ResidentialBusiness

Google is testing a knowledge panel that includes a places card that can be expanded to show a map and local pack results. I cannot replicate this, which makes me think this is a test. I do see the places section below the knowledge panel, but not one that you can click to expand.View the full article

Google is now using a much larger font for the knowledge panels shown in Google Search. The font size looks jumbo and it does not seem to be test, it seems to be live - I think.View the full article

Google Search is testing a feature to quiz you on the product you are looking for and then to give you more tailored recommendations for product suggestions. This box is titled "get tailored recommendations" and it reminds me of the AI powered recommendation ads, but these are different.View the full article

Everyone talks about how different social media platforms are, and it’s not hard to see why. X is treated as the town square. Threads wants to be the friendly alternative. Bluesky champions decentralization and user control. But when we analyzed 1.7 million posts, a surprising pattern emerged: posts on X, Threads, and Bluesky get the same median engagement. In other words, whether you posted on X, Threads, or Bluesky, the median engagement lands at exactly four interactions. At first glance, this might make these platforms seem more alike than we’d expect. But a closer look tells a different story. Beyond that baseline, their engagement dynamics diverge dramatically, revealing hidden patterns about virality, consistency, and audience behavior. The engagement patterns we’ve uncovered don’t just highlight platform differences — they show why a one-size-fits-all approach won’t work in 2025. Our data scientist analyzed posts from 56,000 users to uncover these trends, and what we found changes the way we should think about social media strategy in 2025 — especially if you’re deciding where to post and what to expect from each platform. Understanding the dataBefore we dive into engagement trends, let’s break down what we’re actually measuring and how we made sure these comparisons are fair. This analysis covers 1.7 million posts from 56,000 users across X, Threads, and Bluesky in early 2025. That’s a lot of data — but as with any social media study, context matters. What we’re measuringIn this analysis, engagements refer to the total number of interactions a post receives — likes, comments, reposts, all of it. We chose this metric because it’s the only one that can be directly compared across all three platforms. Now, if you’ve read our previous analysis comparing engagement rates on X and Threads, you might notice what looks like a contradiction. That study suggested that Threads posts tend to have higher engagement rates, while this analysis suggests that, on average, X posts receive just as many engagements as Threads posts. Both findings are true — because they’re measuring different things. Engagement rate measures how many people who see a post interact with it.Total engagements count all interactions, regardless of how many people saw the post.Neither metric is inherently better — it just depends on what you’re looking to measure. If you’re focused on how likely a post is to engage its audience, engagement rate matters more.If you care about how much total interaction a platform generates, total engagements tell a clearer story.This is a good reminder that platform comparisons depend on your perspective and that a single number rarely captures the full picture. What’s ultimately important to remember is that social media engagement data is inherently skewed, and some people will get more engagement than others regardless of the network they post to. We used a mixed-effects regression model in this analysis to control for those factors. How engagement patterns differ across X, Threads, and BlueskyThroughout 2024, the typical post on all three platforms performed the same way: Half of all posts on X, Threads, and Bluesky received four or fewer engagements. At first glance, this suggests that engagement levels are nearly identical across platforms. But looking a little closer, this isn’t always the case. For example, in February 2025: Threads increased to a median of 5 engagementsX remained at 4Bluesky dropped to 3These shifts may seem small, but they indicate that each platform is developing distinct identities and that external factors are always shifting, affecting how they perform. How engagement scales on each platformLooking at the median engagement tells us how a typical post performs, but it doesn’t capture what happens when posts take off. The large gap between median and average engagement means some posts go viral, pulling the averages up. This is similar to salary distributions, where a few high earners inflate the average, even though most people make much less. The average (baseline) number of engagements shows a dramatically different picture: X: 328 average engagementsThreads: 58 average engagementsBluesky: 21 average engagementsThe key point that explains these differences is that the variance in the number of engagements is much, much higher on X than on Threads and Bluesky. Engagements on X have a standard deviation of over 5,000, meaning there is a very wide spread in engagement. The median is lower than the average because the distribution of engagement is skewed towards 0. What is a standard deviation, and why does it matter?A platform’s spread (or standard deviation) tells us how far posts can climb beyond the baseline. A larger spread means any given post to the platform has higher viral potential, while a smaller spread means that posts get more predictable engagement. Basically, the three platforms are on a spectrum from Wild Virality → Predictability. Here’s what we discovered about the different spreads on each platform. X is high risk, high rewardX has the widest engagement spread, with posts deviating by 5,159 engagements from the baseline. Most posts still receive four engagements or fewer, but when a post takes off, it can go viral in the extreme. This makes X the best platform for viral reach, even though posting there means you run the 'risk' of modest engagement. The massive spread potential on X means that when a post breaks out, it can go viral in a way that’s nearly impossible elsewhere. Here’s how to play to X’s strengths: Post consistently. Since virality is unpredictable, regular posting increases your chances of landing a breakout post.Experiment with highly shareable content. Memes, hot takes, and news-driven posts thrive on X’s fast-moving algorithm.Expect inconsistency. Most posts will get little engagement, but the potential payoff is high.Threads offers consistent and predictable growthThreads has a moderate spread, with posts deviating by 628 engagements from the baseline. Its bump to a 5-engagement median suggests that engagement is stabilizing at a higher level. Unlike X, where virality is unpredictable, Threads rewards creators who post regularly with steadier audience growth than any other platform. To succeed on Threads: Focus on conversation-driven content. Posts that encourage replies and discussion tend to perform better than one-way broadcasts.Build a community. Unlike X, where virality is the goal, Threads supports more long-term, engaged followers.Bluesky offers niche but reliable engagementBluesky has the smallest spread, with posts deviating by 279 engagements from the baseline. While its median engagement has dropped to 3, the lower spread means engagement is more predictable. Growth on Bluesky is slower but steadier, making it better suited for niche, community-driven content rather than viral reach. Here’s how to approach Bluesky: Create for a specific audience. Bluesky isn’t about mass engagement — it’s about focused, community-driven content.Expect steady but slow growth. Engagement is more predictable than on X but less explosive.Use it for deeper conversations. Thoughtful, discussion-heavy posts perform better than viral-style content.Do you need a cross-platform strategy?The recent divergence in median engagement and engagement spread on X, Threads, and Bluesky tells us something important: These platforms are no longer interchangeable. Each platform now offers unique advantages depending on your goals. You can choose to focus all of your efforts on growing one social network, or you can work on a multi-channel strategy. If you go with the multi-channel approach, remember to tailor your strategy to each platform. You can still use strategies like cross-posting across platforms; we'd recommend you do so thoughtfully. To cross-post smarter in 2025: Customize for platform strengths. With a few tweaks, the same post might go viral on X, get steady engagement on Threads, and spark discussion on Bluesky. Adjust captions, formatting, or tone accordingly.Use scheduling tools to stay efficient. Posting manually across platforms is unsustainable. Use Buffer to note your ideas, draft your posts, and edit them for each platform, then post everywhere without extra work.Analyze your own engagement trends. While these patterns are platform-wide, your audience might engage differently. Use data from your own posts to refine your strategy.Most of all, stay flexible. Platforms and the trends that they create change fast. The key is adapting to how engagement evolves over time. 💡Check out Crossposting 101: Everything You Need to Know to Crosspost on Social Media EffectivelyWant more data?📚 Threads Drives 73.6% More Engagement Than X — Here’s What You Need to Know 📚 Data Shows Instagram Reels are Best For Reach — But Not Engagement 📚 From Instagram to Bluesky: How Social Media Use Has Evolved Since 2022 View the full article

