84 victories, and 6 drivers’ championships in 12 seasons, much of the focus was on Hamilton’s future plans. Just as compelling was the empty seat Hamilton was leaving at Mercedes. His departure triggered an intense internal process for the automaker—the search for a successor. Many of the discussions and debates that resulted in Mercedes choosing young Italian driver Andrea Kimi Antonelli played out over messaging app WhatsApp. That process is now the subject of a new one-hour documentary on Netflix called The Seat, dropping on May 5. Directed by Kyle Thrash, and produced by RadicalMedia, it’s also a WhatsApp commercial. The Meta-owned app is a producer, and created the project with its content partner Modern Arts. WhatsApp’s global head of marketing, Vivian Odior, says the company decided to create the doc in order to fully show how the app is often part of critical inflection points in its users’ lives. “When it comes to telling those stories, we believe in giving the space to properly unpack the role we play and share the full story of our user base,” says Odior. “We don’t believe we should be limited by ad formats. Storytelling allows us to occupy a unique position in the hearts of users and pushes beyond the functional role we play.” This isn’t some ad-tiered piece of content. It’s a legitimate addition to the streamer’s F1 library. Many marketers will be shaking with jealousy or excitement, inspired to make their own move into entertainment. But be forewarned, creating content that can go head-to-head with other films and TV is not for the faint of heart, nor is it for those searching for a formula. Even WhatsApp knows this is a unique brand opportunity. Make your own luck WhatsApp has long been a brand partner to the Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 team, and last year Modern Arts created a short film on Hamilton called Push Push. It chronicled the ups and downs of his racing career, as well as his personal struggles with dyslexia and bullying, woven into a conversation he has with a group of teens today about their own lives. That helped build the relationship and trust with Mercedes to make The Seat possible. Modern Arts has a track record of telling compelling stories around the platform, like its award-winning, 26-minute doc We Are Ayenda, about WhatsApp’s role in helping the Afghanistan Women’s Youth National Football Team escape the Taliban. Zac Ryder, the agency’s cofounder and co-chief creative officer, says that made it a lot easier to start figuring out a story to be told around privacy with the Mercedes team. “It just so happens that not only is WhatsApp a sponsor of the team, but the entire Mercedes team literally runs on WhatsApp,” Ryder says. “You very rarely ever send an email. It’s all done on WhatsApp. They have hundreds of WhatsApp groups, and that’s how their entire team is organized, from little details around traveling to big things like engineering and car designs. It’s all shared across WhatsApp.” In theory, this sounds like a formula for the greatest product demo video ever made. But Formula 1 teams are known to be about as forthcoming with secrets as the Pentagon. Ryder says Mercedes saw the value in giving the film access to its internal process, with the goal of helping F1 fans fall in love with Antonelli, a relatively unknown 18-year-old driver. For WhatsApp, the goal was to tell a privacy story by showing how well it functions in high-stakes situations. “Our job was to figure out how those two things can coexist to make something that was going to be compelling,” Ryder says. No one formula It’s a unique situation for a brand to have its product at the center of a major sports story. Ryder says the strategy quickly became to make the project revolve around trust. The Mercedes team was trusting its F1 driver’s seat to Antonelli, but in the process it was also showing its trust in WhatsApp as a communications platform. In a typical commercial edit, marketers will obsess over how many times the product is mentioned, or the product appears, or the logo is flashed. Modern Arts CEO Brooke Stites says the film is not about that because the brand and its product are so intertwined with the story itself. As a marketing investment, Stites says the film cost about as much as it would to make and buy ad time for a 60-second commercial. Here, the entire budget went into the production because being on Netflix means there isn’t the need to pay for advertising space on TV and online. “It’s a totally different model,” says Stites. “It’s not cheap, but it’s what you’re going to spend on a 60-second spot that you then have to spend 10 times more to buy places that force people to watch it. Everyone who watches F1 content on Netflix is going to get served our film.” The Seat is not a paid advertising arrangement with Netflix; it was acquired by the streamer in the same way other film and television content is acquired. Other major streamers were vying for the film, but Netflix’s connection to the long-running docuseries Formula 1: Drive to Survive made it the ideal home. For some time brands and ad agencies have been putting “make a film for Netflix” in their marketing briefs, but the reality is, it’s not that simple. Stites says there are some critical ingredients a project needs in order to get anywhere near Netflix or any other top-tier streamer. “You have to have an amazing story and quality of craft,” she says. “All these streamers are looking at it and asking, ‘Is this something that’s adding value to my audience? Is this something that my viewers are going to actually want to engage with?’ That was a big part of the F1 piece.” For other brands interested in this type of storytelling, Stites has a piece of advice: Tell a compelling story that involves your brand, don’t just tell your brand story. Every brand wants to tap into culture. To tell stories people really want to hear, you need to find the stories in culture that authentically include your brand instead of trying to force-feed your brand into culture. “We’re not telling a story about WhatsApp. It’s not about the brand,” says Stites. “Stories involving brands already exist in culture that are really actually very interesting, and people are willing and wanting to engage with them. Tell a story that people are going to care about, versus starting from a place of ‘Let’s tell a brand story.’” View the full article

SEO legend Todd Friesen names seven SEO fundamentals for winning in AI search, and it’s still called SEO The post SEO Rockstar Names 7 SEO Fundamentals To Win In AI Search appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Figure for period before US president announced sweeping levies surpasses expectationsView the full article

President Donald The President’s first 100 days of his second term in office have been marked by whipsawing tariff policies; declarations that handicap his own goals; confusion as federal workers are fired, rehired, and fired again; and government officials quitting. In other words: chaos. And the next 100 days will likely be full of chaos, too. Some of this is intentional, like the rapid clip of executive orders, DOGE’s assault on federal workers, and the spate of illegal deportations. This “flooding the zone” strategy was developed by The President’s first-term adviser Steve Bannon, who has remarked on The President’s ability to “overwhelm” Democrats and the media with an onslaught of actions. This bombardment of activity, much of which is unconstitutional, has made it difficult for lawmakers and courts to keep up with The President. But when they’re able to, they’re often ruling against him, showing that The President’s directives crumble under the law. In February, over one 90-minute span, three separate federal judges delivered legal setbacks to The President—blocking the administration from freezing federal grants and loans, ordering the administration to pay foreign aid-related money it owed, and halting The President’s executive order suspending refugee admissions and funding. In just the past week, judges—both liberal and conservative—ruled against The President in 11 different lawsuits. And these are just some of the setbacks. Outside of the courts, when The President gets pushback, he has backtracked on his comments or switched course. The President threatened to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, but when that prompted a major stock sell-off, he told reporters he had “no intention” of doing so. After issuing 145% tariffs on China, spurring concerns about a recession, he told reporters that “145% is very high and it won’t be that high,” and that the tariffs will “come down substantially.” The The President administration took aim at Harvard University, threatening to cut off federal funding and investigating them for permitting antisemitism. When the elite university stood up to him—saying no government should dictate what private universities can teach, who they can hire, or what topics they can pursue—the administration once again walked back their comments; it blamed a “mistake” for setting off that confrontation. There’s been disarray and turnover among government officials, too. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been caught in multiple controversies for his use of Signal to discuss military attacks. Last week, Hegseth’s chief of staff left that role following “friction” between him and other senior advisers, and also after facing questions about how the Pentagon is being managed under Hegseth. Some longtime government workers have also resigned—including a Treasury Department official, a director at the Food and Drug Administration, and the acting Social Security Administration commissioner—in protest of the The President administration’s actions, including those of DOGE. (More than 20 DOGE workers have also resigned.) Others have been forced out or fired by the administration, though some of those action were unlawful—including The President’s termination of National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox. Turnover was also a hallmark of The President’s first term: By 2018, just 14 months into his first term, The President had replaced four Cabinet members, outpacing any first-term president in the past 100 years. By 2019, he fired his third national security adviser, another record. He also ran through multiple communications directors, including Anthony Scaramucci, who lasted just 10 days. Per the Brookings Institution, the total first-term turnover of his “A-team” (including senior advisers) reached 92%. The President’s actions have also seemed to run counter to his own purported goals. By clawing back renewable energy projects, he’s hurting his own aim of increasing American energy production. By stoking fears of a recession with his economic actions, he’s made it less profitable