ResidentialBusiness

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

The generative AI revolution shows no sign of slowing as OpenAI recently rolled out its GPT-4.5 model to paying ChatGPT users, while competitors have announced plans to introduce their own latest models—including Anthropic, which unveiled Claude 3.7 Sonnet, its latest language model, late last month. But the ease of use of these AI models is having a material impact on the information we encounter daily, according to a new study published in Cornell University’s preprint server arXiv. An analysis of more than 300 million documents, including consumer complaints, corporate press releases, job postings, and messages for the media published by the United Nations suggests that the web is being swamped with AI-generated slop. The study tracks the purported involvement of generative AI tools to create content across those key sectors, above, between January 2022 and September 2024. “We wanted to quantify how many people are using these tools,” says Yaohui Zhang, one of the study’s coauthors, and a researcher at Stanford University. The answer was, a lot. Following the November 30, 2022, release of ChatGPT, the estimated proportion of content in each domain that saw suggestions of AI generation or involvement skyrocketed. From a baseline of around 1.5% in the 11 months prior to the release of ChatGPT, the proportion of customer complaints that exhibited some sort of AI help increased tenfold. Similarly, the share of press releases that had hints of AI involvement rapidly increased in the months after ChatGPT became widely available. Which areas of the United States were more likely to adopt AI to help write complaints was made possible by the data accompanying the text of each complaint made to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the government agency that Donald Trump has now dissolved. In the 2024 data analyzed by the academics, complainants in Arkansas, Missouri, and North Dakota were the most likely to use AI, with its presence in around one in four complaints; while West Virginia, Idaho, and Vermont residents were least likely—where between one in 20 and one in 40 showed AI evidence. Unlike off-the-shelf AI detection tools, Zhang and his colleagues developed their own statistical framework to determine whether something was likely AI-generated that compared linguistic patterns—including word frequency distributions—in texts written before the release of ChatGPT against those known to have been generated or modified by large language models. The outputs were then tested against known human- or AI-written texts, with prediction errors lower than 3.3%, suggesting it was able to accurately discern one from the other. Like many, the team behind the work is worried about the impact of samizdat content flooding the web—particularly in so many areas, from consumer complaints to corporate and non-governmental organization press releases. “I think [generative AI] is somehow constraining the creativity of humans,” says Zhang. View the full article