Hello and welcome to Modern CEO! I’m Stephanie Mehta, CEO and chief content officer of Mansueto Ventures. Each week this newsletter explores inclusive approaches to leadership drawn from conversations with executives and entrepreneurs, and from the pages of Inc. and Fast Company. If you received this newsletter from a friend, you can sign up to get it yourself every Monday morning. During December 2024, Workday CEO Carl Eschenbach and his leadership team, including cofounder and executive chairman Aneel Bhusri, arrived at a big decision: the software company would restructure itself to free up operating dollars for investment opportunities tied to artificial intelligence (AI). The move would involve shedding hundreds of jobs, marking the biggest layoff in the company’s history. Even though the plan was finalized, Eschenbach says he was “not at peace” because he had not had a chance to share his thinking in person with Dave Duffield, Workday’s other founder and its largest individual shareholder. So, Eschenbach met Duffield at the Jax Truckee Diner near California’s Lake Tahoe—the very diner where Duffield and Bhusri decided to start Workday, and offer cloud-based software to human resources and finance departments—to lay out his rationale. “Dave said, ‘Carl, I support you. We brought you in to scale the company and we’re supporting you 100% in this very difficult decision,'” Eschenbach recalls. “The only thing he asked, which was obviously a ‘yes’ on my part, was that we take care of our employees who were moving on.” Humans vs. AI: Finding the balance In early February, Workday announced it was cutting 1,750 employees, or 8.5% of its workforce, with U.S.-based employees receiving a minimum of 12 weeks of pay with additional severance based on tenure. Workday is just one of many tech companies, including Salesforce, Microsoft, and Meta, announcing layoffs this year. Workday CEO Carl Eschenbach [Photo: Workday] But even as Eschenbach restructures his company to make room for more AI investments, he insists AI will not result in mass unemployment. In fact, he says of Workday’s layoffs: “If you fast-forward one year later, we’ll have the same, if not more people in the company because we’re going to rehire as we invest in [the AI] opportunity.”  The workforce more broadly will “peacefully coexist with the technology, we’ll leverage it, and we’ll become more productive as humans and as employees because of the technology,” he says. “It’s not just a replacement.” AI for CEOs I asked Eschenbach what kinds of AI agents or automation tools CEOs should embrace. He says all executives would benefit from agents that help with day-to-day “mundane” tasks (this is a common AI talking point) such as managing calendars or summarizing email messages. But he also noted that Workday is starting to roll out agents that can summarize financial data ahead of earnings calls and monitor transactions to help with audits. Aneel Bhusri [Photo: Workday] It’s a perspective echoed by Bhusri, who has served as CEO of Workday at various times over the company’s 20-year history. “Every CEO should be thinking about how to integrate agents that enhance their ability to think strategically and make informed decisions faster,” he says. “There are two primary types of agents: task-based and role-based. Task-based agents can create some efficiencies but can become easily siloed. Instead, I’d encourage executives to adopt role-based agents that can transform entire workstreams to free them up to focus on more strategic, impactful work.” But AI also has the potential to free up leaders to do more of the meaningful, person-to-person work that’s become an increasingly important part of the job. In 2018, Michael Porter and Nitin Nohria published research in Harvard Business Review that showed CEOs spend 61% of their time in in-person meetings. And while the study predated the pandemic and the rise of remote and hybrid work, there’s no question that face-to-face interactions—like Eschenbach’s meeting with Duffield at the Jax Truckee Diner—will continue to be part of the CEO playbook in the age of AI. How is AI helping you? Are you a CEO using AI to help you manage your time or run your business? Send your best examples to stephaniemehta@mansueto.com. Your responses may form the basis of a future newsletter. Read more: overcoming CEO challenges 4 ways top CEOs are making AI work for them The 4 most common problems for founder-led startups From founder-led to founder-inspired View the full article

Harvard Business Publishing Corporate Learning recently surveyed leaders and L&D professionals about what they’re looking for in a leadership development program. At the top of the list? Scalability. One of my passions—and one of the reasons my company developed our own learning platform—is expanding access to leadership development, so it’s exciting to see companies recognizing how important scalability is. At the same time; however, I know that making scalability work at your organization can be a tall order. For a long time, scalability and quality have seemed at odds in leadership development. An organization could spend its budget on highly effective, but expensive options like coaching for fewer people. Or it could bring leadership development to more employees, but settle for cookie-cutter programs. But that conundrum is becoming a thing of the past. Scalability and quality can go together in leadership development—no matter the size of your training budget. To get both, though, you have to embrace an approach that’s both high-tech and high-touch. Why is scalability so important? Before we get into the nuts and bolts of scaling quality leadership development, let’s talk about why it’s such a big deal right now. For starters, there’s a real gap in leadership pipelines. Only 20% of companies feel confident that they have strong future leaders lined up, and this is something we hear from clients all the time. At the same time, companies are starting to recognize the power of informal leaders—the people who don’t have a leadership title but still play a huge role in driving teams forward. A recent Harvard Business Publishing report highlights how organizations are shifting toward flatter structures and more cross-functional collaboration. That means people who used to simply carry out tasks are now expected to influence stakeholders, make strategic decisions, and communicate business impact—in other words, to lead, even without a formal title. With leadership expectations evolving, the challenge isn’t just developing leaders—it’s making sure leadership skills reach everyone who needs them. With tech, think beyond AI That brings us back to the question of how to make leadership development more scalable while maintaining quality. With just about any issue in business, people seem to rush to AI as the answer. While exciting things are going on, AI isn’t a magic-bullet solution for leadership development yet. The lingering problem is getting people (and teams) to actually use and benefit from them. But AI can be part of your scalability solution. In the Harvard survey, 60% of respondents said they’re incorporating AI into their development programs. (As my own company trains an AI coach, we’re focusing on making sure that using the coach will fit into people’s busy schedules.) However, don’t let AI overshadow other useful technologies. Micro-learning platforms are another huge trend right now, with nine out of 10 L&D professionals saying that the employees they serve prefer them. I’ve seen firsthand with our own platform how busy professionals embrace using “snackable content” to get leadership insights when and where they need them. Technology can also extend the reach of other leadership development tools. If you’re used to thinking in terms of using a single leadership development program at your organization, this may require a shift in mindset. But there’s lots of potential. For example, my company is very excited right now about the potential of combining our learning platform with our coaching services to help companies stretch their budgets farther. Enlist your current leaders for development  As I touched on earlier, technology is only part of the story when it comes to scaling leadership development. Leaders will always need to learn from other leaders, no matter how advanced AI and other high-tech tools become. I’ve also found that most organizations haven’t fully tapped into the knowledge their own people have. Unleashing this knowledge makes it a whole lot easier to scale leadership development. One strategy I always recommend is teaching your current leaders (including the informal ones) how they can help develop others. Ensure that the development they receive includes both coaching and delegation skills. Employees whose managers are adept coaches are eight times more engaged. And delegation gives employees a chance to grow “in the flow of work”—I’ve seen firsthand that this approach amplifies engagement, innovation, and customer satisfaction. Another way to enlist current leaders in scaling development is creating a mentoring program or updating your current one. Some of your employees may already have mentors or mentees, but formalizing mentorship programs makes them more powerful. Mentorship doesn’t just impart the information your people need to develop as leaders. It also ensures that information is relevant—the “touchstone” of an effective leadership development program—and it helps build the relationships your future leaders need. What’s next? I’m optimistic about scalable leadership development and the possibilities it holds. Making leadership development available to more employees will affect productivity—and even small shifts in productivity across a large population of employees can lead to big results. So how do you want to get the ball rolling to integrate scalability into your organization’s approach?    View the full article

