All Activity

Yesterday, Apple's Eddy Cue said searches on Google via Safari were down last month for the first time in 22 years. Then later, Google issued a statement saying there was an "increase in total queries coming from Apple's devices and platforms."View the full article

Google is testing a slightly different layout for its search result snippets. Google seems to be indenting the title link, URL and description to the right and placing the favicon indented to the left of that placement.View the full article

New Delhi also claims knocked out air defence system in Lahore View the full article

Google Business Profiles has another bug, this time with the toggle to hide or show the business address. The toggle for "Show business address to customers" just does not work - I even tried it myself and it is not working for my business.View the full article

The Arizona-based mortgage brokerage claims a former director of training is keeping the domain name of its loan officer training website hostage. View the full article

Agreement likely to be narrow in scope and largely an exercise in damage limitationView the full article

Given President Donald The President’s well-established penchant for golden objects, it was not a surprise to many when images of his administration’s decorative choices in the Oval Office started appearing. The space now abounds in gold. There are gold picture frames, gold statues, gold trophies, gold crown molding, and gold coasters. The Wall Street Journal reported that The President called in his Mar-a-Lago “gold guy” to assist with the redesign, adding custom-made and gilded carvings. Compared to those of presidents past, The President’s Oval Office decor is a maximalist and glistening tour de force. To some, the decoration is all a bit much. New York magazine called the overall decorative approach in the White House “tacky and trollish.” An opinion piece in The Washington Post called the decoration “gaudy-awful.” Another drew a direct line between The President’s decorative leanings and the over-the-top opulence of the Palace of Versailles. President George W. BushTreasury Secretary Scott Bessent “In order to gain a certain kind of reputational notoriety he emulates this style that’s connected with the elite. But he does so in a very pastiche way,” says Robert Wellington, a professor of art history at the Australian National University and a specialist in the arts in France during the reign of Louis XIV. The President, who has called “the look and feel of Louis XIV” his “favorite style,” has interpreted this period mainly through items that are, or look like, gold. “Perhaps he’s trying to create a sense of material splendor around him that gives a sense of power and buttresses his claims to the success that his administration is having,” Wellington says. “He wants to give that illusion of success.” What are those things? According to information from the White House, some items in The President’s Oval Office actually do have legitimate value, both materially and historically. On top of the mantle, there is a line of seven historic items from the White House collection dating back to the early and mid-19th century. This is the lineup, according to details from the White House curator’s office, that was provided by a source in the White House. On the outside edges there are two gilded silver dessert stands made around 1810. Next to those are two gilded silver figurative centerpieces made around 1843. Next to those are two gilded bronze vases made around 1817 and associated with James Monroe, the fifth president of the United States. And in the center is a gilded bronze basket made between 1815 and 1820. All the items originated in either England or France. The provenance of these pieces may have some subversive significance for those who read between the lines. The four outermost pieces were bequests from Margaret Thompson Biddle, heir to a diamond- and copper-mining fortune and one of the richest American women of the mid-20th century. Once married to a diplomat, she lived for many of the pre- and post-World War II years in Europe, and hosted famous salons in her Paris home with the leading lights of American and French society. The centerpiece was a gift of Gifford B. Pinchot, an early trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an organization that by its own accounting sued the first The President administration 163 times. Pinchot, who donated the piece in 1973 and died in 1989, was the son of Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the U.S. Forest Service and a close ally of Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th U.S. president, with whom he helped formulate the federal government’s approach to resource conservation. Neither of these people would seem ideologically connected to the current administration’s policies. Made in the USA? Not in the White House More notable, perhaps, is the fact that none of the items on the mantle in The President’s Oval Office were made in the U.S., which contrasts with the administration’s present focus on imposing tariffs on foreign-produced goods and services. “There is a long passion for French decorative arts in America, through the Gilded Age patrons but also in the White House itself. So it’s not completely outrageous to imagine these French styles coming into the White House,” Wellington says. Unsplash But Wellington also sees a deep irony in The President’s affection for Louis XIV and the Palace of Versailles, which he explores in a forthcoming book, Versailles Mirrored: The Power of Luxury, Louis XIV to Donald The President. Wellington notes that Versailles was built as a kind of advertising program, establishing France as the center for luxury production by putting its finest craftsmanship in furniture, metalwork, mirrors, silks, and paintings on display. The palace’s decorative approach was also a form of protectionism, meant to stop people from importing luxury products from other countries. “It was state-sponsored luxury production which led to France being seen as the place where the very finest things could be made,” Wellington says. The President’s version of Louis XIV’s approach is more surface than substance, Wellington says. In contrast with the industry-boosting decoration at Versailles, the White House decor undermines one of the administration’s key policies. “If The President wanted to be a Louis XIV, I think he would be well placed to support the arts and culture. Instead, there’s very regressive ideas about arts and culture being supported under the The President administration,” he says. “To be a great model of patronage you would be looking to the greatest minds of the day, the greatest artists of the day to create an image of America, to make America great again,” Wellington adds. “The way that you would do that is to think to the future, not to lock into some old idea.” View the full article