for oil companies to boost production, despite his “drill, baby, drill” goal. The President is also frequently contradictory; in just one example, he released an Earth Day statement about reducing global emissions, while also advocating for the increased use of coal and hobbling climate action broadly. The President’s “flood the zone” or “shock and awe” strategies are intended for maximum chaos, aimed outward to disarm and overwhelm his opposition. But other examples show a different kind of chaos, an internal disorder he perhaps can’t quite control. Already, The President’s approval rating has fallen to 39%, down from 45% in February, and Americans feel worse about the economy now than they did a month ago. Almost half of poll respondents would give him a failing grade for his first 100 days. Though the The President administration has largely followed the policies outlined by Project 2025, it has also been clear that The President will waver on some things in the face of opposition. One former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) communications worker said in a recent press briefing that the administration will measure the uproar to canceled government contracts, and if there’s enough blowback, they’ll end up approving the funding. The President’s relationships with wealthy advisers have also influenced his actions, like when he shilled for Tesla on the White House lawn. All this makes it even harder to know what to expect in the next 100 days, or six months, or three years. “A lot of this is not really an agenda, and more sort of random impulses by individuals,” said Jesse Young, former chief of staff to climate envoy John Podesta, during that same press briefing. “He doesn’t really seem particularly well coordinated.” Young pointed to how the State Department recently fired Pete Marocco, a The President appointee who was in charge of dismantling USAID, as an example of this lack of coordination. That firing caused blowback against Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had clashed with Marocco. Some say Rubio disliked Marocco’s “bulldozer” style, while Marocco allies say Rubio was obstructionist. Per Politico, Marocco’s firing was described by one White House official as “the first MAGA world killing from inside the White House.” What that means for the future of the foreign aid isn’t clear, but it hints at how senior leaders under the The President administration may find themselves fired or caught in scandal, or may resign because of internal conflicts. And that means more chaos going forward. “The agenda and the policy of the administration will shift a lot as they lose people,” Young says. “It’s just going to be enormously unpredictable.” View the full article

Since its inception in 1965, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has enforced antidiscrimination laws and acted as the first line of defense for Americans who experience workplace discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, disability, or sexual orientation. Even while facing a shrinking budget and staffing constraints, the agency has managed to secure significant payouts for workers who have been the target of discrimination. In 2024, the EEOC recovered nearly $700 million for about 21,000 workers, a sum far beyond its $455 million budget. The past year also saw an uptick in the number of discrimination charges fielded by the EEOC, an increase of about 9% from the year prior to over 88,500 charges. Over the past few months, however, President The President has taken multiple steps to undermine the authority and independence of the EEOC. Presidents typically allow commissioners of federal agencies to serve out their terms, regardless of their political affiliation. But just days into his presidency, The President fired two EEOC commissioners—Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, who was chair of the agency under President Biden—before their term limits were up. In doing so, he eliminated the Democratic majority and left the agency without a three-person quorum. (Samuels has filed a lawsuit contesting her termination.) Without a quorum, the EEOC cannot vote to issue new regulations or guidance or revise existing regulations or guidance. The agency also cannot pursue certain types of litigation or systemic cases of discrimination. A new acting chair Andrea Lucas, the new acting chair of the EEOC and a conservative voice known for her criticisms of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the workplace, has furthered the president’s anti-DEI agenda since being instated. Former EEOC officials like Jenny Yang, a partner at workers’ rights law firm Outten & Golden and onetime EEOC chair, have been alarmed by The President’s influence over the agency’s priorities. “It’s really an unprecedented and quite radical shift from pursuing the historic mission of the EEOC—which was to advance equal opportunity for everyone and to ensure employers prevent and remedy discrimination—to one that is really turning our civil rights laws on their head and targeting employers for taking efforts to prevent discrimination,” Yang says. “[The EEOC is] seeming to suggest that its mission is actually only focused on some workers that have the kinds of claims that this administration thinks are worthy.” (The EEOC did not respond to a request for comment for this story.) As she stepped into the role of acting chair in