Explore the power of AI in PPC reporting. Discover how it fills data gaps, surfaces insights, and streamlines reporting. The post 3 Ways AI Is Changing PPC Reporting (With Examples To Streamline Your Reporting) appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Does it feel to you like there are way too many AI assistants to keep track of? Between ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, DeepSeek, and others, it’s hard to remember what each one excels at—if anything. Beyond just the underlying differences in large language models, each AI assistant has its own features, integrations, premium features, and peculiarities. I’m writing this guide both for myself and for anyone who wants to stay informed about generative AI. While I have some reservations, I also think it’s worth keeping an eye on what’s available. Rather than getting into the technical details of how these AI assistants work, I’ll focus on what they can actually do. ChatGPT by OpenAI The most recognizable name in generative AI is also the most fleshed out as a standalone consumer tech product, with features like web search, a built-in document editor, and a conversational voice mode. ChatGPT also provides one of the most robust free tiers of any AI assistant, with all but its most bleeding-edge features available in some capacity without a subscription. Notable features: Voice mode for engaging in back-and-forth conversation, including an advanced version with more emotive responses. Traits that define how ChatGPT should converse with you. Temporary chats that don’t appear in your history and don’t train OpenAI’s models. Canvas document editor that uses AI to generate and revise content. Web-search for bringing in real-time information. GPTs that bring in information from third-party apps and services. Reason button that offers more in-depth problem solving and decision making. Price: Free for limited model access, $20 per month for more advanced models and new features, $200 per month for unlimited access to experimental features. Claude by Anthropic As The New York Times has noted, Claude is a favorite among AI insiders for its sense of emotional intelligence, with responses that are “less like the generic prose generated by other chatbots.” While its features are on the bare-bones side—it can’t search the web and lacks a voice conversation mode (for now)—it does offer some helpful features for creating and interacting with documents. Notable features: Projects mode, which lets you upload documents and data for context in your chats. Artifacts, which are standalone documents and image files you can download for use in other apps. Styles, which let you refine how Claude writes its responses. You can even upload a document for Claude to try and mimic. Price: Free for limited usage. $20 per month for additional models, reasoning, and the Projects feature. Google Gemini Google’s AI products are more diffuse than some of its startup rivals. While Gemini exists in standalone form on the web and in mobile apps—and serves as the default voice assistant on newer Android phones—it also generates summaries in Google Search, and is baked into other Google products such as Gmail, Docs, and Chrome. All this makes Gemini a bit tricky to quantify as a whole, except that it feels unavoidable if you regularly use Google’s products. Notable features: Extensions for interacting with other (mostly Google) services, for instance by summarizing YouTube videos or flagging important message from Gmail. Gemini Live for free-flowing voice conversations. Google Assistant features such as smart home control and reminders. NotebookLM, a separate but popular product that can analyze your documents, create summaries, and even turn them into podcasts. Price: Free, with $20 per month Gemini Advanced subscription for Workspace integration, book-length document analysis, and more advanced models. Microsoft Copilot Just as Gemini is built into Google products, Copilot is weaved into Microsoft’s Windows operating system, Office suite, and Edge browser. Its actual capabilities aren’t much different from other AI assistants—it primarily uses OpenAI’s large language models—but it’s easier to access if you’re deep into Microsoft’s ecosystem. (Microsoft’s GitHub also has its own version of Copilot for programmers.) Notable features: Office tie-ins, including writing assistance in Word and spreadsheet analysis in Excel. Think Deeper offers access to OpenAI’s reasoning models. Copilot Voice offers free-flowing voice conversations both on desktop and mobile devices. Edge sidebar lets you summarize and ask about web pages. Pricing: Free for limited usage, requires Microsoft 365 (starting at $10 per month) for full Office integration, $20 per month Copilot Pro for advanced models, early features, and Copilot in Office web apps. DeepSeek DeepSeek, the product of a previously-obscure Chinese company, shook up the AI world earlier this year, offering performance on par with OpenAI’s latest models with training costs that were apparently miniscule (though later disputed). It’s also raised privacy concerns over the data it sends to China, and it won’t talk about topics that are censored in China, such as the Tiananmen Square massacre. Even so, American companies are now looking to use DeepSeek’s open-source code, including Microsoft, which is offering local DeepSeek models on Qualcomm-powered PCs, and Nvidia, which offers its own online version. As for DeepSeek’s own app, it’s a bit on the crude side, but it offers image recognition, document scanning, web search, and a “DeepThink” reasoning model for problem solving and decision making. Notable features: Unlimited access to DeepSeek’s latest models. Pricing: Free. Grok While Elon Musk’s AI assistant looks like a lot of its rivals on the surface, it has a kind of edgelord sensibility lurking underneath. Grok won’t flat-out tell you how to build a pipe bomb, for instance, but it won’t shut the conversation down, either. Instead, it’ll encourage you to ask more about pipe bombs in general and give you details about how they work when prompted. (Meanwhile, researchers have coaxed into providing dangerous weapon-building instructions in detail.) Notable features: Voice modes with distinct personalities, including “unhinged” and “sexy” versions. “Think” and “DeepSearch” modes that reason through answers and pull information from online sources, respectively. Price: Free with limited use of the latest models, $30 per month for increased rate limits and access to Think, DeepSearch, and voice modes. Perplexity This GPT-based AI tool started off as an alternative to traditional web search, but has since evolved into a more all-encompassing personal assistant with tools for managing documents and interacting with apps. It’s also developing its own web browser. (In other words, it’s becoming less reliant on scaping websites against their wishes.) Notable features: Web search results, with summaries and citations. Spaces for summarizing and analyzing documents. Agent features on Android devices, including music playback, reminders, and calendar interactions. Discover section with AI-generated news summaries. Price: Free for basic web search with some usage limits on other features, $20 per month for more deep research usage, unlimited document uploads, and a choice of AI models. Duck.ai With Duck.ai, DuckDuckGo offers a more privacy-focused alternative to the major AI assistants. DuckDuckGo says it’s made agreements with major AI providers so they won’t train their models on your data, and will only store it for 30 days at most. There’s no document interaction or voice chat, but it’s good enough for basic conversations. Private chat history that’s stored on your device, not online. Choice of large language models, including GPT-4o, Llama 3.3, Claude 3, o3-mini, and Mistral. AI answers in search results, with an option to customize how often they appear. Price: Free A few others Siri: While the current version of Siri isn’t based on large language models—and may not be for years—it will occasionally ask ChatGPT for answers on devices that support Apple Intelligence. Alexa+: Amazon’s just-announced AI overhaul promises more conversational capabilities than the old Alexa while still offering features like home automation, music playback, and TV suggestions. It’s launching on select Echo Show devices in an “early access period” next month. Meta AI: This one’s powered by Meta’s llama open-source models but is pretty basic as a consumer-facing product. It’s only available on the web or as a feature of the Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses. Standalone mobile apps are reportedly coming. View the full article