Understand how Google Ads automation works and how to shape your ad copy for better performance. The post How To Write Better Ad Copy When Google Ads Uses AI-Assisted Features appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Figures released as central bank is expected to cut interest ratesView the full article

Your flights will probably get noticeably bumpier over the next few years, according to new research on how climate change is affecting turbulence. Paul Williams is a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Reading in England who has researched turbulence for more than a decade. In a presentation at the European Geosciences Union conference last week, Williams shared his research showing how global warming is likely leading to an uptick in something called “clear-air turbulence,” or turbulence that can’t be seen on an airplane monitor or from the cockpit. Based on Williams’s research, severe clear-air turbulence has increased by 55% since the 1970s, and it’s only going up. Over the next few decades, Williams told Inside Climate News, turbulence is expected to quadruple along some busy routes, presenting potentially dangerous conditions for aviation. What is clear-air turbulence? Clear-air turbulence, in simple terms, is turbulence that’s not caused by clouds or storms—meaning that, for flight crews, it can essentially appear out of the blue. Whereas the more common turbulence happens due to weather, clear-air turbulence is most often due to jet streams in the atmosphere. Jet streams are strong, river-like air patterns, about 6 to 8 miles above the Earth, that contain many layers of air blowing at different speeds. These streams, which travel west to east, appear when warm air runs into much colder air. As the Earth is heated unevenly (with more sun in the tropics and less in the poles), warm air expands and rises up, and cold air rushes in to take its place, creating a moving current. There are multiple jet streams around the globe, and their strengths change throughout the year based on how hot and cold the converging currents are at a given time. In an interview with CBS News, Daniel Adjekum, a pilot and aircraft safety consultant, explained that the differing air masses inside a jet stream can cause a lot of friction, and, in turn, turbulence. The major issue with this is that normally pilots can predict convective turbulence based on moisture content in the air. Because clear-air turbulence isn’t caused by moisture patterns, it doesn’t show up to the naked eye or on flight instruments. Hassan Shahidi, president and CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation, told CBS that clear-air turbulence is “typically very violent.” Some experts believe that it was responsible for extreme turbulence on a Singapore Airlines flight last year, causing the aircraft to drop thousands of feet in just a few minutes. The incident killed one person and injured more than 70 others. In recent months, unexpected severe turbulence has also led to multiple injuries on two separate United Airlines flights. How is global warming making clear-air turbulence worse? Williams coauthored a paper in 2023 demonstrating that clear-air turbulence has been on the rise over the past several decades. Now he’s uncovering how global warming is driving that pattern. The main piece of the puzzle, he explained in his presentation last week, is something called vertical wind shear. Inside jet streams, vertical wind shear is a phenomenon that occurs when two air currents close to each other move at different speeds. If the variation is wide enough, the atmosphere breaks into unusual, bumpy patterns, resulting in a turbulent flight experience. A growing body of research demonstrates that climate change is disrupting jet streams and, in turn, worsening vertical wind shear. Studies show that faster rates of global warming at the poles can twist jet streams into unusual patterns, creating “rough patches” with high wind shears—some of which are expected to worsen near busy transatlantic flight paths. Based on Williams’s research, vertical wind shear has already increased by around 15% over the past 40 years. If rapid warming continues on its current trajectory, his models show that vertical wind shear inside jet streams could increase another 29% by 2100. “This, of course, means a lot more turbulence in not that many years from now,” he concluded at last week’s presentation. Flying is still considered to be a very safe form of travel. However, when problems do arise, they’re often caused by turbulence: Data from the National Transportation Safety Board shows that more than one-third of all airline incidents in the U.S. from 2009 through 2018 were related to turbulence, and most of them resulted in one or more serious injuries, though no damage to the plane. Now, Williams’s research shows, flight safety agencies may need to find new ways to monitor ever-bumpier skies. View the full article

