ResidentialBusiness

The AI landscape is rapidly evolving, with America’s $500 billion Stargate Project signaling massive infrastructure investment while China’s DeepSeek emerges as a formidable competitor. DeepSeek’s advanced AI models, rivaling Western capabilities at lower costs, raise significant concerns about potential cybersecurity threats, data mining, and intelligence gathering on a global scale. This development highlights the urgent need for robust AI regulation and security measures in the U.S. As the AI race intensifies, the gap between technological advancement and governance widens. The U.S. faces the critical challenge of not only accelerating its AI capabilities through projects like Stargate but also developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks to protect its digital assets and national security interests. With DeepSeek’s potential to overcome export controls and conduct sophisticated cyber operations, the U.S. must act swiftly to ensure its AI innovations remain secure and competitive in this rapidly changing technological landscape. We have already seen the first wave of AI-powered dangers. Deepfakes, bot accounts, and algorithmic manipulation on social media have all helped undermine social cohesion while contributing to the creation of political echo chambers. But these dangers are child’s play compared to the risks that will emerge in the next five to ten years. During the pandemic, we saw the unparalleled speed with which new vaccines could be developed with the help of AI. As Mustafa Suleyman, founder of DeepMind and now CEO of Microsoft AI, has argued, it will not be long before AI can design new bioweapons with equal speed. And these capabilities will not be confined to state actors. Just as modern drone technology has recently democratized access to capabilities that were once the sole province of the military, any individual with even a rudimentary knowledge of coding will soon be able to weaponize AI from their bedroom at home. The fact that U.S. senators were publicly advocating the shooting down of unmanned aircraft systems, despite the lack of any legal basis for doing so, is a clear sign of a systemic failure of control. This failure is even more concerning than the drone sightings themselves. When confidence in the government’s ability to handle such unexpected events collapses, the result is fear, confusion, and conspiratorial thought. But there is much worse to come if we fail to find new ways to regulate novel technologies. If you think the systemic breakdown in response to drone sightings is worrying, imagine how things will look when AI starts causing problems. Seven years spent helping the departments of Defense and Homeland Security with innovation and transformation (both organizational and digital) has shaped my thinking about the very real geopolitical risks that AI and digital technologies bring with them. But these dangers do not come only from outside our country. The past decade has seen an increasing tolerance among many U.S. citizens for the idea of political violence, a phenomenon that has been cast into particularly vivid relief in the wake of the shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. As automation replaces increasing numbers of jobs, it is entirely possible that a wave of mass unemployment will lead to severe unrest, multiplying the risk that AI will be used as a weapon to lash out at society at large. These dangers will be on our doorsteps soon. But even more concerning are the unknown unknowns. AI is developing at lightning speed, and even those responsible for that development have no idea exactly where we will end up. Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called Godfather of AI, has said there is a significant chance that artificial intelligence will wipe out humanity within just 30 years. Others suggest that the time horizon is much narrower. The simple fact that there is so much uncertainty about the direction of travel should concern us all deeply. Anyone who is not at least worried has simply not thought hard enough about the dangers. “The regimented regulation has to be risk-based” We cannot afford to treat AI regulation in the same haphazard fashion that has been applied to drone technology. We need an adaptable, far-reaching and future-oriented approach to regulation that is designed to protect us from whatever might emerge as we push back the frontiers of machine intelligence. During a recent interview with Senator Richard Blumenthal, I discussed the question of how we can effectively regulate a technology that we do not yet fully understand. Blumenthal is the co-author with Senator Josh Hawley of the Bipartisan Framework for U.S. AI Act, also known as the Blumenthal-Hawley Framework. Blumenthal proposes a relatively light-touch approach, suggesting that the way the U.S. government regulates the pharmaceutical industry can serve as a model for our approach to AI. This approach, he argues, provides for strict licensing and oversight of potentially dangerous emerging technologies without placing undue restrictions on the ability of American companies to remain world leaders in the field. “We don’t want to stifle innovation,” Blumenthal says. “That’s why the regimented regulation has to be risk-based. If it doesn’t pose a risk, we don’t need a regulator.” This approach offers a valuable starting point for discussion, but I believe we need to go further. While a pharmaceutical model may be sufficient for regulating corporate AI development, we also need a framework that will limit the risks posed by individuals. The manufacturing and distribution of pharmaceuticals requires significant infrastructure, but computer code is an entirely different beast that can be replicated endlessly and transmitted anywhere on the planet in a fraction of a second. The possibility of problematic AI being created and leaking out into the wild is simply much higher than is the case for new and dangerous drugs. Given the potential for AI to generate extinction-level outcomes, it is not too far-reaching to say that the regulatory frameworks surrounding nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are more appropriate for this technology than those that apply in the drug industry. The announcement of the Stargate Project adds particular urgency to this discussion. While massive private-sector investment in AI infrastructure is crucial for maintaining American technological leadership, it also accelerates the timeline for developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks. We cannot afford to have our regulatory responses lag years behind technological developments when those developments are being measured in hundreds of billions of dollars. However we choose to balance the risks and rewards of AI research, we need to act soon. As we saw with the drone sightings that took place before Christmas, the lack of a comprehensive and cohesive framework for managing the threats from new technologies can leave government agencies paralyzed. And with risks that take in anything up to and including the extinction of humanity, we cannot afford this kind of inertia and confusion. We need a comprehensive regulatory framework that balances innovation with safety, one that recognizes both AI’s transformative potential and its existential dangers. That means: Promoting responsible innovation. Encouraging the development and deployment of AI technologies in critical sectors in a safe and ethical manner. Establishing robust regulations. Public trust in AI systems requires both clear and enforceable regulatory frameworks and transparent systems of accountability. Strengthening national security. Policymakers must leverage AI to modernize military capabilities, deploying AI solutions that predict, detect, and counter cyber threats while ensuring ethical use of autonomous systems. Investing in workforce development. As a nation, we must establish comprehensive training programs that upskill workers for AI-driven industries while enhancing STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education to build foundational AI expertise among students and professionals. Leading in global AI standards. The U.S. must spearhead efforts to establish global norms for AI use by partnering with allies to define ethical standards and to safeguard intellectual property. Addressing public concerns. Securing public trust in AI requires increasing transparency about the objectives and applications of AI initiatives while also developing strategies to mitigate job displacement and ensure equitable economic benefits. The Stargate investment represents both the promise and the challenge of AI development. While it demonstrates America’s potential to lead the next technological revolution, it also highlights the urgent need for regulatory frameworks that can match the pace and scale of innovation. With investments of this magnitude reshaping our technological landscape, we cannot afford to get this wrong. We may not get a second chance. View the full article