January, Lucas suggested that the EEOC had not thoroughly investigated certain types of discrimination. “I look forward to restoring evenhanded enforcement of employment civil rights laws for all Americans,” she said in a statement. “In recent years, this agency has remained silent in the face of multiple forms of widespread, overt discrimination.” Lucas went on to note that her priorities would be in line with The President’s executive orders and would include “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination” and “defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single‑sex spaces at work.” Alleged overreach Lucas has executed on those priorities in the months since, issuing a document on DEI-related discrimination that defines what constitutes an “unlawful” DEI initiative and addressing questions like whether a DEI training could create a hostile work environment. In a particularly controversial move, Lucas sent letters to 20 law firms in March asking for details on their DEI-related employment practices, specifically flagging diversity fellowships and employee resource groups in some cases. Yang and other former EEOC officials have described this move as a clear overreach and beyond the scope of a commissioner’s authority, even outlining their concerns in a letter addressed to Lucas. (A group of law students has also brought a lawsuit against the EEOC over its inquiries to law firms.) “It was really just stunning and frightening to see such a blatant disregard of Title VII statutory language because the commission only has authority as enumerated by Congress,” Yang says. “The commission’s authority stems from opening an investigation of a charge. But there’s no authority to ask employers for sensitive information not through the charge process.” Part of the reason for that, she points out, is a confidentiality provision that ensures privacy as the EEOC collects information related to the charge. While the EEOC may have lacked the authority to send those letters, four law firms have already reached settlement agreements with the agency in response to the inquiries, even promising to drop the term DEI and committing to “merit-based” employment practices. “It seems like these letters were really an attempt to intimidate the firms into voluntarily dropping any efforts that they might have been engaged in to advance equal opportunity in the workplace,” says Katie Sandson, the senior counsel for education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center. Shifting agency priorities Beyond explicitly targeting DEI programs, multiple reports indicate that the EEOC has already started deprioritizing charges related to gender identity. EEOC employees have reportedly been instructed to classify charges of gender identity discrimination as low priority, a category typically intended for charges that lack merit. The agency is also reportedly dismissing lawsuits that involve discrimination against transgender and gender-nonconforming workers, citing The President’s executive order that recognizes only two biological sexes. Other reports have found that EEOC judges are being asked to stop hearing cases that involve allegations of discrimination over gender identity. A number of EEOC employees have reportedly left the agency since Lucas took over, according to The New York Times, in part due to concerns that the agency has been politicized; some employees, like administrative judge Karen Ortiz, have publicly pushed back on the new directives and refused to stop evaluating cases. A new executive order handed down by The President just last week could put more pressure on the EEOC to dismiss certain cases outright, Yang says. The order challenges the theory of disparate impact liability, which refers to when someone is treated differently on the basis of protected characteristics like race and gender—the concept behind countless discrimination cases. The President instructed the EEOC to “take appropriate action” on all investigations or suits that involve a theory of disparate impact. “It could be a criminal background screen, pay equity issue, or hiring discrimination,” Yang says. “It’s likely, based on that executive order, that all of those pending charges are just going to be dismissed rather than investigated, and that will have a significant impact on many workers.” A changing footprint Workers who turn to the EEOC could also face more hurdles if the agency shuts down eight field offices that have been marked for lease termination by the Department of Government Efficiency—a concern that Democrats in Congress have also raised in a letter to Lucas. “Field offices play a really important role in the EEOC,” Sandson says. “For many workers, they’re the first point of contact with the EEOC in their own communities, and it’s where they go when they want to pursue an action. They investigate these cases, they do intakes, they do outreach and education events. Closing those offices would just be another action that would really undermine the EEOC’s ability to serve workers across the country.” The EEOC is often the sole option for workers who face discrimination on the job, particularly those in low-wage jobs who can’t afford to hire a lawyer on a contingency basis. But that could change if the agency is now deprioritizing certain types of employment discrimination. “Many workers will have no recourse,” Yang says. “The private bar can step in, in some cases, but there are many other workers who won’t be able to vindicate their rights. Laws require enforcement to have meaning, and this is just a giant step backwards for equal opportunity. I worry that many workers won’t know where to go.” View the full article