Generative AI is radically reshaping the job market—creating new roles, changing some, and phasing out others. But here’s one effect of the transformative technology that’s not as widely talked about: It’s deepening long-standing workplace gender gaps. A double disadvantage According to a recent report from the World Economic Forum and LinkedIn, women systematically face a two-part problem in the ongoing AI transformation. Relatively fewer women are currently in jobs that are being augmented by generative AI, and relatively more are in roles that are being disrupted. According to LinkedIn data for the US, 24.1% of men work in augmented occupations, while 20.5% of women do. At the same time, 33.7% of women work in occupations that are being disrupted, compared to 25.5% of men. Related research by LinkedIn shows that the pattern of men’s higher representation in augmented roles holds for 95% of the 74 countries with available data. Examples of occupations that look set to be disrupted in the US include medical administrative assistant (91% female) and office manager (88% female). Augmented fields, meanwhile, include electrical engineer (94% male) and mechanical engineer (89% male). The STEM Gap The data align with broader AI-related disparities in STEM education and employment. Already, too many women are lost in the transition from STEM degrees to their first job in the STEM workforce. Women who graduated in 2021 accounted for 38.5% of STEM graduates, but only 31.6% of STEM job entrants in 2022. This decline in representation continues across the hierarchy once women are in the workforce: in 2024, women held 29% of STEM entry-level positions and 24.4% of STEM managerial positions in STEM, but only 12.2% of STEM C-suite level roles. Women are also underrepresented in AI-related academic and leadership roles. To ensure that those who have the right skills have a fair chance to succeed and advance in the workplace, regardless of their gender, business leaders need to review and rethink their hiring practices, performance evaluation methods, and promotion processes. Generative AI itself can both help and hinder efforts to create a more level playing field. Relying on historical employment patterns to make predictions about future performance has too often overlooked women’s potential to succeed in jobs where they have not traditionally been represented. On the other hand, using generative AI to predict future success based on current skills is a powerful way to deploy the latest technology to debias hiring processes and create a more level playing field. Some positive news When it comes to AI skills, there are encouraging signs that women are catching up on both AI literacy and AI engineering skills. In 2018, 23.5% of AI engineering skill-listers on LinkedIn were women; in early 2025, this number had risen to 29.4%. Over the past five years, the gap narrowed in 74 of the 75 economies with available data. At the same time, research by LinkedIn suggests that women are more likely to underreport AI skills in their professional profiles. Disparity among inventors Currently, no economy is fully leveraging all of the available talent to drive innovation, but some are doing better than others. In a race where every competitive edge counts, this is significant. High-level data on the gender breakdown among inventors, named as such on patent applications, reveals that East Asian economies are drawing on a more extensive talent pool, with more than 25% of inventors being women in China (26.8% in 2019) and South Korea (28.3% in 2019), which is around 10 percentage points higher than in the European Union (EU) and the United States. Around the world, the generative AI boom is being shaped in ways that don’t fully reflect the diversity of society, leaving women underrepresented in the jobs and leadership roles of the future. Yet this moment offers a rare opportunity to course-correct. By investing in skills, using AI in a way that makes hiring and promotions more equitable, and ensuring technology is built by and for a broader range of people, we can create a more competitive future that expands economic opportunity and promotes fairness. Without such action, generative AI will reinforce inequality instead of driving meaningful progress. View the full article