To create an HTML redirect to another page, add a meta refresh tag inside the section of the page. View the full article

AI rivalry heats up: Glean CEO Arvind Jain replies to Sam Altman’s caution to investors. View the full article

Common SEO interview questions include: What are some ranking factors? What is your view on AI content? View the full article

Global sustainability models are failing. They’ve been designed to showcase ethical trade and environmental responsibility, but they fundamentally misunderstand how global supply chains operate—especially the critical, unseen work at the beginning of essential value chains such as critical minerals. For decades, these models have burdened African merchants, miners, and farmers—the backbone of global industries from cocoa to lithium—while corporations further along the chain claim the benefits. The systems celebrate end products, like sleek electric vehicles (EVs) or iPhones, while ignoring the heavy lifting at the start of the work, where it’s most difficult. This imbalance in sustainability frameworks doesn’t just sideline African businesses. It undermines the entire premise of accountability that we want to engender amongst commercial supply chain stakeholders. The unfair burden on the start of the supply chain The reality of global supply chains is simple: The earliest stages, where raw materials are extracted and processed, require the most effort. African farmers, miners, and merchants are at the very heart of these early stages. They’re the ones putting in the hardest work—extracting resources, growing crops, and preparing raw materials that fuel industries around the world. But despite their essential role, they’re stuck carrying the heaviest burden. Strict regulations and sustainability requirements often hit them the hardest, even though they have the fewest resources to meet these demands. Take cocoa farmers in Africa, for instance. Many are already working on tight margins, struggling to make enough to feed their families. Then along comes the European Union’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which demands proof that their cocoa isn’t linked to deforestation. While the goal is noble, the execution has left these farmers scrambling to provide documentation they’ve never needed before. For many, the cost of compliance is just too high, and failing to meet the standards means losing access to international buyers. It’s not just farmers. In the mining sector, lithium—the critical ingredient for EV batteries—is dug up under tough, often dangerous conditions. The raw material is shipped overseas for refining and manufacturing, where the final product becomes a celebrated symbol of sustainability. But little thought is given to the people who made that product possible in the first place. But instead of recognizing the environmental and social costs borne by African miners, global narratives around “green” batteries conveniently ignore this reality. The hard work is erased, and the end product—a shiny new electric vehicle—becomes the hero of the story. Why these models don’t work The deeper issue is that global sustainability models were never designed with supply chain realities in mind. They were built to make sense on paper, not in practice. Here’s why they fail: They ignore the realities of extraction The first stages of the supply chain—extraction and initial processing—are treated as a liability, not a foundation. These stages are overregulated, under-supported, and painted as inherently “dirty,” while the later stages enjoy the benefits of cleaner reputations and fewer demands. They push costs downstream Compliance costs are overwhelmingly placed on the smallest and least resourced players. Farmers, artisanal miners, and small merchants are expected to shoulder the expense of meeting global benchmarks, while corporations further up the chain avoid their fair share of responsibility. They celebrate the end, not the beginning By the time raw materials are turned into recognizable products—like the chocolate bars we enjoy or the batteries that power electric vehicles—they’re celebrated as symbols of innovation and progress. But the reality behind those products is far less glamorous. The hard work, long hours, and sacrifices made at the start of the supply chain are often ignored. At best, they’re reduced to a footnote; at worst, they’re treated as inconvenient details in the story of sustainability. Rebalance the equation If sustainability is going to work—for people and the planet—we need to rethink these frameworks entirely. That means starting from the ground up, ensuring fairness across every step of the supply chain. Here’s where the change needs to happen: Stop pushing the costs on producers Sustainability can’t come at the expense of the people doing the hardest work. Corporations that depend on African resources need to take responsibility for compliance costs. For example, chocolate companies that rely on African cocoa should be actively investing in the farmers and cooperatives that keep their supply chains running. It’s not just a moral obligation—it’s a business necessity. Put money into local solutions The earliest stages of the supply chain need better support. This means governments, corporations, and international institutions must work together to invest in systems that help producers succeed. From building cooperatives for artisanal miners to funding training programs for sustainable farming, these investments would ease the pressure on producers while ensuring global standards can actually be met. Measure what really matters Current sustainability metrics focus too much on quick wins and shiny results. But real progress happens when we focus on achievable, incremental improvements. Instead of setting impossible benchmarks, we need to create standards that reflect the realities of resource extraction and reward meaningful change. Work together to share the load No single entity can fix this alone. Public-private partnerships are key to amplifying sustainability efforts without placing all the costs on producers. Companies that actively work with merchants to address issues like traceability and compliance have already shown that fair, sustainable practices are possible—especially when governments step in to support these efforts. A fairer vision for sustainability Sustainability should not mean shifting the burden onto the communities that sustain the world’s supply chains. African merchants, farmers, and miners are not just resource providers—they are the backbone of industries that drive global progress. They deserve recognition, support, and a fair share of the benefits. Global sustainability models need to change—urgently. If they don’t, they’ll keep fueling inequality while claiming to promote progress. It’s time to stop pretending that these systems are working, because they’re not. We need to build frameworks that reflect the real-world challenges of supply chains, ones that are fair, practical, and genuinely sustainable—for everyone involved. Anu Adedoyin Adasolum is CEO of Sabi. View the full article