Floor tiles designed to block cellphone signals. Special window film to ruin the photos of overhead drones. A bevy of hidden electronic jamming devices. This might sound like the arsenal of a high-tech spy, but it’s actually just a few of the trappings required to keep a conclave secret in 2025. In the wake of Pope Francis’s death and funeral this weekend, the Catholic Church is now in a high-stakes race to prepare for the papal conclave, the traditional ceremony that will determine the next pope. On May 7, around 135 Roman Catholic cardinals will be sequestered in the Sistine Chapel for a series of ballot votes to decide who will inherit leadership of the church—a process that can take anywhere from two days to several weeks. The conclave is designed to be a highly secretive process, wherein the outside world is entirely ignorant to the discussions happening inside the Sistine Chapel, and the cardinals themselves likewise have no connection to the outside world. However, with all of the technology available in 2025 (like drones, AI, and advanced microphones), maintaining that secrecy is much more difficult than it was in 2005, when cellphones were first banned. It doesn’t help that thousands of conclave followers are turning the event into a gambling opportunity, betting their hard-earned cash on the event’s outcome and making the public even more ravenous for a glimpse inside the chapel walls. To prepare for this highly publicized event, the Vatican is currently in the process of a design overhaul of the Sistine Chapel to host its temporary residents—and to keep information tightly contained. Jamming devices, armed guards, and high-tech floor tiles Right now, much of what we know about the Vatican’s conclave security measures comes from reports on the last conclave back in 2013. That year, fears surrounding potential leaks through hidden devices or internet signal were a serious concern, especially after an unfortunate incident in 2005 when a German cardinal reportedly accidently leaked the conclave’s papal choice before the official announcement. To prevent any similar oversights in 2013, the Vatican disabled its internet signal by using jamming devices that prevented messages from any device transmitting information in or out of the chapel’s walls. There was a rumor that the jamming devices were placed in the floorboards, which was ultimately dispelled by the Reverend Thomas Rosica. “They won’t work if you put them there,” Rosica told reporters. Instead, he said, the jamming devices were installed high up on the walls, “like a shield on an airplane.” At the time, veteran Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli, who is currently the editorial director of the Holy See publication Vatican News, reported that the Vatican’s anti-bugging technology took the form of a Faraday cage inside the Sistine Chapel, the Santa Marta residence, and Synod Hall, where pre-conclave meetings took place. A Faraday cage is a kind of enclosure that prevents the transmission of electromagnetic waves by surrounding a targeted area with an electrically conducting material. Further security measures at the last conclave included privacy film on all windows to prevent any drone photography, rigorous checks for hidden devices inside the chapel and on the cardinals themselves, and an elite force of guards armed with heavy weapons. This time around, information on the Vatican’s security plans is not yet widely available. However, there is one detail that’s already emerged. According to an interview with NPR religion correspondent Jason DeRose today, “The floor being installed in the Sistine Chapel right now has special cellphone-blocking technology to keep inside information in and outside information out.” Fast Company has reached out to the Vatican for more information on new security measures, and will update this story accordingly. Because insight on the cardinals’ decision cannot be transferred to the public via the internet, they will instead use a tried-and-true method: smoke. Each day that the cardinals do not reach a decision, black smoke will issue from a chimney at the Sistine Chapel. When the choice is made, the smoke will be white. Per a report from the Associated Press, the Vatican is currently working on installing a new chimney to ensure that all of the cardinals’ ballots are properly burned. Meanwhile, a second chimney installed beside it will issue the ceremonial black or white smoke. View the full article