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

Ask a millennial, and they’ll tell you all about the Great Recession. Many of them, fresh out of school, resorted to taking any job they could find—waiting tables, parking cars—and many simply returned to school to earn another degree, and wait for more favorable economic climes. Unemployment topped out at 10%. It stunted their career growth and earnings for years. That’s why many members of older generations may roll their eyes at young people who have been convinced that, despite all evidence, the U.S. has been mired in a recession over the last couple of years. While economic issues dominated the headlines, mostly related to inflation and rising prices, unemployment remained low, average earnings increased, and GDP numbers were on the up and up. But nearing the mid-point of 2025, the ground has shifted. The second The President administration, brandishing tariffs and other questionable economic policies, has many experts believing we’re on the cusp of an actual recession—the first since the brief recession caused by the pandemic, and the second since the Great Recession more than a decade-and-a-half ago. The data points in that direction, too: The most recent GDP numbers show a contracting economy, forecasts suggest that unemployment could continue to rise, the stock market is as volatile as ever, and consumers are feeling pessimistic. Though things seem to be tilting in the direction of a recession, it’s not a sure thing; many experts were convinced a recession would hit in 2022, though it never materialized. Accordingly, some younger people may have been lulled into a false sense of security, despite their concerns over the past few years, thinking that the experts, again, were mistaken. And the experts say that we’re not quite feeling the full effects of the The President administration’s new policies, either. “Everyone’s scrambling to find evidence of economic impact right now,” says George Eckerd, Research Director at JP Morgan Chase Institute. “But these things take time to evolve, and the data’s going to be much slower to come in than the rhetoric. Things are going to be fairly inertial for the time being.” But when and if the economic screws start to tighten, Gen Z and younger Americans could feel the pressure more acutely than any other generation—even millennials. Market exposure, low liquidity, and little experience Gen Z is coming of age in a different world than previous generations, with access to a slew of smartphone applications, AI-powered tools, and more that can help them not only find jobs, but manage their money. But those apps and tools may be one of the primary reasons Gen Z could find a recession particularly jarring. “Gen Z is way more likely to have real, concrete engagement in the financial markets,” says Eckerd. That’s because many of them were able to download investing apps on their phones and start playing around with crypto with a sense of ease like no generation before them. Eckerd notes that the data he’s seen shows that there was marked “growth in young people sending money out of their after-tax income,” which fueled the pandemic-era investing boom. So, if a recession and market downturn slam investors, Gen Z will have a front row seat to the carnage, and will see their own assets decline in value, which may make their collective stomachs turn. “They got started on their financial journey a lot faster and earlier, so they’ll have a tangible, visible thing where they can log in and see how the markets and economy are behaving.” Seeing red lines, instead of green ones, may evoke some emotional, knee-jerk reactions, especially from young people who have, by and large, only lived through periods of economic expansion—again, with the exception of the chaos wrought by the pandemic. So, inexperience with a large-scale economic downturn, and thus, having developed a sort of thicker skin to deal with it, could also affect Gen Z more so than their older counterparts. On top of it all, Eckerd says that young people generally “have less liquidity and wealth built up, so their buffers are thinner.” That’s to say that if a recession does arrive, Gen Z has less of a safety net, and could struggle in the short term, much like the millennials did in the wake of the Great Recession. That’s also not to say that millennials or other generations won’t suffer or struggle, but they just experience it a bit differently than members of Gen Z, who, again, have come up in perhaps historically atypical economic circumstances. The question, assuming we are in for a recession, is what young people can do to prepare—and the answer, experts say, doesn’t differ much from what their predecessors should have done, too. How Gen Z can prepare for a recession As of early May, many Americans do seem to be steeling themselves for more difficult economic conditions ahead. Recent data from Intuit’s 2025 Prosperity Index finds that 75% of Gen Z and millennials are finding it difficult to make financial plans due to economic uncertainty, and that 30% can only afford basic necessities—a number that would likely swell during a recession. Cameron Rufus, an investment advisor at Ritholtz Wealth Management in New York City, says that he advises younger people to always be prepared for a recession—it’s more or less the same strategy as preparing for a change in personal circumstances. “What I tell younger people is to always be prepared. Just do the basics. Have some cash, save more,” he says. “We don’t know what’s going to happen in the markets,” he says, “and things could change in the blink of an eye.” Rufus, who himself is a member of the Gen Z cohort, has a final piece of advice for younger people: Take everything you’re hearing on social media with an asteroid-sized grain of salt. “You’ve got to be careful about who you’re listening to, and who’s in your ear, be it personally or on social media,” he says, adding that many influencers and content creators who discuss finances and the economy may have an agenda, and are also trying to increase engagement. Freaking people out about an impending recession is a fairly easy way to do that. To make his point, he refers back to the “VIX” market index, which tracks market volatility. “Remember,” says Rufus, “the higher the VIX, the higher the clicks.” View the full article