Super Bowl LIX had a clear winner on the field, but victory for brands was more hard-won. Many aimed for impact, but did they deliver? Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder offers hot takes on this year’s hits and misses from the big game’s ads. She joins host Bob Safian to break down what makes an NBDB (“never been done before”) moment, why so many brands adopted a “safe” approach, and what trends business leaders should note going forward. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. Last year, we talked about whether you would buy a 30-second spot for Autodesk. When you were watching this year, did you think, Oh, maybe I should have; that would have been a good way to spend $8 million? No, when I was watching the game, I was like, I am very glad with our strategy of not buying an ad in the Super Bowl. Look, I think sometimes it makes sense for your business. And I think you really have to understand: What are we trying to accomplish? What are the objectives? And will this help us make that happen? I think that not enough brands who showed up this year did that calculation, I have to say. So, I think we did the right math by deciding to let our customers take center stage. When a game is not close, is that good from a marketer’s point of view—like people are going to spend more time paying attention to the ad? Or is it bad because people aren’t as intensely focused on the screen? It’s not good. It’s not good because people are getting up and people are leaving. Consumers start to get distracted and go back to their lives when it’s not as competitive until the very end. You’re making a bet when you decide where you’re going to buy your ad, where in the show, right? Like in some ways it’s better to be at the end because people will remember you more, but only if the game is close. Only if the game is close. So, you’ve got to think about the calculus for what you’re trying to do. I always think that going early and in the middle is safe. Again, it comes down to calculated risk, a clear-eyed risk. You gather as much data as you can, you strip away uncertainty, and then you make a decision with conviction. Going late is a risk that you should only take if you are sure that even if consumers get up and walk away, that placement still makes sense for your brand. But if you’re not sure about that, going early or going in the middle is probably a good way to make sure that you gather as many eyeballs as needed. If you’re a brand like Autodesk and you haven’t bought a Super Bowl spot, how do you participate in the moment around the Super Bowl? If you have an authentic reason to participate in the conversation, hey, it’s as good a time as any to do that. So for us at Autodesk, our software is used to design and make anything, whether it is literally the Caesar Superdome stadium in NOLA that housed it all, or stages like Kendrick’s, or ads like the Michelob Ultra ad. Our software is used to design and make anything. So for us, being a part of the conversation makes sense in terms of celebrating our customers who are playing a role in the game. Now you’ve used this expression, NBDB (“never been done before”). There wasn’t a whole lot of that this year. We like a good NBDB. And I thought a brand that actually did that was Rocket. So Rocket had that wonderful ad that really talked about owning the dream, owning the American dream, and owning the home. They took the time to tell the story in a way that was so powerful. I was watching it live, and everybody from my father-in-law to my daughter was like, “Oh, we like this one.” And every American can remember that song. I mean, Bob, I’m sure in a bar somewhere at 1 a.m. at some point or the other, you were singing about country roads taking you home. There’s no video of that. You’re neither going to confirm nor deny, but I thought that ad was great. But what was especially awesome was to see that connected with the live experience of “Country Roads” playing in the stands and having the fans in the stadium. That was marketing magic, right? Because the ad, the extension was so real, so powerful, so wonderful. So that was an NBDB. I don’t think I’ve seen any ads do that before where they connect what is happening on the screen to what is happening physically in the stadium in such a powerful integrated way. I thought Rocket did that. They certainly owned that NBDB category with that first-of-its-kind integration. So not the skin cowboy hat from Tubi. I didn’t get on with that. I mean, that was when everyone was like, “I’m going to go get some chips.” Nobody wants to watch that, right? I thought that ad was pushing creative direction. That’s what I meant. Because people were staying away from relevance, sometimes they turned up the dial on ownability or memorability in a way that didn’t always work. And I think for that Tubi ad, they turned up the memorability dial a little too much, and it didn’t quite work. I want to ask you about the Nike “So Win” ad with top female athletes like Caitlin Clark and Jordan Chiles. In some ways, it was like a throwback to some of the ads we’d seen from Nike before. So it wasn’t really “never been done before,” but at the same time, I thought it was pretty darn effective. I think Nike was the winner of the night, and I’ll tell you why. They did an amazing job of being ownable. It was like you said: It was an ownable Nike spot. You saw that spot, and you immediately knew it was Nike because of the athletes’ presence, the visual aesthetic, the black-and-white aesthetic, and the message. It showed the power of purpose and performance, and I have to give Nike a lot of credit for this spot because in a year where a lot of brands were staying away from saying anything, Nike said something. They said something important. They said something that matters. And they said something that needed to be said, right? And that was the power of women in sports. And the importance of gender equity in sports. And I thought they said it really well. It wasn’t preachy. It was powerful. And, so talk about being memorable and being relevant. And many of us can remember what was happening in the Olympics when Sha’Carri [Richardson] was running: She was ahead, and she looked to her left, and she looked to her right. And that moment was a part of the narrative, right? Many of us remember the journeys that these women athletes have had. And to see them standing on business, standing on power, standing on strength, it was saying, “Look, come what may, women’s sports is here to stay,” and I love that. Just watching my daughter watch that spot and her face light up, it was a powerful moment. So I think Nike did that, and they were really the only brand that made a statement, right? A lot of brands talked about unity and nostalgia, which I thought was a little bit overdone, to be honest, and not actually reflective of the state of the country, so it felt a little forced. But I thought Nike did a really good job of saying, “Hey, we’re standing on business. We’re standing on purpose.” We’re not cause-led, so we’re not jumping into a political conversation. But we’re standing on what makes sense for our business. Our values remain unchanged. View the full article