Workplace stress reached an all-time high in 2022, according to a Gallup report. And a 2022 Work and Well-Being Survey from the American Psychological Association found that workers appreciate and seek mental health support in the workplace. That’s why it’s important for employees to learn and practice techniques that will help them lower their stress during moments when stress levels are high. One way to do this is by creating positive experiences during highly stressful situations, such as recalling times when we were confident, calm, and in control. These serve as emotional anchors that we can trigger at will. In my book, Emotional Intelligence Game Changers: 101 Simple Ways to Win at Work + Life, I share tips on how to increase our confidence. Here are several techniques for bringing ourselves into that state. 1. Identify the state we want to experience Take a moment to think of a time when you were in charge of the situation, relaxed and confident with the way things were working out. Remember the feeling that came to you. Think back to that time and try to replay the feelings and sensations in your body when that was happening. Focus on feelings such as confidence, calm, and joy you experienced. Ask yourself, what details can you remember that will bring you back to that place? 2. Find something that will trigger that state, time, and place Work on finding a physical action that will cause you to automatically think of the situation that brings you into a positive state. This could be a physical gesture, such as tapping yourself on a part of your body. Practice this gesture while bringing yourself into a positive state. And make sure you keep this gesture specific to this purpose, and try to avoid using it for anything else. 3. Check out the anchor in less stressful situations Instead of waiting to use it in a highly stressful situation, test out the anchor in moments when you aren’t feeling stressful. If it works effectively, then it should be able to work when stress is more prevalent. If the anchor isn’t working as you’d expect or want it to, revisit the anchor technique by intensifying the emotion around the event, and modify your trigger accordingly. 4. Keep practicing and strengthening the anchor Look for situations throughout the day when you can practice using your anchor. Any situation that increases your stress, even in small levels, is an opportunity to use and solidify the effects of the anchor. You’ll find that if you practice this technique over time, it will become easier to access when you most need it. You’ll no longer need to think of the anchor because it’ll become your natural response in stressful situations. 5. Put your body into it Another way of strengthening the anchor is to align our physical state with the feelings of confidence. When you straighten your body, put out your chest, and pull back your shoulders, you encourage your body to amplify readiness, strength, and confidence. Add this posture to your anchor. 6. Add an inner mantra Repeating a mantra over time can also add strength to the anchor. Personalize it to make it more uniquely yours. You’ll want to use words that are powerful, that deeply resonate with you, and that are true of how you felt during the time when you’re experiencing the feelings. 7. Think of situations where the anchor will be helpful The best way to strengthen the anchor is to anticipate situations where you know it can be useful, then practice using it during these times. Any place, time, or circumstance that brings you out of your comfort zones is a great time to practice. As you begin to experience the benefits of using this in various situations, you’ll find it more and more natural to practice these anchors, and you’ll also embed it in your habits and memories. View the full article

“This is for the crafty girls who want to save money,” goes the voiceover on a recent TikTok, panning over the cheerful purple-and-gray exterior of Savannah’s Starlandia Art Supply and its shelves stocked with art supplies. “You need to be going to creative reuse stores, which are like thrift stores, but for crafts.” Another TikTok keeps it even simpler, with the text “pov: you find out thrift stores for arts & crafts exist,” overlaid on a montage of the treasures available at Seattle Recreative—paint brushes, markers, a whole wall of yarn. In fact, there are dozens of these “creative reuse centers” spread out across the country, from Anchorage, Alaska, to Atlanta, Georgia. Some centers have been operating for decades; others have sprung up since the pandemic, amid renewed enthusiasm for crafty hobbies. They sell everything from crayons to stamps to beads to fabric, and their mission is explicitly tied to sustainability. Organizers say they’re getting more and more emails and calls from people interested in establishing their own local spot. And yes, the young people on TikTok—who love crafting—are very enthusiastic about the idea. It’s likely that interest will only grow with news that the fabric store Joann—a decades-old stalwart for sewers, knitters, and other crafters—is closing all its remaining stores. “My feeling is every municipality should have one of these,” says Barbara Korein of Retake/Remake in Peekskill, New York. [Photo: courtesy of the author] Retake/Remake is a bustling little spot tucked into a converted turn-of-the-century hat factory in northern Westchester County—and it’s my local creative reuse center, a regular stop on my Saturday morning rounds and my go-to for everything from old National Geographic maps for Girl Scout projects to cross-stitch materials to slightly patchouli-scented wrapping paper. Retake/Remake accepts donations on the first Tuesday of every month and typically gets around 1,000 pounds of materials, says Korein. “We’ve converted about 113,000 pounds of waste from the waste stream.” The items are affordably priced when they put them out on the shelves, too: I once bought several skeins of hand-dyed yarn, a merino wool and alpaca blend, for $10 each, with an original sticker price of $32; I’ve bought needlepoint canvases, which are famously pricy, for as low as $1. [Photo: courtesy of the author] The concept is an elegant solution to a longstanding problem: Generally, traditional thrift stores don’t know what to do with half-used art supplies. “It’s an easy thing to identify and it’s a hard thing to donate,” says Korein. Often, they go straight into the trash and eventually the landfill. But there’s demand for that half-empty box of crayons—teachers, for instance, who often spend their own money on classroom supplies. Many creative reuse centers have special programs to serve this group: Austin Creative Reuse, for instance, has a Materials Mobile, which brings a truck full of no-cost supplies straight to educators. Creative small businesses often turn to these stores, for instance, and artists are a core constituency: “If you have $20 left for your art supplies, and you go to a traditional art center and buy a $20 tube of yellow paint, then whatever you’re painting is going to be yellow, and also it’s going to be paint,” says Jenn Evans of Austin Creative Reuse. But at a creative reuse center, that same $20 might buy a variety of paints and materials—and broaden artistic horizons. “It allows the artist to create artwork from their brains and their heart and not just have it limited by the materials that they can afford.” [Photo: Austin Creative Reuse] “We’ve seen all people from all walks of life come in,” says Ulisa Blakely, Director of Programs and Development at The Wasteshed in Chicago. “But the patterns we typically see are students, teachers, artists whether they’re emerging or established, and also a lot of BIPOC people, which is awesome.” [Photo: Austin Creative Reuse] The basic idea has been around for decades: The country’s first creative reuse center, San Francisco’s SCRAP, was opened in 1976 by Anne Marie Theilen and artist Ruth Asawa. SCRAP grew out of a program by the San Francisco Arts Commission to bring working artists into schools, but money for supplies was scarce. Two years later, New York City’s Materials for the Arts was founded by Angela Fremont, an artist working at the Department of Cultural Affairs; it’s now a 35,000-square-foot behemoth (though shoppable by appointment only) supported by the City of New York. [Photo: Anthony Sertel Dean/courtesy Materials for The Arts] The idea percolated around the country over the years that followed, often in association with other reuse organizations. But it seems there’s been a jump in the last decade, and it’s accelerating. Each center serves as a catalyst for the next one—Korein, for instance, volunteered at Materials for the Arts for a decade and served on their board. “The more centers there are, the more people become aware of this idea,” says Evans. And it turns out to be a pretty seductive idea. [Photo: Anthony Sertel Dean/courtesy Materials for The Arts] New technologies are making it possible for word to spread faster, too, and TikTok in particular can translate directly to increased business. Kimberly Maruska, Executive Director of SCRAP Creative Reuse (which is unrelated to the San Francisco original and has four locations across the country), says that after a popular TikTok featured their Ann Arbor outpost, they saw a huge jump in sales and new customers who cited the Tiktok. “Those people are still coming in,” says Maruska. “They didn’t stop.” Part of the appeal of creative reuse centers is their sheer practicality—why trash perfectly good materials, when teachers and artists are both famously cash-strapped? They’re handy for businesses with leftover materials, or individuals who want somewhere to take emotionally complicated donations—people who don’t knit, for example, want their beloved great aunt’s yarn stash to go to somebody who’ll appreciate it. [Photo: Anna Droddy/courtesy Materials for The Arts] “In general, being creative is getting very expensive,” says Evans. Creative reuse centers are a way to try something new without a huge financial commitment, and even seasoned crafters are keen for more affordable options. But there’s a broader, less concrete appeal, too. “It’s an easy way to get involved in grassroots causes,” says Blakely. It’s an approachable step into a more sustainable life, and that’s by design. “We attract people to the idea of creative reuse by offering them low-cost art and craft and school supplies,” says Evans. “But then once they come to us, we want to open a conversation with them about the environmental aspects of what they’re doing and celebrate the fact that they’re shopping secondhand.” In an era of fast fashion and haul videos, creative reuse centers offer a particularly charming glimpse at another path. Creative reuse centers serve as community hubs, too. Centers generally offer programming beyond the materials. The Wasteshed and Austin Creative Reuse have both hosted trash fashion shows, for example, where competitors have to use provided materials in a kind of creative reuse-themed Project Runway. “We create communities around us,” says Maruska. “We’re taking in donations from local community members, businesses, we’re having educational programming, we’re partnering with other local nonprofits or libraries or schools.” Most of these centers are nonprofits; there’s little chance of a financial jackpot, and it’s a mission-driven labor of love that tends to attract passionate people. “It really feels good to be part of something that everybody seems to benefit from,” says Korein. All those aspects combine to create the quality I personally love best about Retake/Remake, which is that it allows me to imagine art as a practice for its own sake. I don’t have to produce anything gallery-worthy; I don’t have to justify it as a potential side-hustle. It doesn’t even have to be particularly good. It can just be for me—art as part of a straightforward human impulse to create. View the full article