Shifting political headwinds and escalating energy demands are shining a spotlight on Big Tech’s backpedaling on climate commitments. Companies like Meta and Microsoft, who were once vocal about their clean energy goals, are now pivoting towards dirty fossil fuels, pointing to deepened corporate complicity in an era of silence on climate action. Tech titans such as Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft have lined up to buy access to the new administration and have remained largely silent in the face of the new administration’s attacks on clean energy. This is a sharp pivot from Trump 1.0 when these companies overwhelmingly spoke up against the decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement. This time: crickets. A recent survey among U.S. adults indicates growing unpopularity for figures like Mark Zuckerberg, coinciding with deeply concerning trends in corporate behavior that appears to support an increasingly unlawful and autocratic federal administration. While Zuckerberg assures employees that the company is “holding true to its values,” he has also made it clear that a “productive partnership with the U.S. government” is a priority amid dramatic policy shifts. In recent weeks, Meta has ditched its fact-checking program; rolled back hate speech protections; cut back diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; and is full steam ahead with a $10 billion, 4 million-square-feet natural gas-powered data center in Louisiana that fuels pollution and accelerates fossil fuel reliance. Even though nearly 70% of the world’s 500 largest companies have a public climate commitment, the world’s largest tech companies, once leaders in the corporate climate commitment space, are abandoning their emissions targets. In light of this alarming about-face, tech workers should ask themselves if they support their company’s currying favor with a billionaire-led agenda that undermines environmental protections, rolls back climate rules, scrubs scientific databases and clean energy funding, and accelerates the production of climate change disinformation. If not in support of these trends, employees should actively use their influence to engage coworkers and press their leaders for responsive action. Some may decide that they can no longer be complicit in their employer’s backtracking on climate action, and will choose to leave—but we believe there is still opportunity to change companies from within. In the past, Silicon Valley employees have engaged a number of tools to exercise internal advocacy muscles: employee walkouts, protests, open letters, petitions. And those tactics sparked change. More recently, employees can follow the example of internal employee advocates such as those in Microsoft’s Sustainability Connected Community who have been elevating climate policy as a top company priority. Their advocacy led to Microsoft’s first Sustainability Policy Alignment Report last year focused on U.S. trade associations, spotlighting the company’s misalignment with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which consistently works to block climate policy progress). As a result, Microsoft committed to addressing lobbying misalignment, stating “we will redouble efforts to engage with the trade association to drive closer alignment in their advocacy for a more sustainable future.” Employees have organized events and educational webinars to engage coworkers and raise awareness, invited meetings with company leaders, sent emails to decision makers, asked questions at town hall meetings, and posted calls to action and engagement opportunities on internal message boards. This year, employees across companies such as Alphabet, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Pinterest, and Salesforce are also exchanging ideas and sharing best practices in order to amplify positive action. For those who choose to leave their company, advocacy might look like former tech employees who have launched a new Enabled Emissions Campaign, a global effort to curb the use of advanced technology for increased fossil fuel production. Those with inside knowledge of how AI is being developed might choose to speak up on how “We’re Wrong About AI,” as Will Alpine, a former Microsoft employee who built tech behind ChatGPT, did last month. Over these next four years, it will be essential to hold the line on climate action and clean energy deployment—and while employees should actively work for change, corporate leadership and investors must ultimately take responsibility and step up. Employees, however, have a critical role to play and should hold companies accountable when they don’t. Sustainability professionals should especially be empowered to provide reasoned and diplomatic calls to action that are in line with what science tells us about planetary boundaries. If you’re a sustainability professional, now is the time to publicly commit to advocating for climate policy, as more than 1,000 have done by signing the LEAD Statement. Big Tech leaders have previously acknowledged the climate crisis and been major buyers of renewable energy. With the growth of AI data centers, they should be advocating for clean energy rather than doubling down on continued dirty fossil fuel dependency. Leaders and employees must leverage their influence by continuing to prioritize clean energy action and supporting the development of the clean energy infrastructure. This includes supporting the maintenance of federal clean energy tax credits, upholding federal pollution and energy efficiency standards, prioritizing energy efficient and clean energy powered AI, and elevating climate-related financial risk as a serious and material risk to businesses and communities, especially the role of extreme weather events. There has never been a more important time to speak up. The decisions made by corporations today will have a profound and lasting impact on our environment, our society, and our future. There is no time to wait. View the full article