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’ve ever been to the Vatican or watched for a puff of white smoke on live TV, you probably noticed something colorful. Or rather, something wholly mind-blowing in the modern era of tactical military design—a troop of tri-color pantalooned papal protectors wielding halberds, seemingly straight out of a Raphael painting. But these are not hired cosplayers. This is the Swiss Guard, the pope’s personal security team—and today they’re protecting the college of cardinals as they vote on the next Catholic leader, decked out in what Encyclopedia Britannica has dubbed “among the oldest uniforms in continuous use.” It’s more Met Gala than military. Here’s how this bold anachronism came to be. SWISS ARMY LIFE Of course, there’s another anomaly at play here: Why the mini army is dubbed the Swiss Guard despite being located within the world’s smallest country (Vatican City), which is nestled within Rome. As it turns out, rather than being a false eponym, the name is quite literal. In the late Middle Ages, Swiss mercenary forces were revered for their highly effective (read: deadly/terrifying) tactical fighting. Other countries in the region hired them to great effect—so in 1506, Pope Julius II brought 150 of them to the Vatican. It was a fortuitous decision, and one that would save Pope Clements VII’s life in 1527. On May 6—the day in which new Swiss Guard members are now traditionally sworn in every year, though that has been postponed in 2025 due to the conclave—Charles V’s soldiers sacked Rome. Of the Guard’s 189 members, 147 were killed, and they saved the pope’s life by ferrying him to safety through a secret passage. Today, the Vatican has a police force, which handles general security and law enforcement in the city. But the Swiss Guard exclusively protects the pope and his residence, and also travels abroad with him, in addition to safeguarding conclaves. And they do it with more than just those halberds—all members of the Guard must be between 19 and 30, Catholic, unmarried, and have already completed basic training with the Swiss Army, giving the 135-strong force proficiency with military tactics and modern firearms, which they are indeed equipped with. There’s more than meets the eye in those pantaloons. And not everyone is wearing them—some guards are in plain clothes and may appear to be tourists walking next to you. Wiki Commons “THE MOST PICTURESQUE UNIFORM OF ALL” If you were to Google just what the heck, exactly, the Swiss Guard are wearing, you’d quickly discover that the uniforms were designed by Michelangelo, who Julius II also commissioned to paint the Sistine Chapel. And that would be a myth, which everyone from The New York Times in the 19th century to Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown has perpetuated. Rather, as the Vatican has detailed, when the mercenaries first rolled into the city, they were dressed like any other soldier of the 1500s, donning doublets and stockings. It’s believed that Julius II gifted them with the beginnings of their signature stylistic flair when he incorporated yellow and blue—colors from his family coat of arms—into their uniforms. According to the Vatican, clothing had become finer and more colorful during the Renaissance, and red was in vogue. So Julius II’s successor, Leo X, took the opportunity to incorporate it into the uniforms as a nod to the colors of his family, the powerful Medici, during his reign from 1513 to 1521. Tweaks and revisions were made over time, with history intervening at various points. For example, as the Vatican details, there was no money to make updates to the uniforms during Napoleon’s rule, “but some years later, under Leo XII, various attempts were made to copy Napoleonic uniforms, but fortunately without success; otherwise the splendid old uniforms would have been lost forever.” The current incarnation of the uniforms came in the early 20th century when a man named Jules Repond refined their form as we know it today (and who the Vatican notes “was gifted with an exceptionally fine taste for colors and shapes”). Pope Pius X appointed him as commander of the Swiss Guard in 1910—and he immediately managed to rankle the ranks. The Swiss Guard had become largely ceremonial, so he brought back rigorous military exercises and rifle practice. He mandated that only true Swiss natives could enroll. And he studied Raphael’s frescoes and refined the uniform, drawing inspiration from its Renaissance-era appearance. Over the years the uniforms had been variations on a theme, and by 1914, Repond brought them to their final form. Today, 111 years on, they’re nearly the exact same design. TAILOR-MADE There are a medley of variations to the uniform for different occasions, and even a subdued blue “exercise uniform” that is worn by the Guard during night operations and when working, say, the gate at the St. Anne’s entrance. (The Guard politely declined to comment for this story, given, you know, the whole conclave at hand—but as they detail on their website: “The main roads are also located there, and the colorful Gala uniform would cause too much distraction for the motorists.”) No matter which uniform a member of the Guard sports, there’s a good chance it was made by Ety Cicioni, the Vatican’s chief tailor since 1997. As the CBC reported, the biggest challenge is keeping the uniform the same as Repond’s vision despite the passage of time, and its impact on materials and techniques. Still, he and a team of seven manage to churn out 120 a year using prized wool from the Italian city of Biella. Per the CBC, every outfit is made from 154 pieces of fabric—and Cicioni has also designed costumes for Vatican-adjacent films, such as 2019’s The Two Popes and 2023’s The Pope’s Exorcist. The one thing that has changed in the overall design of the uniform—the Swiss Guard got a helmet glow-up in 2019 when their scorching metal morions were replaced with breathable 3D-printed PVC counterparts. Ultimately, being a guard isn’t all halberds and Renaissance history. In their off-time, they play on the FC Guardia soccer team, and compete against museum attendants and other groups in the Vatican Championship. They can join the Vatican band. They get to dine on Swiss and Italian cuisine cooked by Albertine nuns from Poland. What they can’t do is play fast and loose with those wild uniforms. They’re allowed to keep them for five years after they leave the Guard, or they can be buried in them. But they are explicitly banned from selling them. Still, if you’ve got $47,500, you could always try eBay. View the full article

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

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

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

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

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