Treasuries rally amid continuing investor gloom over the outlook for US economyView the full article

When plastic entered the design world in the 20th century, it was hailed as a wonder material—something strong, durable, lightweight, affordable, and malleable enough to sculpt into expressive, futuristic-looking forms. But the material lost its halo as the environmental consequences became apparent, plastic waste being one of them. The design industry has been figuring out what to do about this for years. It’s tried recycling, reducing the amount of material in a product, developing bio-based compostable alternatives, or switching to something else entirely. But not all companies are able to easily switch up their production lines or find alternatives. Now, a growing body of research around plastic-eating microorganisms is reshaping how the industry is thinking about the material and its waste problem. Heller—a furniture brand that produces high-end plastic furniture and home goods like Frank Gehry tables, Mario Bellini chairs, and Massimo and Lella Vignelli tableware—is now making all of its furniture with an enzyme that will accelerate the rate of biodegradation. The hope is that if its products wind up in a landfill or at the bottom of the ocean, that they won’t be there for long. “Ten years ago, we were all drinking out of plastic water bottles and nobody really cared,” says John Edelman, the president and CEO of Heller. “But we learned that plastics are bad for the world.” The company began to make some products from recycled material, “but we wanted to get to the next level and become more sustainable,” Edelman says. “How can we be good for the planet and create incredible design?” He adds that the bioplastics and compostable plastics on the market now don’t work for Heller’s furniture because of performance requirements. Since everything is indoor-outdoor, it needs to withstand rain, snow, and the sun’s UV rays. [Image: courtesy Heller]Here’s how it works: The powder enzyme, developed by a company called Worry Free Plastics, makes plastic more enticing for microorganisms to eat, essentially turbocharging a process that already takes place naturally. When the plastic is in a zero-oxygen environment, like a landfill, the enzyme activates and attracts anaerobic bacteria that break down its polymers. As they eat the material, they generate biogas and soil. If the plastic is exposed to oxygen, as it would be in everyday use, the material remains stable. According to Edelman, it will take approximately five years for a Heller product made with the enzyme to biodegrade. Philip Myers, the cofounder of Worry Free Plastics, says its enzyme works in fresh and salt water, commercial composting facilities, and soil. A third-party testing company using ASTM methods (which involve placing an item in a controlled environment for 45 or 90 days, measuring the material loss rate, then calculating how long it would take for the entire thing to degrade) found that Worry Free’s enzyme could help a plastic bottle degrade, on average, in seven-and-a-half years and a plastic bag in five; the total time it takes depends on the density and thickness of the plastic and conditions in a landfill. Real-world environments are not as controlled as a lab’s and the actual degradation rate could be different. “One landfill might be more potent than another one,” says Stephen Andero, the vice president of science and innovation at Worry Free Plastics. “After doing thousands of tests, no two are the same.” That said, the estimated degradation time is significantly less than conventional plastic. A water bottle, for example, takes an estimated 450 years to decompose. The enzyme can also be added to all polymer plastics, including bioplastics like PLA, which aren’t composting as fast as manufacturers claim. Worry Free isn’t the only entity to explore enzymatic technology and the role microorganisms play in accelerating the degradation of plastic. In 2016, a team of Japanese scientists discovered a natural bacteria that eats PET plastic, which changed how the industry thought of managing plastic waste. Some researchers are now trying to engineer extra-hungry, plastic-eating bacteria. A materials science professor at UC Berkeley recently developed an enzyme that can make plastic “self-destruct” when exposed to heat and water. All of this research is leading to a boom in the bioremediation business. Now, manufacturers are bringing this science into the products we use every day. To date, most of Worry Free’s customers have been manufacturers of single-use plastics—items like coffee cup lids and pallet film. Myers is just as eager to find more applications for his enzyme as Edelman is to address circularity at Heller. Most of Heller’s furniture is rotationally molded, a process that involves putting a powder compound into a mold then heating it up. As it heats up, it coats the mold, and when it cools, it solidifies into the shape of the product. In order to make its furniture biodegradable, Heller mixes the enzyme into the power compound. Nothing else about its production line changes. “It’s a drop in technology,” Myers explains. “It doesn’t require them to change their equipment, their process—anything. It’s plug and play.” Heller began adding the enzyme to its production line in November last year. It’s going to be in all of its rotationally molded LDPE products. As old inventory moves off the shelf, the biodegradable items will enter circulation. There’s nothing different aesthetically about the pieces, and the retail price is the same. “Everybody talks a big sustainability game, but research shows they won’t pay more for it,” Edelman says. “My goal is to do something that is sustainable and at the same price . . . We actually achieved our goal of not just using recycled products, not just being recyclable, but going back to the earth.” While it’s not likely that people are buying $1,000 dining chair sets with the intent to throw them away, Edelman thinks that Heller’s adoption of enzymatic tech can spark more brands to do the same. “Sustainability is being applied to every product because the design firms are pushing it,” he says. They’re the catalyst.” View the full article

The color of your house matters beyond aesthetics. An extensive body of research shows that painting buildings white (which reflects heat) can make them cooler, and painting them black (which absorbs heat) can make them warmer. This is the reason why most houses in Greece are white, and many houses across Scandinavia are black. But what about the rest of the world, where temperatures often shift with the seasons? Industrial designer Joe Doucet has developed what he calls a “climate-adaptive” paint that can change colors based on the temperature outside. The patent-pending formula, which is known as thermochromic paint, follows the same principle as 90s mood rings. Except instead of jewelry changing color, it’s the entire facade of a building. If the temperature outside is below 77ºF, the building will be black. If it’s above 77ºF, it will turn white. The formula can be mixed with other tints, so if you want a blue house, it would simply look light blue in the summer and dark blue in the winter. “It’s phenomenal to think about the built environment changing with the seasons as nature does,” says Doucet, who estimates that painting a building with this climate-adaptive paint could save an average of 20 to 30% on energy costs. The power of paintMany cities have turned to paint to alleviate urban problems like the heat island effect. In 2019, teams across Senegal, Bangladesh, Mexico, and Indonesia painted a total of 250,000 small household rooftops with white reflective pain as part of the Million Cool Roofs Challenge. In 2022, the city of L.A. covered 1 million square feet of streets and sidewalks in Pacoima, a low-income neighborhood, with solar reflective paint. Surfaces cooled instantly by 10 to 12ºF, and a year in, studies showed that the ambient temperatures throughout the entire neighborhood had dropped by up to 3.5°F. [Image: courtesy Joe Doucet and Partners]A climate-adaptive paint could make a difference for houses and apartment buildings, but also large industrial facilities like climate-controlled farms and warehouses that would otherwise turn to AC or heating to maintain a desired temperature. “It costs to heat and cool a large structure so anything you can do mitigate that cost makes sense commercially as well,” says Richard Hinzel, partner and managing director at Joe Doucet and Partners. Doucet first had the idea for a climate-adaptive paint while renovating his own home in Chappaqua, New York. “I put off what color it should be because I wanted to have an understanding of what color did in terms of energy use,” he recalls. The designer, who recently gave wind turbines a much-needed design makeover, built two scale models of his house, with the same kind of insulation material he used in the actual house. He painted the first model in black and the second one in white. For a year, he measured the surface outside and inside both models, and found that, in high seasons like summer and winter, temperatures between the two varied by as much as 13ºF. More specifically, in the summer, the white house was 12ºF cooler inside than the black house, while in the winter, the black house was 7ºF warmer inside. He says the opposite was also true. The black house was 13ºF warmer inside in the summer, while the white house was 8ºF colder in the winter. [Image: courtesy Joe Doucet and Partners]Doucet obtained these measurements from a scale model, not a full-sized house, but he notes the only difference between the two would be the time it takes for each space to heat or cool. “A smaller pan heats up and cools down faster than a larger one, but it does not get hotter or colder,” he says by way of example. At the end of the experiment, it occurred to him that the answer to his original question—what color to paint his house—was to paint it black in the winter and white in the summer. But that wasn’t a practical solution. The more practical solution—a paint that can be both at once—took two years to develop and about 100 more models to get the formula right. The team used commercially available latex house paint as a base, then mixed in their own proprietary formula. But crafting a formula that can sustain the transition from light to dark without degrading—and therefore ending up grey—proved difficult. If you’ve ever had transition glasses that got “stuck” on dark and never returned to clear, you understand the problem. If the paint degrades too fast and you have to repaint your house every month, then nobody will buy it. The first few formulas were degrading too fast, but the team eventually concocted a “secret sauce” that helps the paint last at least one year with zero degradation. This number reflects how long Doucet has been testing the paint in his studio. The final number could be even higher—or it could not. The paint is yet to undergo rigorous lab tests, so many unknowns remain. “We’re not starting a paint company,” says Doucet. Instead, his team wants to license the formula to paint manufacturers who would then take the climate-adaptive paint to the finishing line and launch it themselves. If the idea resonates and paint companies jump on the bandwagon, they will have to develop a competitive product that is both durable and priced accordingly. For now, Doucet estimates that the climate-adaptive paint will cost about 3 to 5 times more than a standard gallon of paint—though he says you’d quickly make that back in energy savings. “I’m confident that if there’s a positive response, this could do very well on the market,” he says. In the meantime, Doucet finished renovating his house and opted for black. “I couldn’t wait,” he says with a laugh. View the full article