If you’ve ever wondered what a dinosaur might have actually sounded like, now there’s a way to find out. It comes in the form of the Dinosaur Choir, a musical instrument created by artists Courtney Brown and Cezary Gajewski. The instrument, which takes the form of an accurate, life-sized dinosaur skull, allows human musicians to recreate possible dinosaur vocalizations by blowing into a mouthpiece. It’s set to debut this weekend at the 27th Guthman Competition, a global contest to select the year’s most innovative new instrument of the future. The 10 semi-finalists hail from seven different countries, proposing prototypes that include everything from a customizable trumpet to a kind of guitar-harp combo and a flute-esque instrument called the “Udderbot.” Each of the contenders presents new musical possibilities, whether through the form of the instrument, the sound it produces, the user input, or some combination of the three. The Dinosaur Choir takes an extensive body of research into the anatomy of the adult Corythosaurus dinosaur and converts it into a playable, interactive experience—letting the musician actually embody the extinct creature itself. [Image: courtesy Guthman Musical Instrument Competition] Building an accurate dinosaur skull To begin mapping out the structure of the Dinosaur Choir, Brown and Gajewski first partnered up with paleontologist Thomas Dudgeon at the Royal Ontario Museum/University of Toronto, who provided them with a CT scan of a fossilized Corythosaurus skull. The scan allowed them to create an initial model of the dinosaur’s skull and nasal passage structure. Then, using this 3D skull, Dudgeon and Brown carried out a process called “retrodeformation.” This is essentially a kind of restoration, performed using existing diagrams and scientific papers for reference, to resolve any damage to the structure caused by prolonged burial. “After a skull is buried underneath the ground for millions of years, parts of it crush or bend,” Brown explains. “We use 3D modeling to restore the fossil so that it is closer to its original form.” With the retrodeformation step complete, the Corythosaurus skull replica (including internal nasal passages) was ready to be 3D printed. Next, Brown set out to encode the dinosaur’s actual vocalizations. “Researchers in biology and human anatomy have created computational models of the mechanics of the voice: human, bird, and alligator,” Brown says. “These are sets of mathematical equations that describe the air pressure change (ie, sound) that result from the biological and physical processes of the vocal folds. [. . .] I take these equations and put them into computer code to create sound in real-time.” Brown started by recreating bird vocal models based on existing models of the syrinx, or the avian vocal box. Then, she says, “because the sound is created by simulating the physical anatomy with math,” she was able to modify the model to fit with estimated dinosaur anatomy. We may never know exactly how dinosaurs sounded Despite all of these steps, there’s still an inevitable uncertainty as to the accuracy of the final sounds. No non-avian dinosaur vocal organs have yet been found, Brown says, as the vocal organs tend to be made of soft tissue such as cartilage, and therefore are much less likely to fossilize or preserve. “Additionally, vocalization is a behavior,” Brown adds. “An animal can potentially make more sounds using their anatomy than they actually produce—this is true on an individual level but also on a species level. This behavior is very difficult—perhaps impossible—to detect via the fossil record. What traces would the sounds leave behind?” To account for this variability, Brown made two different vocal models for the Dinosaur Choir: one based on a dove syrinx and one based on a raven syrinx. Currently, she notes, she’s also working on a third model based on an alligator larynx, “as it is not settled science whether most dinosaurs had vocal organs closer to alligators or birds.” The Dinosaur Choir is controlled by a camera and microphone, which detect the users’ mouth shape and breath, respectively. By manipulating these inputs, the musician can essentially “play” the Corythosaurus’ theorized vocal cords across a range of pitches and volumes, from a high, bright call to a low, almost mournful groan. Ultimately, we may never know exactly how our extinct predecessors sounded when they walked the Earth—but with the Dinosaur Choir, we can get pretty damn close. 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