This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager. It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go… 1. Is “hey” rude? I have a former boss who asked all staff at a tiny nonprofit not to use the greeting “hey” to her. I think this is imperious and out of touch, at best. What do you think? It’s a bit much, but there’s a fairly outdated belief that “hey” is rude — remember those teachers and other elders from your youth who would respond to “hey” with “hay is for horses”? Was she a “hay is for horses” person clinging to old rules around the word, or was she more of a “don’t speak casually to me, peons” person? The former is a little eye-rolly, but whatever; the second is much more obnoxious. 2. Did our coworker fake-retire? I worked at a hospital where a long-time employee in my department retired— she was over 65 and had worked there for 30+ years. The department held a retirement party with the boss’s own funds since the hospital didn’t provide discretionary funds for this kind of stuff. It was a nice send-off and everyone wished her well. Then about a month or so later, word gets around that actually she wasn’t retired and had just gotten a new job at the VA, which is where many of the folks in this department try to get to because the pay is so much better there. No one in leadership mentioned anything about it but you could sense that people were really annoyed and felt like they’d been duped. I know many people get jobs again after they’ve retired, but this was so immediate that it was obviously lined up beforehand. What are your thoughts on the optics of this? Any chance the departing employee was using “retiring” in the sense of “I am retiring from this job where I have worked for 30+ years” and not in the more traditional sense of “I am retiring from the workforce”? There was an interesting discussion in the comment section on Monday about whether “retired” can simply mean “leaving this job,” not “leaving the workforce.” It typically does not — but when someone is around retirement age and leaving a job they’ve been at for a very long time, it does sometimes get used that way. (You generally need both those factors to be present though; no one is saying a 35-year-old is retiring when she leaves a job she’s been at for eight years. The age and length of tenure both seem to be prerequisites for the usage to work.) Anyway, it really depends on whether your coworker went out of her way to deceive people. If she was talking about how much she was going to enjoy not having to go to work every day and her plans to spend her time gardening and taking Elderhostel trips, all while knowing she was just moving to another full-time job, then yeah, that’s obviously pretty crappy! It would also be unusual for someone to do that just in order to get a retirement party. (Any chance there was another reason she might have wanted to keep it quiet, like worrying about a manager at your hospital torpedoing her chances at the new job?) But if it was just an announcement that she was leaving, and others were the ones who framed it as “retirement” out of an assumption based on her age … well, she might have figured she was retiring from this organization after 30 years so didn’t see any need to correct anything. Either way, you’re all better off just looking at it as a goodbye party for someone who had worked there for three decades. 3. Frustrations with business voicemail and a claims process I have been dealing with my insurance company for a claim I filed. I received an email (from a do-not-reply account) that my case was assigned to “Mary Smith” and I would be receiving a call from her on such and such a date between 9:30 am and 11:30 am from a specific phone number. On the bottom of my account page with this company, her name is listed as my claim manager. As I had a dentist appointment that day at 8 am, I called her number and left a message to please call closer to 11:30 as I had an appointment that morning. My concern is her voicemail was a very generic “the person you are trying to reach is not available, please leave a message after the tone.” No mention of her name or the company’s name. She called me later in the morning that day, never mentioned anything about my message that I had left for her, and we conducted the interview. She needed some clarification on some dates and asked me to call back when I had that information. I called back a day later with the info and the same thing, went to voicemail with the generic greeting. I didn’t hear anything from her confirming she received the information. Four days later, I called and left another message asking if she got the info and to please call me back to confirm. Nothing. A few days later, my account was updated to “claim review in process” and I received an email saying a decision should be made with in five business days, and day days later the claim was approved. How do you deal with a situation like