A new scientific study warns that using artificial intelligence can erode our capacity for critical thinking. The research, carried out by a Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University scientific team, found that the dependence on AI tools without questioning their validity reduces the cognitive effort applied to the work. In other words: AI can make us dumber if we use it wrong. “AI can synthesize ideas, enhance reasoning, and encourage critical engagement, pushing us to see beyond the obvious and challenge our assumptions,” Lev Tankelevitch, a senior researcher at Microsoft Research and coauthor of the study, tells me in an email interview. But to reap those benefits, Tankelevitch says users need to treat AI as a thought partner, not just a tool for finding information faster. Much of this comes down to designing a user experience that encourages critical thinking rather than passive reliance. By making AI’s reasoning processes more transparent and prompting users to verify and refine AI-generated content, a well-designed AI interface can act as a thought partner rather than a substitute for human judgment. From ‘task execution’ to ‘task stewardship’ The research—which surveyed 319 professionals—found that high confidence in AI tools often reduces the cognitive effort people apply to their work. “Higher confidence in AI is associated with less critical thinking, while higher self-confidence is associated with more critical thinking,” the study states. This over-reliance stems from a mental model that assumes AI is competent in simple tasks. As one participant admitted in the study, “it’s a simple task and I knew ChatGPT could do it without difficulty, so I just never thought about it.” Critical thinking didn’t feel relevant because, well, who cares. This mindset has major implications for the future of work. Tankelevitch tells me that AI is shifting knowledge workers from “task execution” to “task stewardship.” Instead of manually performing tasks, professionals now oversee AI-generated content, making decisions about its accuracy and integration. “They must actively oversee, guide, and refine AI-generated work rather than simply accepting the first output,” Tankelevitch says. The study highlights that when knowledge workers actively evaluate AI-generated outputs rather than passively accepting them, they can improve their decision-making processes. “Research also shows that experts who effectively apply their knowledge when working with AI see a boost in output,” Tankelevitch points out. “AI works best when it complements human expertise—driving better decisions and stronger outcomes.” The study found that many knowledge workers struggle to critically engage with AI-generated outputs because they lack the necessary domain knowledge to assess their accuracy. “Even if users recognize that AI might be wrong, they don’t always have the expertise to correct it,” Tankelevitch explains. This problem is particularly acute in technical fields where AI-generated code, data analysis, or financial reports require deep subject matter knowledge to verify. The cognitive offloading paradox Confidence in AI can lead to a problem called cognitive offloading. This phenomenon isn’t new. Humans have long outsourced mental tasks to tools, from calculators to GPS devices. Cognitive offloading is not inherently negative. When done correctly, it allows users to focus on higher-order thinking rather than mundane, repetitive tasks, Tankelevitch points out. But the very nature of generative AI—which produces complex text, code, and analysis—brings a new level of potential mistakes and problems. Many people might blindly accept AI outputs without questioning them (and quite often these outputs are bad or just plain wrong). This is especially the case when people feel the task is not important. “Our study suggests that when people view a task as low-stakes, they may not review outputs as critically,” Tankelevitch points out. The role of UX AI developers should keep that idea in mind when designing AI user experiences. These chat UX should be organized in a way that encourages verification, prompting users to think through the reasoning behind AI-generated content. Redesigning AI interfaces to aid in this new “task stewardship” process and encourage critical engagement is key to mitigating the risks of cognitive offloading. “Deep reasoning models are already supporting this by making AI’s processes more transparent—making it easier for users to review, question, and learn from the insights they generate,” he says. “Transparency matters. Users need to understand not just what the AI says, but why it says it.” You probably have seen this in an AI platform like Perplexity. Its interface offers a clear logical path that outlines the thoughts and actions that the AI takes to obtain a result. By redesigning AI interfaces to also include contextual explanations, confidence ratings, or alternative perspectives when needed, AI tools can shift users away from blind trust and towards active evaluation of the results. Another UX intervention may involve actively prompting the user for key aspects of the AI-generated output, prompting users to directly question and refine these outputs rather than passively accepting them.The final product of this open collaboration between AI and human is better, just like creative processes are often much better when two people work together as a team, especially when the strengths of one person complements the strengths of the other. Some will get dumber The study raises crucial questions about the long-term impact of AI on human cognition. If knowledge workers become passive consumers of AI-generated content, their critical thinking skills could atrophy. However, if AI is designed and used as an interactive, thought-provoking tool, it could enhance human intelligence rather than degrade it. Tankelevitch points out that this is not just theory. It’s been proven on the field. For example, there are studies that show that AI can boost learning when used in the right way, he says. “In Nigeria, an early study suggests that AI tutors could help students achieve two years of learning progress in just six weeks,” he says. “Another study showed that students working with tutors supported by AI were more likely to master key topics.” The key, Tankelevitch tells me, is that this was all teacher-led: “Educators guided the prompts and provided context,” thus encouraging that vital critical thinking. AI has also demonstrated that it can enhance problem-solving in scientific research, where experts use it to explore complex hypotheses. “Researchers using AI to assist in discovery still rely on human intuition and critical judgment to validate results,” Tankelevitch notes. “The most successful AI applications are those where human oversight remains central.” Given the current state of generative AI, the technology’s effect on human intelligence will not depend on the AI itself, but on how we choose to use it. UX designers can certainly help promote good behavior, but it’s up to us to do the right thing. AI can either amplify or erode critical thinking, depending on whether we critically engage with its outputs or blindly trust them. The future of AI-assisted work will be determined not by the sophistication of the technology but by humans. My bet, as with every other technological revolution in the history of civilization, some people will get a lot dumber and others will get a lot smarter. View the full article