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

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

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

This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager. It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go… 1. Talking to an employee about body odor I manage a large department with several sub-departments. I have been working myself up to addressing an issue for quite some time, because it is a sensitive issue that I don’t know how to handle without fallout: personal hygiene. One of the staff members who has been with me for several years has been showing up to work for the past year with an odor that is less than pleasant. This was not an issue previously, and I attribute it to becoming more comfortable in the environment and slipping into a pattern of lackluster personal habits. I do not see any outward signs of depression or mental health issues. They are as happy and chipper as ever. I know that we all wear masks and more could be going on, but these are my observations. Some days are better than others, but much of the time it is bad. So bad that I do not want them in my very small office if I can avoid it. But the other staff members don’t have a choice, and it is my job to advocate for their comfort. This person is extremely sensitive, and my fear has been that the talk I know I need to have will cause so much embarrassment for them that they will quit. Over the years we have given this person more and more responsibility, and they are highly skilled and a rare commodity in our field. I asked my assistant manager what they thought I should do, because they often see things that I don’t, which is a huge asset. They suggested that instead of singling the offender out, I talk to the group and just set some expectations about weekly washing of outerwear and a request to focus on personal hygiene in general. I thought this was a great idea until I realized that it is very possible that my newest employee, who has only been with us a month, may feel that it is about them, since they are the most recent addition. I don’t want to alienate them, especially before I have really formed a bond with them. To add even more layers to this, I also employ a family member of the person in question, who could also become a collateral damage loss. I would love your thoughts on this. Am I overthinking this? Do I just need to buck up and deal with it directly, come what may? Yes, you need to buck up and deal with it. Definitely do not do the group conversation! Addressing problems with the whole group when you really only need to talk to one person is almost a guaranteed way to ensure that other people will worry you’re talking about them, while very often the person who actually needs to hear the message will blithely ignore it. I understand the impulse — it feels much easier since it won’t feel as personal — but it’s not fair to the rest of the group, and it’s actually not fair to the employee in question either, since they deserve the hear the message more directly, and delivered in a more sensitive way than in front of other people. It is an awkward conversation; there’s no way around that. But it’s very unlikely that your employee will quit over it, let alone their family member, as long as you’re respectful. The best thing you can do is to be direct but as kind as possible. Meet with the person privately (ideally toward the end of the day so they can go home afterwards and not feel self-conscious all day) and say something like, “This is awkward for me to bring up, and I hope I don’t offend you because I value you greatly. I’ve noticed you’ve had a noticeable odor lately. It might be a need to do laundry more often or shower more, or it could be a medical thing. I know it might not be something you realized, so I wanted to bring it to your attention and ask you to see what you can do about it.” It might help you steel yourself to have the conversation if you consider that it’s a kindness to the employee to say something. If the problem is at the point where people don’t want to be near them, that’s something they deserve the opportunity to know about and fix. Related: how to talk to an employee about body odor I’m the smelly coworker 2. Adjusting to not having work friends now that I’m everyone’s manager I’m adjusting to a fairly recent promotion (five months ago) from assistant manager to manager. In my previous role, I had four direct reports, while two other staff and I all reported to the manager. While I had more decision-making authority than the other two, we were very friendly and there wasn’t any question of them reporting to me. Now, after some restructuring, my previous direct reports and my two former coworkers and two new staff are all reporting to me. That’s everyone at our location. I have been very excited about this promotion. My team is awesome, and it was a very positive change for everyone. My problem is this; what can I do to fill the work-friend void? I know from your own advice, from the advice of my current boss, and from my own sense of the fitness of things that I can’t develop close friendships with my team. They are all my employees. But I spend a lot of time at work and I have small kids at home who take up my evenings. I can’t go join a new activity or hobby group. Should I reach out virtually to managers of other locations in my organization? I just don’t know when I’d have time to actually spend with them since we work in different buildings. Do I just need to resign myself to feeling lonely at work? Yeah, it does require a shift, and it can be a lonely one! You absolutely can try building bonds with managers of other locations within your org, and sometimes that can be done virtually (Slack or similar?) but it likely won’t feel the same as having work friends right there in your office who know your day-to-day context the way your closer coworkers do. It can help to look for other types of fulfillment at work, like the satisfaction of being a warm, supportive manager who is a thoughtful presence for your staff … which can be extremely fulfilling! It just won’t scratch the same itch as work friends do, which is indeed a lonely part of managing at a certain level. Ideally, once your kids are older, you’ll have more room for building connections outside of work, which will help. But the next few years may be more spartan that you’d prefer on the friend front. (That can change as they become more independent, though!) 