A new partnership between music creation platform BandLab and Sony is set to bring users production tools that are aimed at making independent musicians competitive with big-budget artists. Starting this summer, BandLab will integrate Sony’s spatial sound technology, 360 Reality Audio, directly into its song-creation app—allowing the songwriters and producers who use it to build immersive songs on their smartphones, using any headphones. “A lot of these creators don’t have access to expensive equipment and gear,” says Jordy Freed, who leads brand, business development and strategy for Sony’s personal entertainment business. “When we look at 360 [Reality Audio] and some of the other technologies we’ll integrate, we’d be doing a disservice to current and future trends of music creation and listening if we didn’t open this up” to more people. Executives from both companies say the features that BandLab will add in the coming months are just the start of a broader partnership that positions Sony and its personal entertainment business—which encompasses its consumer and professional audio businesses—as a ground-floor partner to BandLab’s 100 million–strong user base. Making amateur production immersive During the production process for most songs, producers and musicians assign elements—vocals and instruments, for example—to a channel (left or right in the most basic form). With spatial sound tools offered by companies such as Sony and Dolby Atmos, song-makers can assign any element, or object, a position and volume based on distance in a virtual sphere around a listener’s head. Though Apple’s spatial audio on Apple Music can be paired with hardware capabilities like head tracking to create a more dynamic spatial experience, a listener doesn’t always need special headphones to listen to an immersive song. But the tools for making immersive music have been reserved for pricier software suites and studio equipment. “For many years, it’s been so limiting for who can create in spatial, just from a pure economic basis,” Freed says. “A lot of the tools that have existed in spatial are often on the higher end in terms of price points and knowledge needed to use them. If you’re an emerging creator, are you seeing the return on investment if you’re spending that money?” He says the BandLab partnership will be the first time a broad swath of musicians will be able to experiment with immersive audio. Initially, users will have access to a free set of curated, spatial-enabled beats onto which they’ll be able to add vocals, instruments, and other production elements, with the final song being sa BandLab cofounder and CEO Meng Ru Kuok says the partnership is designed to make sure BandLab users are able to compete in a music industry in which streamers have been building demand for immersive listening steadily for years. In January 2024, Apple implemented a bonus payout of up to 10% for songs that are also available in spatial audio on Apple Music. The move came as a growing number of listeners opted for the immersive versions of songs on the streaming platform. Last summer, Apple VP of Apple Music and Beats told Wallpaper that 90% of Apple Music users were listening to songs with spatial audio. Though Apple’s spatial experience is powered by Dolby Atmos, Amazon music currently support Sony’s 360 Virtual Audio. (Tidal removed its support for Sony’s 360 Virtual Audio summer.) “From the consumption and listening side, there’s been massive progress, but creation and music has always lagged—largely because of the infrastructure of people needing desktop equipment, expensive audio interfaces, expensive mixing gear, and those kinds of things,” Kuok says. “We don’t want our creators to be left behind. We see in Sony a partner that is technologically able to make it accessible for people just through a pair of headphones.” Equipping smartphone creatives for the future The spatial audio tools are just the start of multiyear partnership between Sony and BandLab. Freed says Sony’s work with BandLab is part of his division’s broader efforts to engage with emerging artists and creators. The company works closely with the Recording Academy on its Grammy U program, which supports up-and-coming music professionals via events and networking opportunities. Additionally, in March, Sony and New York University announced the creation of the Sony Audio Institute, which over the next 10 years will offer students in the school’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development access to Sony tech and research opportunities. “It was important for us to have a fully rounded-out effort—from the Grammy folks to the 100 million–plus BandLab users, most of whom are under 25 years old and creating with smartphones,” Freed says. BandLab is seeing its fastest user growth in Nigeria and South Africa, as well as Latin America, all areas where smartphones are the dominant tech among creators. Freed says the partnership could expand to include creator camps and other educational opportunities with BandLab users to train them on Sony technology or connect them with industry professionals. “This is not something that we look at and ask what the business impact is for the next quarter,” Freed says. “You do something like this because you really care deeply about community and growing a creator base to bring everyone together and shape where things are going for what it means to be a music creator—because it’s changing.” View the full article

At Owl Labs, we’re committed to making hybrid meetings as seamless and inclusive as possible. Our latest software (6.7) significantly enhances our video conferencing ecosystem with new features for the Meeting Owl 3, Meeting Owl 4+, Owl Bar, and the Meeting Owl app. Let’s dive into these updates and discover how they can improve your hybrid meeting experience. View the full article

Authority Score is a compound metric in Semrush that measures a domain‘s or webpage‘s overall quality. View the full article

Learn how to optimize your website for SEO with our clear, actionable guide and framework. View the full article