this? I still have no idea if my messages were being received by the case manager or even if it was her voicemail I was leaving the message in. Or am I being “needy” by expecting at least some response following any contact to her? Maybe a little needy, yeah, if you’re still dwelling on it now. It sounds like their process worked as it should: you left a message asking her to call you in the later part of your assigned window and she did that. You followed up with info she requested, and she used it to process your claim, which was approved in the timeframe you were told to expect. It sounds like it caused you some extra anxiety not to get any acknowledgement of either of your messages, whereas on her side the “acknowledgment” was likely that she used the info you provided to move things forward. If things weren’t moving and your messages were going unacknowledged, that would be a lot more frustrating — but since things did move as expected, there was nothing to “deal with.” You would have preferred more communication, but it sounds like the case manager knew, likely from experience, that things could move smoothly without it. (In fact, it’s even possible that things moved so smoothly because she doesn’t stop to return every message people leave if she doesn’t need to.) To be clear, I don’t think it’s unreasonable that you expected more communication while this was ongoing — but once you saw that everything went smoothly and your claim was approved, why not just think, “Okay, that worked fine”? 4. Coworker keeps coming into my office and distracting me One of my coworkers who works for a different company comes into my office multiple times per day and distracts me from my work. I hung a “please do not disturb” sign but that didn’t stop him, so eventually I switched to a sign that says “do not disturb — please send an email and I’ll respond when I can” but this doesn’t stop him either, even though my door is shut and locked. He knows the PIN to enter my door because my boss gave it away a couple years ago to someone who wanted to decorate my office. I can’t change the PIN and my boss knows this is happening. I have not directly asked him to stop because he will drag it on and on for days and it makes me uncomfortable . Every time he’s done something that’s made me uncomfortable and I’ve said so, that’s what happens. How do I get my coworker to leave me the F alone? He is stressing me out so badly that it’s impacting my personal life outside of work. I can’t complete as many things in a day as I would like, because he won’t stop bothering me. You can’t get him to leave you the F alone without directly telling him to. Communicating by sign clearly isn’t working, so you’ve got to speak up: “Please stop entering my office without being invited. It’s breaking my focus and disrupting my work.” And then if he keeps doing it, address it in the moment: “I’m on deadline and can’t talk right now” and “I’m really busy so can’t have you in here.” If he reacts badly to that, then talk to your boss, cite the disruption to your work, and ask to have the PIN changed. Also, you said he works for a different company. Unless he’s his own boss, can you have a word with his boss over there? Continually using someone’s PIN to enter their office against their will multiple times a day is something any reasonable manager would be glad to put a stop to if asked. 5. Asking about a job that hasn’t been advertised yet An employee of a company has mentioned that a job may be coming up that might be a good fit for me. I have researched the job on their website but the job has not been posted and I have questions regarding whether I have all the skills for this job. Would it be showing initiative to inquire to the manager about this possibility and request visiting the site to learn more about the position? Asking to visit the site to learn more about a job that you haven’t been invited to interview for yet — and which hasn’t even been advertised yet — would be way too much. If they want to spend time talking with you about the position, they will express that by inviting you to interview after you apply and they’ve reviewed your materials and determined you’re a strong enough candidate to move forward. But none of that has happened yet. If you felt more certain that you would be a strong fit for the job, you could maybe email the hiring manager with your resume and say you heard that job might be opening up and you’d love to be considered when it is … but with a job where you’re not even sure you’re qualified and which hasn’t been posted yet, and you really just want to learn more about it, that’s going to feel like overkill, not initiative (or at least not appropriate initiative, which is an important modifier on that word). If you know the employee who originally mentioned the job, you could ask them if they know when it’s likely to open up, but otherwise just keep watching for it. View the full article