3. Applying to work as a historically Black college as a white person Is it appropriate for a white person to apply for a leadership position at a HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities)? It would be more administrative work than public-facing, if that makes a difference? I’m not asking about legalities; I know we are not supposed to use race in hiring. But ethically? If you support the mission and are qualified for the job, you should apply. There are lots of non-black employees at HBCU’s; it won’t be weird. 4. My more junior coworker go the promotion I wanted I might be emotional right now because this just happened, but I can’t stop thinking about it so here we go. I just got the news that I did not recieve the promotion I really wanted, to supervisor over my current team. My coworker, also on my team but several years behind me in seniority, received it. I totally put my foot in my mouth because after I got the news I went to share with her and accidentally put her in the awkward position to tell me it was her who got it. (Lesson learned, wait for the official announcement before talking to other people who applied.) I did tell her I was happy that if it wasn’t me, and it wasn’t an external hire, that I was glad it was her (and I was honest about that). At the same time, I know she could tell that finding out was extra crushing to me, because she’d told me earlier that she didn’t expect to get it, was applying because “why not,” and fully expected that if it was between the two of us, it would go to me. Objectively, I see why she got it. The rejection was also a feedback session. They said that the things I identified with wanting in a leader, I also identified as my own weaknesses, and that I need to come out of my shell and lead people more in project settings before I take on a role like this. My coworker is much more of a people person; we’ve had an influx of new people, and she’s taken the lead with most of their training. We both jumped in, but she volunteered for more and I felt like I didn’t have as much time because of my own workload. Now I feel like I let her edge me out. Do you have any advice? Part of me wonders if I should stay in this department. The feedback session alluded to “next time,” but the truth is these roles don’t open up very often. In four years, this is only the second time a supervisor position has been open. Don’t decide anything now, when you’re still processing the news! Wait and see how you’re feeling a few months after your coworker has started in the position. You might discover you really liking working for her! Or you might not — but let yourself off the hook for any kind of decision-making right now while you’re still adjusting to the news. I do think there’s potentially a real growth opportunity here if you approach it that way: if you agree that most of what you said you want in a leader are also things you feel are weaknesses of your own, that’s hugely useful information! It’s a road map of the areas to focus on to make yourself a stronger candidate for future management roles (whether here or in a different organization). You want to prepare not just for getting hired into the job, but for doing the job well for years afterwards (which is something that a lot of managers overlook) — and this is insight into the specific skills to work on building comfort with, and then also demonstrating. 5. Obscene messages in the snow I work in higher ed in a snowy climate. The other day, someone went out into the snow and tracked a giant penis across the entire quad — it was very visible from several offices. Another day, someone tracked a (non-hateful, but very specific) religious message into the snow, also visible from many offices. Obviously this is just par for the course when you live and work in a residential setting and on a public campus, but it made me wonder: what would (should?) a company do if someone puts something inappropriate into the snow around their office building? And if it should be removed, who should be the person who actually does the removing (presumably “go into the snow and track it around to hide the penis” isn’t in anyone’s job description)? Ahh, college, how I miss you! No one makes giant snow penises outside where I live anymore. (When I was in college, one giant snow penis was so controversial that it became the subject of multiple letters-to-the-editor in the campus paper, which is amazing.) Anyway, if it happened a different workplace, whoever handled your facilities work would deal with having it removed — maybe that’s your grounds workers, maybe it’s whoever would handle it if an exterior wall were vandalized, maybe it’s the building management company, and so forth. View the full article

Featuring Ben Lamm, Founder and CEO, Colossal Biosciences and Joe Manganiello, Actor, Producer. Moderated by Kc Ifeanyi, Executive Director of Editorial Programming, Fast Company Since Colossal Biosciences launched in 2021, it’s skyrocketed to a $10.2 billion valuation to fund its mission of de-extinction. For Colossal, it’s more than the buzzy headlines that its resurrecting the woolly mammoth or the dodo—the company’s aim is to combat biodiversity loss and regenerate ecosystems and climates that have degraded over time. Hear from Colossal CEO Ben Lamm on how he’s making science fiction a reality—and how it could benefit us all. View the full article

Continent’s deep reliance on American-made weapons underscored by Sipri data View the full article

The former central banker has strong economic credentials but is untested politicallyView the full article

Former head of the central banks of Canada and England must now try to ease trade tensions with Donald TrumpView the full article

Investor excitement over fast-developing technology has seen a flurry of massive funding rounds this yearView the full article

Zelenskyy in bid to persuade Trump he wants an end to war with Russia after freeze on military and intelligence aidView the full article