In business and sports, team dynamics impact outcomes. Whether you’re pursuing profits or championships, knowing what triggers your teammates can help you avoid conflict and stay on task. The problem is that taking time to better understand each other isn’t always our default setting, say John Eliot and Jim Guinn, authors of How To Get Along with Anyone: The Playbook for Predicting and Preventing Conflict at Work and at Home. “Blowups appear to be substance-driven, but they’re actually people-driven,” says Eliot. “The first step toward preventing and resolving conflict is to focus on figuring out the people participating in it not the underlying ‘problem.’” To work well with others, Guinn and Eliot recommend learning your teammates’ conflict triggers and go-to method of resolution. Three Conflict Triggers There are three distinct types of conflict, according to Eliot and Guinn. Not all conflicts trigger all people, and it’s common to have a blind spot for your own. Task conflict centers on getting things done. The person who is triggered by this type is goal- and deadline-driven. Their attitude is one where the ends justify the means. Process conflict centers on the way things get done. Someone who is bothered by process conflict doesn’t focus on end goals or delivery dates. They care about methods, systems, or policies with a “my way or the highway” attitude. Relational conflict involves the people in disagreement and their habits, preferences, or tastes. In this case, the parties will fight over anything simply because they don’t like one another. If there is no objective reason for a dispute, it’s likely relational. You can determine if a conflict type has triggered someone by watching how quickly they bring up the problem and if their tone changes. “Knowing someone’s hot buttons can help you prevent a lot of conflict,” says Eliot. “You know what situation you should or should not go to with this person.” Five Conflict Personalities How we handle conflict also follows patterns. When riled by one another, Eliot and Guinn say humans instinctively avoid, compete, analyze, collaborate, or accommodate, forming five go-to conflict personalities. The avoider sits back and waits to see if a conflict escalates before getting involved. This style lends itself to work efficiency and would rather get a job done themselves than delegate it. However, an avoider will also let a conflict fester or grow before resolving it. The competitor personality likes action and results. They prefer doing, and they thrive on clearly defined protocols. The downside is that a competitor can become impatient, rushing work, and they are often seen as being hard-nosed and inflexible. The analyzer has a penchant for evidence-based decision-making. They are patient and good at listening and gathering information. The weakness of an analyzer is that they can struggle with tight deadlines. They can also appear as controlling. The collaborator is a great communicator and has strong empathy for others. They make a good partner; however, they can lack time-management skills and are more prone to burnout. Finally, the accommodator is great at teamwork. In sports, they are the quarterback, often charismatic with an ability to account for different team members’ needs. Their weakness is that they’re often ego-driven, trying to do everything themselves. Conflict personality types and triggers work hand in hand. For example, someone who has a competitive conflict-handling approach will often be triggered by process. “You don’t want to [resolve the conflict] with a lot of small talk,” says Guinn. “Instead, use what’s called the ‘domino technique.’ Knock the biggest issue first, which will knock over all of the minor issues.” If someone has an analyzer personality style, they can be triggered by task conflicts, especially if they feel they are being rushed. Resolve this type of conflict with what Guinn calls a “momentum process.” “Identify and knock out the most inconsequential issues, one punch at a time,” he says. “Then move onto relevant issues that represent low-hanging fruit.” By understanding triggers and go-to styles for addressing them, you can get on the front side of conflict, predicting and preventing problems, says Guinn. “In order to have good teams, you don’t need to have a complex understanding of psychology,” he says. “Just take a couple of simple steps in terms of listening and understanding. Know what tone of voice to use and what pace to move with this person. These are simple things everybody can do. Little steps go a long way in relationship- and team-building.” View the full article

Researchers at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology just invented a building material that could make construction projects stronger and more sustainable—and it’s based on the skeleton of an invertebrate that lives at the bottom of the ocean. The material, recently presented in the journal Composite Structures, was developed by RMIT University engineers. It’s inspired by the skeleton of the deep-sea sponge, whose lattice-like internal structures, which have been optimized over millions of years in the ocean, allow it to thrive thousands of feet underwater. The material’s unique structural properties make it simultaneously lightweight, strong, and extra resilient under pressure, meaning that it could eventually help make buildings sturdier with less steel and concrete. How are steel and concrete damaging the environment? For years, engineers have been researching new ways to cut down on steel and concrete in construction. That’s because both materials are produced at a massive scale, with equally massive impacts on the environment. As of 2023, annual global production of concrete was around a whopping 30 billion tons, and the production of cement—one of concrete’s key ingredients—was responsible for between 5% and 10% of global CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, the steelmaking industry churns out about 2 billion tons of the metal per year, accounting for around 7% of greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists have explored a wide range of alternatives to traditional steel and concrete, including a steel alternative made out of plastic and a form of concrete stabilized by recycled diapers. Biomimicry as a basis for design The RMIT team’s sponge-inspired material could help reduce steel and concrete use in construction because of something called “auxetic behavior.” The word “auxetic” is a structural descriptor which means that, instead of becoming thinner when stretched and thicker when compressed, the material actually becomes thicker when stretched and thinner when compressed. A honeycomb, for example, is typically auxetic, as are biological materials like cat tongues and human muscle tendons. In the manufacturing world, auxetic materials are often used on the bottom of running shoes, allowing the footwear to expand while walking or running. Auxetic patterns are desirable in construction because they can absorb force and maintain their strength under intense pressure, just like the deep-sea sponge. Existing man-made auxetic materials typically use a honeycomb pattern, but RMIT’s new material uses a double lattice design supported by diagonal beams. Based on the team’s testing, the innovative structure makes the material 13 times stiffer than other fabricated auxetics. For this reason, the new pattern could be used in construction to enable “thinner load-bearing walls and slimmer columns without compromising structural integrity,” according to Jiaming Ma, the lead author on the new study. That would cut down on the amount of steel and concrete necessary to achieve a sturdy result. The material is still in the testing phase, so it’s too early to predict what wide-scale commercial use might look like. Still, Ma believes it could eventually have applications across a wide range of industries, from creating earthquake-resistant buildings to improving vascular stents and strengthening protective sports gear. View the full article