New attempts to prolong the fossil fuel era have come at precisely the wrong time View the full article

Proposal draws backlash from industry, warning it could damage ‘trust’View the full article

Chancellor’s meeting with financial services groups expected to focus on visas, regulation and taxView the full article

Body says regulation shuts firms out of lucrative quality assurance businessView the full article

Move seeks to counter drift from more traditional active fundsView the full article

Big funding rounds for software developer Helsing and drone maker Tekever defy broader downturn in venture investingView the full article

Former Google chief’s caution comes following Chinese start-up DeepSeek’s breakthroughView the full article

Low fees made the group a passive investing powerhouse. But it needs to improve tech and service as it pushes into wealth management and cash accountsView the full article

US data analytics group could live up to the hype View the full article

The US president is embracing the cryptocurrency, exciting enthusiasts and concerning scepticsView the full article

Budget AI model triggers global reappraisal of Chinese technology companiesView the full article

The White House has tapped former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. director Jonathan McKernan to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and attorney Jonathan Gould to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency late Tuesday. View the full article

The home service industry is poised for growth in 2025, fueled by a recovering housing market, increasing consumer confidence, and record-high adoption of digital payments, according to Jobber’s latest Home Service Economic Report: 2024 Review and 2025 Outlook. The report, which aggregates data from over 250,000 home service professionals, details key economic trends and sector-specific insights driving momentum in the industry. Industry Recovery and Market Drivers The report indicates that consumer demand is rebounding, despite economic uncertainty in 2024. While the number of scheduled jobs declined, businesses sustained revenue by adjusting pricing and increasing job sizes. The 5.8% rise in single-family home prices in Q4 2024 has encouraged homeowners to invest in renovations, repairs, and remodeling projects. New housing construction is also expanding, with late-year growth in housing starts signaling greater demand for home service professionals. Additionally, digital payments continued their rapid ascent, with nearly 50% of transactions made digitally in 2024, a figure expected to surpass 50% in 2025. “Our latest report highlights how businesses navigated shifting consumer demand, leveraged digital tools, and adapted their pricing strategies to stay competitive in 2024,” said Sam Pillar, CEO & co-founder at Jobber. “Despite lingering inflation concerns and uncertainty around interest rates, our data shows that demand for home services is rebounding. As the economy stabilizes and policy decisions unfold in 2025, Home Service entrepreneurs have a strong opportunity for growth and long-term success.” Segment-Specific Performance The report breaks down trends across key home service segments, including Green, Cleaning, Contracting, and Construction. Green: The sector, which includes lawn care and landscaping, faced volatility in 2024, with a spring downturn in scheduled work followed by a late-year rebound. Revenue remained steady as businesses offset lower job volumes with higher-ticket services and pricing adjustments. Cleaning: Encompassing residential and commercial cleaning services, the sector saw a slowdown in scheduled work but recovered in the second half of the year. Pricing adjustments helped sustain revenue growth. Contracting: Trades including electricians, plumbers, and HVAC technicians faced difficulties scheduling new work early in 2024 but experienced a late-year rebound. Construction: Both residential and commercial construction experienced early-year slowdowns but saw surges in April and July before stabilizing. The sector is positioned for improvement with the housing market’s recovery. Outlook for 2025: Cautious Optimism Despite positive indicators, external factors such as political uncertainty and material costs could impact business operations in 2025. “We have a positive but cautious outlook for 2025,” said Abheek Dhawan, Senior VP, Strategy & Analytics at Jobber. “Home Service businesses are seeing more new work get scheduled, steady revenue growth, and a continued increase in digital adoption. On the other hand, there is considerable political uncertainty at the moment, which could impact businesses when they’re purchasing materials. On the whole, the Home Service category remains a critical driver of economic activity in America, and one that is relatively insulated from volatility.” With digital transformation accelerating and consumer spending stabilizing, home service businesses are expected to see continued growth opportunities in the coming year. This article, "Jobber Report Signals Home Service Industry Growth Amid Housing Recovery and Digital Payment Surge" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

The home service industry is poised for growth in 2025, fueled by a recovering housing market, increasing consumer confidence, and record-high adoption of digital payments, according to Jobber’s latest Home Service Economic Report: 2024 Review and 2025 Outlook. The report, which aggregates data from over 250,000 home service professionals, details key economic trends and sector-specific insights driving momentum in the industry. Industry Recovery and Market Drivers The report indicates that consumer demand is rebounding, despite economic uncertainty in 2024. While the number of scheduled jobs declined, businesses sustained revenue by adjusting pricing and increasing job sizes. The 5.8% rise in single-family home prices in Q4 2024 has encouraged homeowners to invest in renovations, repairs, and remodeling projects. New housing construction is also expanding, with late-year growth in housing starts signaling greater demand for home service professionals. Additionally, digital payments continued their rapid ascent, with nearly 50% of transactions made digitally in 2024, a figure expected to surpass 50% in 2025. “Our latest report highlights how businesses navigated shifting consumer demand, leveraged digital tools, and adapted their pricing strategies to stay competitive in 2024,” said Sam Pillar, CEO & co-founder at Jobber. “Despite lingering inflation concerns and uncertainty around interest rates, our data shows that demand for home services is rebounding. As the economy stabilizes and policy decisions unfold in 2025, Home Service entrepreneurs have a strong opportunity for growth and long-term success.” Segment-Specific Performance The report breaks down trends across key home service segments, including Green, Cleaning, Contracting, and Construction. Green: The sector, which includes lawn care and landscaping, faced volatility in 2024, with a spring downturn in scheduled work followed by a late-year rebound. Revenue remained steady as businesses offset lower job volumes with higher-ticket services and pricing adjustments. Cleaning: Encompassing residential and commercial cleaning services, the sector saw a slowdown in scheduled work but recovered in the second half of the year. Pricing adjustments helped sustain revenue growth. Contracting: Trades including electricians, plumbers, and HVAC technicians faced difficulties scheduling new work early in 2024 but experienced a late-year rebound. Construction: Both residential and commercial construction experienced early-year slowdowns but saw surges in April and July before stabilizing. The sector is positioned for improvement with the housing market’s recovery. Outlook for 2025: Cautious Optimism Despite positive indicators, external factors such as political uncertainty and material costs could impact business operations in 2025. “We have a positive but cautious outlook for 2025,” said Abheek Dhawan, Senior VP, Strategy & Analytics at Jobber. “Home Service businesses are seeing more new work get scheduled, steady revenue growth, and a continued increase in digital adoption. On the other hand, there is considerable political uncertainty at the moment, which could impact businesses when they’re purchasing materials. On the whole, the Home Service category remains a critical driver of economic activity in America, and one that is relatively insulated from volatility.” With digital transformation accelerating and consumer spending stabilizing, home service businesses are expected to see continued growth opportunities in the coming year. This article, "Jobber Report Signals Home Service Industry Growth Amid Housing Recovery and Digital Payment Surge" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

Focus on your clients...or someone else will. Gear Up for Growth With Jean Caragher For CPA Trendlines Go PRO for members-only access to more Jean Marie Caragher. View the full article

Focus on your clients...or someone else will. Gear Up for Growth With Jean Caragher For CPA Trendlines Go PRO for members-only access to more Jean Marie Caragher. View the full article