AI is poised to reshape businesses, but too many executives are oversimplifying its potential, focusing on automation rather than collaboration. As someone who’s spent my career studying the future of work, I’m excited about AI’s breakthrough potential—but cautious of the narratives being rushed into the spotlight. Recently, I reviewed Anthropic’s study, Which Economic Tasks Are Performed with AI? Evidence from Millions of Claude Conversations, and found that AI’s real impact isn’t as clear-cut as many believe. While AI is transforming business, leaders are overlooking key realities about AI’s impact and its real-world applications. Here’s what many are still getting wrong. 1. AI Is More About Augmentation Than Automation According to Anthropic’s findings, AI isn’t neatly fitting the narrative of the ultimate automation engine. The data consistently suggests a more balanced story of augmentation (57%) versus automation (43%). Yet, in research we conducted early last year, we found that 58% of global leaders viewed AI as mainly an automation tool—one that can reduce headcount and cut costs—while only 42% saw it as a way to amplify or augment human capabilities. This outlook ignores a crucial insight: AI often shines brightest when it’s working with people, not replacing them. In fact, the Anthropic study found that almost a quarter (23.3%) of tasks in these AI interactions are learning or knowledge acquisition tasks—meaning humans are leveraging AI to gather insights, sharpen strategies, and make more informed decisions. 2. AI’s Managerial Role Is Limited This bias toward automation is also manifesting in how the C-suite envisions AI’s managerial potential. The assumption is that AI can instantly step in to coordinate projects, supervise teams, or even make high-level decisions. However, the Anthropic data suggests that managerial capabilities show only minimal presence of AI usage—an important reminder of the practical limitations of current-generation AI tools. Effective management isn’t just a matter of oversight and efficiency. It’s about empathy, nuanced communication, and the capacity to inspire and guide people through complex organizational challenges. Today’s AI can sift data, generate written recommendations, and even assist with performance evaluations, but it can’t replicate the inherently human aspects of leadership that spark motivation and maintain trust. In other words, while AI can help managers be better managers—say, by flagging important trends or offering real-time feedback mechanisms—it isn’t replacing them anytime soon. 3. AI’s Impact on Work Is About Tasks, Not Titles Far too many executives assess AI’s influence as though it’s a straightforward, one-to-one replacement for entire roles when in reality, AI is infiltrating our workflows at the task level. This is why some leaders are underestimating how AI redefines the contents of a “job,” since a position is essentially a bundle of tasks—some routine, some creative. Unpacking roles to isolate the tasks most ripe for AI support is critical. A startling statistic from the Anthropic report: 36% of occupations show AI usage in at least 25% of their tasks, and in many cases, these tasks involve demanding cognitive skills, like critical thinking and systems analysis. AI is also used for active listening, reading comprehension, and writing support, but it hasn’t taken over the full scope of any single “job” as we might traditionally define it. Leaders who fail to disaggregate tasks from titles risk missing AI’s real value proposition—and short-changing both their organization and their people. 4. AI Adoption Rates Aren’t As High As Hype Suggests The hype suggests that nearly every industry is barreling toward AI ubiquity, with previous research forecasting 80% or more of roles quickly incorporating AI into at least 10% of their tasks. Yet, Anthropic’s real-world conversation data pegs that figure at 57%, not 80%. That’s a gap leaders need to take seriously. It’s not that AI’s transformative potential is in doubt, but rather that organizational readiness—and the barriers to entry for these technologies—are more formidable than many realize. From regulatory constraints to outdated IT infrastructures to insufficient training, there’s a lot that can stall AI’s momentum once you move beyond the pilot stage. As I often remind business leaders, a successful AI deployment requires more than the technology itself; it needs culture change, skill-building, and a strategic plan that engages employees at all levels. 5. We Need Greater AI Literacy at All Levels The Anthropic study suggests that AI usage is not as high among those with extensive specialized training, which might seem counterintuitive. Why wouldn’t advanced degree holders be at the forefront? Often, they’re operating in fields with strict regulations or complex intellectual frameworks that AI isn’t yet equipped to navigate without significant human oversight. As we prepare the next generation of degree holders for an AI-infused workplace, we must teach them how to effectively integrate these tools into their expertise, not just how to code or prompt an AI system. Being “AI-literate” means understanding both its limitations and possibilities—recognizing when it’s a smart collaborator and when it’s an inadequate stand-in for deeper human judgment. Shifting Mindsets from ‘AI Versus People’ to ‘AI with People’ If there’s a single takeaway for the C-suite, it’s this: Don’t be so quick to believe your organization’s future is solely about replacing humans with AI. Instead, focus on how human ingenuity can be amplified. Embrace the reality that AI’s revolution is happening at the granular task level, not the job title level. And remember that the best managers will always be the ones capable of empathy, strategic vision, and nuanced communication—traits AI, for now, can only tangentially support. Shifting from a mindset of “AI versus people” to “AI with people” is not just a semantic difference; it’s the key to unlocking AI’s full potential for sustainable growth and innovation in the modern enterprise. If the past few decades taught us anything, it’s that technology alone doesn’t define success; it’s how we adapt that sets us apart. And that’s a distinctly human endeavor. View the full article

Bank of America and Stripe target market for payments in cryptocurrenciesView the full article

FT survey finds ‘large fiscal capacity’, but economists urge would-be chancellor Friedrich Merz to spend funds wiselyView the full article

Collapse in respondents skewed results for some industriesView the full article

Consolidation is back on the agenda for industry as bankers eye more dealsView the full article

Financial stress is forcing reform and recovery in many overlooked countries View the full article

A series of suspected sabotage incidents has exposed the vulnerability of Europe’s undersea infrastructureView the full article

There’s a special place in you-know-where for spam callers. They’re annoying. They waste time. They’re also dangerous. And while it’s challenging to eliminate spam calls entirely, the good news is that with a little time and effort, you can significantly reduce the number of spam calls you receive. Here’s what to do. Add yourself to the FTC’s Do Not Call list One of the easiest and longest-lasting ways to reduce spam calls is to add your phone number to the National Do Not Call Registry, which is a free service managed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Once you’ve added your number, telemarketers have a month to remove you from their lists so you don’t get any more calls. These days, however, whether they will abide by these rules is another story, so read on for some more effective alternatives. Use call-blocking features and/or apps While the Do Not Call list relies on the . . . ahem . . . good nature of above-board telemarketers to take you off their lists, it’s largely ineffective against the real culprits: scammers and illegal telemarketers. Luckily, modern smartphones are packed with features designed to help combat spam. Most have built-in features that allow you to block individual numbers. While this won’t stop spoofed numbers, it can help you get rid of repeat offenders. Here’s how to block numbers on iPhone, and here’s how to do it on Android if you use Google’s Phone app. You can also send unknown callers to voicemail. This is a handy feature that lets legitimate callers leave a message while ideally discouraging nefarious callers from doing the same. The two links in the previous paragraph contains information about how to enable the feature. And if all else fails, consider third-party call-blocking apps. Popular options include Hiya, Robokiller, Truecaller, and Nomorobo. These apps use crowdsourced data, known-offender databases, and AI to identify and automatically block or flag potential spam calls. While they’re not perfect, they can significantly reduce the number of unwanted calls you receive. Protect your personal info in the first place Spammers thrive on data, so the less information you share, the less likely you are to be targeted. Make sure to be cautious online. Think twice before entering your phone number on websites, especially those that seem suspicious or offer freebies in exchange for your information. If the caution ship has already sailed, look into opting out of data brokerages. Data brokers collect and sell your personal information, including your phone number, to just about anyone willing to pay for it. While it takes some effort, you can opt out of these services to reduce your online footprint. A quick Google search for “opt out data brokers” will provide a list of resources to help you get started. And finally, just don’t engage. Never answer calls from unknown numbers, and never provide any personal information to callers you don’t recognize. Even answering the phone signals to spammers that you’ve got a live, active number. Just let the call go to voicemail and screen it later. View the full article

Noticed all the blondes going back to their natural hair color lately? As much as many try to claim it’s because of a “hair health journey,” other factors seem to be at play here. “How’s the economy?” one TikTok user asks in a viral video. “Well, hasn’t been good for a while seems like my indicators tell me,” the former blonde says, measuring the inches of her incoming roots with her fingers. “THIS IS SO ACCURATE,” one commenter responded. I’m no expert, but root length has always been a pretty solid way to tell how people are doing financially. “Remember when balayage became really popular in 2009?” asked one person in the comments. During the 2007-to-2009 recession, blonde celebrities were embracing their darker roots, a trend that mirrored the economic downturn. Now, in 2025, we’re seeing the same thing happening all over again. One in six Americans admit to spending more on beauty and wellness than they can afford and, if you’ve ever colored your hair, you know how expensive the upkeep is. So, when purse strings tighten, expensive salon visits are the first to go. With some hairstylists interviewed in a recent Washington Post piece charging at least $100 an hour for cuts, color, bleaching and balayage, being blonde is a luxury not everyone can afford. Suddenly, grown-out roots have become the hottest trend—and a leading economic indicator. “When someone says they like my natural hair color better and I agree, when in reality I can no longer afford to upkeep the blonde, and this is my brunette recession era,” one TikTok post with 2.3 million views reads. “Recession brunette is back,” another TikTok user declared. The Wall Street Journal reported that “lived-in color,” referring to partial highlights or balayage, was last year’s trend among hairstylists. Not unlike the “lipstick effect”—the phenomenon, during an economic downturn, of consumers continuing to spend on small luxury items, such as lipstick—”lived-in color” and the “recession brunette” may be the latest stylish indicators of an economy in crisis. Bottom line: If blondes really do have more fun, these days it’s fair to presume they also have more money. View the full article