A new study by Xodo has identified Google Drive as the most widely used Google productivity tool in the United States, ranking ahead of Gmail, Google Docs, and Google Slides. The study, which analyzed monthly active users and global search volume, also found that New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island lead the country in Google app usage. Google Drive Leads in Productivity App Usage According to the research, Google Drive ranks as the most popular Google productivity tool, with 2 billion monthly active users and a global monthly search volume of 338 million. The cloud storage service, which allows users to store, access, and collaborate on files, achieved a Usage Score of 100. Other top-ranked Google productivity apps include: Gmail – 1.5 billion monthly active users, Usage Score: 41.04 Google Docs – 1 billion monthly active users, Usage Score: 24.26 Google Slides – 800 million monthly active users, Usage Score: 22.61 Google Sheets – 900 million monthly active users, Usage Score: 21.05 “The growing popularity of productivity tools reflects a collective shift toward smarter, more agile workflows,” said Reena Cruz, PDF Productivity Expert at Xodo. “Not only do the best productivity tools save time—they allow users to prioritize more meaningful work.” Regional Trends: Which States Use Google Productivity Tools the Most? The study also examined state-by-state search data to determine which parts of the U.S. use Google’s productivity suite the most. The top 10 states by search volume per 10,000 people are: New York – 3,943.04 searches Massachusetts – 3,928.07 searches Rhode Island – 3,385.15 searches California – 3,326.94 searches Colorado – 3,121.00 searches Virginia – 3,120.92 searches Maryland – 3,063.63 searches New Jersey – 3,052.68 searches Utah – 3,021.01 searches Washington – 2,958.83 searches New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island Lead in Google App Usage New York topped the rankings, with 3,943.04 searches per 10,000 people. The state’s role as a financial and business hub contributes to heavy reliance on cloud-based collaboration tools. Massachusetts followed closely with 3,928.07 searches per 10,000 people, driven by academic institutions such as Harvard and MIT, where tools like Google Docs and Sheets are frequently used for research and education. Rhode Island placed third with 3,385.15 searches per 10,000 people, reflecting the state’s growing business and academic sectors that rely on productivity tools for communication and collaboration. With productivity tools now embedded in workplaces, schools, and creative industries, Google’s suite continues to play a central role in digital collaboration. The study underscores the increasing reliance on cloud-based productivity solutions, particularly in high-tech and education-driven regions. As demand for efficiency grows, Google Drive, Gmail, and Docs remain integral to everyday workflows, allowing businesses and individuals to streamline processes, manage tasks, and collaborate remotely. This article, "Google Drive Tops List of Most Used Google Productivity Apps in the U.S." was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

A new study by Xodo has identified Google Drive as the most widely used Google productivity tool in the United States, ranking ahead of Gmail, Google Docs, and Google Slides. The study, which analyzed monthly active users and global search volume, also found that New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island lead the country in Google app usage. Google Drive Leads in Productivity App Usage According to the research, Google Drive ranks as the most popular Google productivity tool, with 2 billion monthly active users and a global monthly search volume of 338 million. The cloud storage service, which allows users to store, access, and collaborate on files, achieved a Usage Score of 100. Other top-ranked Google productivity apps include: Gmail – 1.5 billion monthly active users, Usage Score: 41.04 Google Docs – 1 billion monthly active users, Usage Score: 24.26 Google Slides – 800 million monthly active users, Usage Score: 22.61 Google Sheets – 900 million monthly active users, Usage Score: 21.05 “The growing popularity of productivity tools reflects a collective shift toward smarter, more agile workflows,” said Reena Cruz, PDF Productivity Expert at Xodo. “Not only do the best productivity tools save time—they allow users to prioritize more meaningful work.” Regional Trends: Which States Use Google Productivity Tools the Most? The study also examined state-by-state search data to determine which parts of the U.S. use Google’s productivity suite the most. The top 10 states by search volume per 10,000 people are: New York – 3,943.04 searches Massachusetts – 3,928.07 searches Rhode Island – 3,385.15 searches California – 3,326.94 searches Colorado – 3,121.00 searches Virginia – 3,120.92 searches Maryland – 3,063.63 searches New Jersey – 3,052.68 searches Utah – 3,021.01 searches Washington – 2,958.83 searches New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island Lead in Google App Usage New York topped the rankings, with 3,943.04 searches per 10,000 people. The state’s role as a financial and business hub contributes to heavy reliance on cloud-based collaboration tools. Massachusetts followed closely with 3,928.07 searches per 10,000 people, driven by academic institutions such as Harvard and MIT, where tools like Google Docs and Sheets are frequently used for research and education. Rhode Island placed third with 3,385.15 searches per 10,000 people, reflecting the state’s growing business and academic sectors that rely on productivity tools for communication and collaboration. With productivity tools now embedded in workplaces, schools, and creative industries, Google’s suite continues to play a central role in digital collaboration. The study underscores the increasing reliance on cloud-based productivity solutions, particularly in high-tech and education-driven regions. As demand for efficiency grows, Google Drive, Gmail, and Docs remain integral to everyday workflows, allowing businesses and individuals to streamline processes, manage tasks, and collaborate remotely. This article, "Google Drive Tops List of Most Used Google Productivity Apps in the U.S." was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article